They are broken, loonies even, complete crackpots

I thought this was one of the most on-the-money posts I’ve seen at Instapundit: Denying the sky is blue because Orange Man Bad. This was some of it:

italian1

Yes, America is only 243 years old. But by the same token Italy is only 138 years old.

In any case, if you’re rolling your eyes at Trump’s statement – and thinking that the Italian interpreter is too – you’re missing the point, which is that countries like the United States and Italy – and Great Britain and Australia and Germany and Poland and Spain and Slovenia and so on – do indeed share a cultural and political heritage dating back to ancient Rome (and further back in time). It’s called the Western civilisation. You might hate it, but you’re still in it.

This is what got me right in where I found it at Instapundit!!.

OCTOBER 18, 2019

TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME: Denying the sky is blue because Orange Man Bad. “If Trump – or Obama or Scott Morrison or Hillary Clinton – saying that 2 + 2 = 4 makes you automatically deny the math because your bête noire simply cannot be correct, you might want to take a deep breath or two and reflect on your approach to life. You’re broken. Don’t be that person.”

,
Oh they are broken, loonies even. Complete crackpots. What kind of people live in places like Australia and want to get rid of air conditioning? Nutters through and through.

Hayek v. Mises

Sinclair’s post and the John Papola video on Mises v Marx was a really interesting but I doubt will have the same penetration as did his early video on Keynes v Hayek. This continues to provide some kind of ground for understanding the economic policies of our time, and the disasters of a demand-side approach to managing an economy. Central banks are now the major carriers of the disease.

As it happens I am in the last stages of completing my manuscript on Classical Economics and what is needed for a modern economist to follow the classics, which studying modern theory makes virtually impossible. This is the draft opening to the chapter on Austrian economic theory for your interest. Comments welcome.

Although Carl Menger initiated the Marginal Revolution with the intent to find a unified theory of value, the names now most closely associated with the Austrian School are Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. And while both are seen from a distance as almost one and the same, up close they were quite different from each other. There are many ways to highlight their differences, but here their approaches will be compared through their attitudes to John Stuart Mill, since both specifically identified themselves with the classical liberal tradition.

Where it matters is in the social aims an economist might hold. The essence of Mill’s approach to economic theory was to attempt to answer the question, what ought to be done to create the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people? Uppermost in his mind was the question of what can be done to raise the living standards and economic wellbeing of the individual members of the community. Yet while he called himself a “socialist”, it was the kind of socialism that by today’s standards would have had him grouped among the most market-oriented political theorists of the present day. In particular, he would find modern macroeconomic theory, and the policy matrix that accompanies its Keynesian basis, completely false. While he saw a definite role for government involvement in the economy, the basic framework was that everything that can be left to the market should be, while also understanding that not everything can be left to the market. He saw a clear but limited role for government regulation.

Hayek’s approach is similar to Mill’s (and I would say my own). Hayek discusses the economics prior to the publication of Menger’s Principles of Economics in 1871, noting that this was only “a mere twenty-three years since the great restatement of classical economics by John Stuart Mill (Hayek 1992: 96-97). He continues:

“It is important for proper appreciation of Menger, that we do not underestimate what had been achieved before. It is misleading to think of the preceding period, 1820-1870, as simply dominated by Ricardian orthodoxy. At least in the first generation after Ricardo there had been plenty of new ideas. Both within the body of classical economics as finally expounded by John Stuart Mill and even more outside it there had been accumulated an array of tools of analysis from which later generations were able to build an elaborate and coherent structure of theory after the concept of marginal utility provided the basis of the unification. If ever there was a time in which a quasi-Ricardian orthodoxy was dominant, it was after John Stuart Mill had so persuasively restated it. Yet even his Principles contain very important developments which go far beyond Ricardo. (ibid.: 97)

The point was that Mill had provided much of the raw material that the marginalists had been able to consolidate into a more unified whole. Hayek stops to state that

“It is indeed quite difficult to understand how a scholar of the penetration and transparent intellectual honesty of John Stuart Mill could have singled out what was so soon felt to be the weakest part of his system for the confident assertion that ‘there is nothing in the laws of value which remain for the present or any future writer to clear up; the theory of the subject is complete.” (ibid.: 98)

That Mill, the greatest utilitarian scholar of his generation, had no interest in making utility the core of his own theory of value may have been a conundrum to Hayek, although it might also have suggested that utility had been considered by Mill but then rejected. Yet the core point here is that there is no question that Hayek had a profound and extremely high regard for the economics of Mill, self-proclaimed “socialist” though he may have been. This is opposite to the attitude taken by Mises.

The economics of Mises is astonishingly detailed and profound. But what makes his approach so austere is its narrow focus on economic issues almost entirely outside the social and political arena. Hayek, like Mill, was continuously thinking through how economic conditions could be improved using as many arms as policy as possible, while always understanding the limits that are placed on the various possibilities available by the laws of gravity of economic theory which forbid various approaches to be adopted. Mises, on the other hand, thought that only an absolutely rigid adoption of market-based economic theory was acceptable. And unlike Mill, who even in 1848 could see how economic policies would be constrained by popular pressures to alleviate economic pressures and to use governments to temper economic outcomes, Mises accepts no compromise with the hard-edge views of how a market economy must operate. Here he discusses his views of John Stuart Mill in his Liberalism in the Classical Tradition (Mises 1985).

“John Stuart Mill is an epigone of classical liberalism and, especially in his later years, under the influence of his wife, full of feeble compromises. He slips slowly into socialism and is the originator of the thoughtless confounding of liberal and socialist ideas that led to the decline of English liberalism and to the undermining of the living standards of the English people. Nevertheless – or perhaps precisely because of this – one must become acquainted with Mill’s principal writings:

Principles of Political Economy ˆ(1848)
On Liberty (1859)
Utilitarianism (1862)

“Without a thorough study of Mill it is impossible to understand the events of the last two generations. For Mill is the great advocate of socialism. All the arguments that could be advanced in favor of socialism are elaborated by him with loving care. In comparison with Mill all other socialist writers – even Marx, Engles and Lassalle – are scarcely of any importance.” (Mises 1985: 195)

An indication of how adamantine Mises’s political judgements are may be recognised in the following comment from the preface he wrote for Liberalism in 1962.

“In England the term ‘liberal’ is mostly used to signify a program that only in details differs from the totalitarianism of the socialists.” (ibid.: xvi)

At any rate, no actual socialists have ever cited Mill as the source of their views on how an economy ought to be managed. Yet Mises’s concerns over the drift of economic theory and government policy remain a vivid warning of how dangerous economic theory has become, both economically and politically.

Recovering a lost position

There is little doubt in my mind that Trump blundered in his initial response to the Turkish threat to enter Syria and attack the Kurds. He may wish to end American involvement in the Middle East, and he may wish to reduce American casualties in these various conflicts, but the Americans also didn’t spend almost two decades in dealing with Al Qaeda and its offshoots to throw it all away in a hasty withdrawal, specially when visiting deep harm on one of America’s principal allies is the aim. And there were plenty of others to lay down the line to the President beside myself. So Trump has done what is necessary to repair as much as he can, which begins with this letter, reprinted from Trump talks Turkey, Beltway clutches its pearls. The first part is the letter, which the president of Turkey said was thrown straight into the bin (and how likely is that?) while what follows after are the responses from the criminally insane media.

Erdoğan didn’t say much of anything, but here’s the crazed headline response from Washington:

“Is This Real?”: Trump Sends Third-grade Reading-level Letter To Erdoğan —Vanity Fair

This letter Trump sent to Erdogan is ‘so weird we had to check with the White House to make sure it’s real’ —MSNBC

Jake Tapper: I thought this Trump letter was a joke … it’s real —CNN

Trump’s Letter To Turkey’s Erdogan Shows President Is ‘Deeply Unwell,’ Says Historian: ‘So Threatening, So Unhinged, So Bizarre’ —Newsweek

Read President Trump’s Bizarre Letter to Turkey’s President —New York magazine

Trump’s Letter To Erdogan Was So ‘Adolescent’ People Thought It Was A Fake —HuffPo

You can see the full makings of a freakout. They’re off their rockers with this one.

As for Trump, all the rest of us can see is that the president remains crazy like a fox.

After all, what better way to address a near-dictator hell-bent on killing Kurds than with a do-this-or-I’ll-beat-the-crap-out-of-you letter of this kind?  It’s actually appropriate, because it’s language a thug like Erdoğan can understand.  What better way to talk to him than with words like this?  Trump leaves the Ankara dictator with no uncertainty as to what Trump wants and what Trump will do, same as a godfather in some place like Howard Beach might get across.  Strongmen respond to strong words, not namby-pamby niceties, and Trump just laid it out for Erdoğan what he’s got to do in language he can understand and what’s going to come down the pike if he doesn’t.  An intractable tyrant isn’t going to negotiate nicely, after all, so New York–style street frankness works better.

What’s more, the tone of the letter was unexpected.  It had the strategic element of surprise.

Trump, of course, is under high political pressure at home, even from Republicans, over the U.S. pullout in Syria, as it’s viewed as harmful to our Kurdish allies who helped fight ISIS.  The press is flooding the airwaves with pictures of Kurdish misery, some actually fake.  The other thing is that not all of the Kurds are U.S. allies; Kurdistan is a big place, and some Kurds are firebomb-happy Marxist terrorists and presumably the ones Erdoğan wants out of the picture.  But there may be some allies caught up in Turkey’s offensive, and as Republicans pile on to Trump and insist on endless war, Trump is telling Erdoğan to get the heck out.

It’s appropriate, and now that all presidential conversations with world leaders are now subject to leaks, heh might as well release it.  It was going to get leaked anyway.

It might just work, given that nothing else works with Erdoğan.  The Turkish president’s staff claim he’s thrown it in the trash, but rest assured: he hasn’t.  Trump has his attention now, and he’s going to try to stop him.

It’s talking Turkey.  It may be rough, but rough is good for a thug like Erdoğan.  What’s important in diplomacy is that the message is clear.  Erdoğan now knows the deal.  Too bad the Beltway doesn’t.

So this is where we are now: Donald Trump Triumphant After Successful ‘Tough Love’ Diplomacy with Turkey.

President Donald Trump hailed the ceasefire agreement with Turkey on Thursday, noting that his unconventional approach had brought everything to a peaceful conclusion….

“I guess I’m an unconventional person, I took a lot of heat from a lot of people, even some of the people in my whole party,” Trump said.

Trump said that Turkey had a “legitimate problem” with the Kurds in the 20-mile safe-zone and that his unconventional approach had dislodged previous roadblocks to the deal.

He thanked the Kurds for their patience, saying that they were “incredibly happy with the solution,” as it would help save their lives.

If he doesn’t wish to say in public that he had screwed up, it’s OK with me. But he did screw up and only the uprising from many many Republicans made him see the light. I hope it taught him a lesson, because had he not done what he did, this would have followed him all the way to November next year. In this way, it will be gone in a week.

PDT day 1000

I have seen this marker nowhere else but at Gateway Pundit: After First 1,000 Days in Office President Trump Holds 50% Approval Rating — 5 POINTS HIGHER THAN OBAMA – Despite Impeachment Scam!. This related article goes through just how exceptional these thousand days have been. I will stick to the charts but you really should read the article.

This is how the article ends and while I would like to say, “who could disagree?” there are many who do disagree, whose lack of sense and proportion is astonishing.

President Trump charges forward in spite of liberal and Deep State harassment. His results have been down right miraculous.

Overall President Trump’s first 1,000 days in office were outstanding. He was attacked from all sides and stood tall and to his principles. America is stronger and greater than ever before. The economy is growing and the world is safer. President Trump is doing all he can to Make America Great Again!

The Australian anti-family court

The complete post from The Other McCain: Proving @RationalMale Right Again.

In Australia, there has been an uproar since Pauline Hanson of the right-populist One Nation party asserted that false accusations of domestic abuse are a problem in child-custody cases. This is relevant to proposals to reform Australia’s family court system, and Hanson’s remarks have prompted outrage from feminists and the Left generally, where the Women Never Lie Myth is sacrosanct. This mirrors the Left’s position on “rape culture,” where mere accusation is considered tantamount to proof.

The dispute over Australia’s family court system highlights something Rollo Tomassi (@RationalMale on Twitter) has noted: “Child support is the defining feature of our modern family model, since it is the replacement for marriage whether or not a wedding has occurred.”

Own-yay-gee-ah-kah@Tiffany_Ezinwa

How is feminism to blame for men not wanting to be active parents in their child’s life? Clearly kids in single parent homes are dealing with parental abandonment which is a huge factor in emotional issues. Not sure how that’s a woman’s fault https://twitter.com/RationalMale/status/1027360819049259008 

Rollo Tomassi@RationalMale

Children from single parent households (overwhelmingly single mothers) account for 80% of rapists motivated by displaced anger.

Congratulations feminism, you’ve literally bred and raised the ‘rape culture’ you claim to fear.

View image on Twitter

Rollo Tomassi@RationalMale

By actively creating a social order that incentivizes the removal of men from the home as the default. Look up the Duluth Model of feminism. We’ve socially engineered a society that shifted from marriage as the norm to child support as the norm.

Because of the desanctification of marriage in our secular, sexualized, feminist-dominated culture, wedding vows now come with asterisks next to them, pointing to footnotes that in essence declare, “We don’t actually mean all this stuff about ‘death do us part’ and so forth.”

Every couple now goes to the wedding altar under the threatening shadow of potential divorce, and it is generally acknowledged that divorce is a punitive procedure by which aggrieved women are authorized to obtain a sadistic revenge against their ex-husbands. Because accusations of abuse give women greater leverage in divorce proceedings, we should not be surprised that (a) such accusations are often exaggerated or even sometimes fabricated from whole cloth, and (b) anyone who expresses skepticism toward these accusations will be accused of being anti-woman, an enabler of male violence against women.

Rollo’s comment about the Child Support Model of family structure, where it is more or less assumed on the wedding day that the couple will eventually divorce, highlights how radically our society’s basic institutions have been altered. Between the startling rise in illegitimate births and the frequency of divorce, a majority of children in most Western countries will not be raised in a traditional family. This in turn has produced what Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, in her book The Divorce Culture, has called the “Love Family” ideology, a mentality in which the loyalties once demanded by permanent ties of blood or marriage are replaced by an imagined system of kinship based on mere sentiment.

The problem with the celebration of “love” as a basis for social organization is that human emotions can be ephemeral, and that “love” can be so easily exploited by selfish and dishonest people. For years, I have disavowed any accusation that I am a “men’s rights activist” (MRA) because, in the first place, I reject the identity-politics formula of group “rights.” Secondly, however, I recognize that most MRAs bring a particular axe to grind against women. Many MRAs — if not a majority, certainly an influential plurality — are men who have gone through the ordeal of divorce and custody disputes which are no part of my direct experience and, I pray to God, never will be. Yet while I am not an MRA, this doesn’t mean that they have not made important points about male-female relationships, especially in regard to how divorce has become a state-sponsored instrument to punish and humiliate men. And this is such a fundamental and relatively sudden shift in our culture that most older people (I’m 60 now, and certainly qualify as such) have no idea what absolute hell many young men now face in their relationships. Statistics showing a decline in men’s willingness to commit to marriage, accompanied by a significant drop in birth rates, testify to how the institutions of marriage and fatherhood have been made into something like a medieval torture device to inflict punishment on men. No matter how much a woman may profess to “love” a man, he must take into consideration that if his relationship leads to marriage and fatherhood, he will be at risk of personal destruction if her “love” ever fades.

Quite often, it seems, women seeking divorce view child custody as a weapon to wield in an all-out war to destroy their ex-husbands. It is not enough, for such women, to be free to pursue their own lives; instead, they develop an appetite for revenge against the man they once vowed to love until “death do us part.” Those of us who have been fortunate enough to avoid such a hell-on-earth are generally horrified to watch our friends or relatives endure the ordeal of divorce. We don’t enjoy the pressure to choose sides in the kind of interminable warfare that goes on between divorcing couples, but our court system seems to enable (and indeed, to encourage) the scorched-earth tactics so commonly employed in these disputes. Pauline Hanson has provoked controversy in Australia by saying aloud what everybody actually knows, i.e., that some women will invent or exaggerate incidents of abuse in order to “win” court proceedings against their ex-husbands. This threat hovers like a shadow in every divorce involving children: If her ex tries to dispute custody, or if he doesn’t make child-support payments in a timely manner, he may find himself facing accusations of abuse, and such accusations generally amount to a “he-said/she-said” conflict, where the real matter at issue is the credibility of the accuser. Feminists tend to deny that women ever make false accusations, or else contend that false accusations are so rare that we can disregard the possibility that a woman might be lying, and therefore feminists must destroy Pauline Hanson.

It doesn’t have to be like this. There is no objective reason why men and women should view each other as eternal enemies, but unless and until we are willing to take a hard look at how public policy now offers incentives for male-female conflict — especially including divorce — we are doomed to endure the continuing destruction of our society.

 

The long-forgotten supply side needs to be recalled

When I was the Chief Economist of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, this is what you never saw: Business Calls for Stimulus Spark. In normal English, this says, “Business Calls for More Money from Taxpayers”. There may be no better way to subvert an economy than through public spending. Modern macro is an economic death cult. It’s now more than a decade since the stimulus programs that followed the GFC were introduced, and still our economies remain stalled and stagnant. So let me take you to the words of Australia’s greatest Treasurer:

Mr Costello said fiscal and monetary policy had run out of puff and supply-side reforms such as deregulation were now the key to improving efficiency and ­restoring growth, as retailers pushed for a fresh look at lowering the company tax rate.

Despite the IMF again slashing its growth forecast for Australia from 2.1 per cent to 1.7 per cent — well below the government’s 2.25 per cent forecast — Mr Costello said he did not agree with the school of thought that it was “all doom and gloom out there”.

“We need to turn to another arm of policy which has been long forgotten and that’s the supply side,” he told a Citi investor conference in Sydney.

“After 10 years of deficits and 28 years of continuous growth, we could really get a boost by dealing with some of the imbalances that have built up in the economy.”

While the Morrison government has been under pressure to ditch its commitment to a budget surplus and pump-prime the economy by going into deficit, Mr Costello said he did not believe this held much appeal.

Remember the Costello approach? Cuts to public spending, continuous years of surplus and zero public debt. Worked like a charm. Just let me take you back to my days in ACCI. One of the questions I would ask the entrepreneurs who used to wander through our office is whether they had expansion plans sitting in their drawers that they would put into place if they had the extra revenue. And the universal answer was yes. The American economy has possibly never been as robust as it is today, and all of the efforts have been made on the supply side. That’s where the action is. Public spending as an economic stimulus is a dead end.

This was never a valid reason for the President to bring troops home from Syria

From PDT’s speech in Minneapolis on October 10. I have no doubt this is heartfelt and sincere, but as discussed here, here and here, we cannot declare a premature victory because more soldiers are likely to die. They are fighting for a worthy cause, the most important issue in the Western world today. This, unfortunately, is pure sentimentality in the face of the issues that confront us.

Donald Trump: (01:32:25)
So we have three choices. You’re ready? Here are the three choices. We don’t have any soldiers there because we’ve left. We won. We left. Take a victory, United States. We left. Take a victory, take a victory. Bring our troops back home.

Donald Trump: (01:32:45)
I told this story yesterday, I have to sign letters, it’s the hardest thing I have to do. I sign letters, “Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smith from Arkansas. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jones from Alabama. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Somebody from some great state, I’m sorry to inform you, your son has been killed in combat. I’m so sorry.” And every letter is individually done because sometimes the parents, they’re grieving, and they get together with other parents, and I don’t want to see that it’s like the same letter. So we do different letters. It’s the hardest thing I have to do. Hardest thing.it’s the hardest thing I have … I was telling Tom Cotton, it’s the hardest thing that I have to do. And I sign those letters, and it just, it breaks your heart.

Donald Trump: (01:33:45)
And by the way, there’s a time to fight. Nobody fights harder than I do. But there’s a time, and there’s not necessarily a time. But I send these letters out, quite a few. And sometimes I send letters out, it’s called blue on green, where we’re teaching people how to fight and then they turn the gun on our soldiers and shoot them in the back. And that’s the hardest thing for a parent. I have all of them. I know everyone. That’s the hardest thing for a parent when they get notification, because they learn how their child has died. When the so-called people that were teaching how to fight turn the gun on them, and shoot. We’ve had a lot of that, a lot of it in Afghanistan, more than we’ve ever had proportionately before. It’s a horrible, horrible thing. But I have to sign these letters.

Donald Trump: (01:34:27)
And sometimes I go out to a place, Dover Air Force Base, it’s a very tough experience. Mike Pence goes, I go, other people go, Tom Cotton goes. We go out there, and we meet the parents and the families, the wives, the children, the sisters, the brothers. We meet them, and we talked to them, and their son or daughter is being flown in from some far away place in a coffin, and these things are just impossible. I don’t know how parents can do it, even. And I’ll meet them. And we have a particular Colonel, that’s all he does. So good. So professional. That’s what he does. He said, “I greet the dead, sir. I greet the dead.”

Donald Trump: (01:35:18)
And what happens is this big incredible machine flies in, this tremendous cargo plane, and it flies in so powerful, so big. I’ll be talking to some of the parents, and they’ll act like they’re fine. I said, “How are you doing?” “We’re fine, sir. We’re fine. We’re really good.” I say, “That’s great.” And I’ll tell the Colonel, I’ll say, “Colonel, I think they’re doing great.” “No sir, they’re not going to do great. You’ll see.” And I didn’t know what he was talking about, this is the first time.

Donald Trump: (01:35:51)
Then we went outside to the runway, and this incredible machine is flying in, and it lands, and it comes over, and it pulls up, and we have military guards, we have incredible talented musicians that do this. That’s what they do. What happens is that door opens up, and the Colonel told me, he said, “Sir, when that door opens up, those same people that you think are okay, do things that you’ll never see. You will hear sounds like you’ve never heard.” That’s what he does.

Donald Trump: (01:36:25)
I saw that door open up with a coffin with a flag over it. The door was opened, and these beautiful soldiers, five or six on each side, lifting the coffin and walking down the runway, the plank, they call it, off this cargo plane. And I see parents make sounds, that were just 20 minutes ago absolutely fine, make sounds, scream and cry like you’ve never seen before. The Colonel was telling me that, “Sir, you’ll see things that you’ve never seen before. A mother who was fine 20 minutes ago, you think, breaking the military line and jumping off, and then jumping onto a coffin of her son or her daughter, jumping on, on top of the flowers, on top of the American flag.” I’ve seen this.

Donald Trump: (01:37:21)
Then I have all these people that want to stay. They want to stay. And I don’t want to stay. We were supposed to be in Syria for 30 days. We’ve now been there for 10 years. We were supposed to be in Afghanistan for a short period of time. We’re now going to be there for close to 19 years. It’s time to bring them home. It’s time to bring them home. It’s true. Time to bring them home. We’ve done our job, we’ve defeated everyone that we’re supposed to defeat. And now we are, we are policing, we are now policing. That’s what we’re doing. We’re policing. And that, as I said, no more respect for the police, but these are military people, and those are police, but we are now policing. We’re not fighting, we’re policing. And you know what? After all of these years … One other story, and I have to tell you. I go to Walter Reed on Friday, and I do it quite often. I gave out five Purple Hearts. And I meet people that are so beautiful, so amazing. I met five warriors, and one was so badly hurt, with the loss of arms and a leg, another one … they’re just very, very devastated. But these are great, great people. And I gave out the Purple Heart. And I see the parents, and I have to say, Walter Reed, I want to just say, the doctors there, the job they do, you know, you hear so many complaints about doctors and about the vets, and the vets’ care, and nobody’s done better. We got choice for the vets. We did things for the vets that nobody thought would be possible.

Donald Trump: (01:39:26)
But I saw these young men, and I gave them their Purple Hearts. And their parents were there crying. And one of them was so amazing. I said, “What’s your problem?” “Sir, my face was blown apart. My nose was absolutely just blown apart.” He said, “Sir, it’s incredible.” And I looked at him, I said, “That’s the most beautiful nose I’ve ever seen. What do you mean?” He said, “A doctor worked on my face for 10 hours in the field. He said there were a thousand fragments.” Now I don’t know if that’s right, but well, a lot. He meant a lot. “He said there were a thousand fragments. He rebuilt my nose with glue. He glued the bones together. He rebuilt my nose.” I say, “You have the most beautiful nose I’ve ever seen,” and it’s true. And his father came over to me, he said, “Sir,” father was crying, he said, “Sir, honestly, my son looks better now.” He said, “My son did not have a good look. He knows. Now look at it, it’s beautiful, it’s beautiful.”

Donald Trump: (01:40:34)
But these doctors at Walter Reed, and these Army, and Marine, and the medical doctors, they are unbelievably great people. And they see sights that you and I hopefully will never see. They see things that nobody will ever see, and there’s nobody like them. And I have to give a shout out to those people, there’s nobody like them. So in the case of Turkey, and Syria, and the Kurds, we could send in a thousand troops for a military conflict with Turkey. No, you don’t want to do that. We could hit Turkey very hard financially. Or we could mediate a deal between Turkey and the Kurds. I like that. You know? Let’s mediate a deal. But remember they’ve been fighting each other for hundreds of years, and we were artificially put there, in this case by President Obama. So we did our job. We knocked out.

Replying to the con-servationists

On the same day that Greta Thunberg harangued the UN about her fears of a climate emergency, 500 scientists sent a registered letter to the UN Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in the letter:

1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.

For more detail, go here.

Of course, if you want to actually make progress against these people, you will need to show how there is more money to be made in opposing the climate agenda than in supporting it.

The troops will “redeploy and remain in the region”

The news just in: Trump: U.S. troops to stay in Middle East, prevent ISIS resurgence.

President Donald Trump says the roughly 1,000 U.S. troops he has ordered to leave Syria will remain in the Middle East to prevent a resurgence of the Islamic State threat.

In a written statement Monday announcing his authorization of economic sanctions on Turkey, Trump made clear that the withdrawing troops will leave Syria entirely.

He said the troops will “redeploy and remain in the region.” He described their mission as “monitoring the situation” and preventing a “repeat of 2014,” when IS fighters who had organized in Syria as a fighting force swept into neighboring Iraq and took control of Iraq’s north and west.

Trump confirmed that the small number of U.S. troops at a base in southern Syria will remain there.

Bringing the troops home is not a foreign policy objective, as much as it might be an aspiration. Defeating ISIS is a foreign policy objective, which is why these troops are not coming home. A premature declaration of victory would have been a huge mistake. Part of what I truly admire about PDT is that he knows what he wants, what he wants is almost always what I want, and he is flexible enough so that when he makes a mistake that he reverses course as soon as he can.