Would you buy a foreign policy from this man?

Meanwhile, the Russians have a very different perspective on what’s going on and it’s very different from Obama’s: Russia Says U.S. Policies Helped Islamic State. Listening to Obama, you can see why he might have reached just that conclusion.

And let us not forget Sultan Knish, Obama wants to defeat America, not ISIS.

Obama responded to ISIS by denying it’s a threat. Once that stopped being a viable strategy, he began to stall for time. And he’s still stalling for time, not to beat ISIS, but to wait until ISIS falls out of the headlines.

That has been his approach to all his scandals from ObamaCare to the IRS to the VA. Lie like crazy and wait for people to forget about it and turn their attention to something else.

This is a containment strategy, but not for ISIS. It’s a containment strategy for America. Obama isn’t trying to bottle up ISIS except as a means of bottling up America.

He doesn’t see the Caliph of the Islamic State as the real threat, but the average American who watches the latest beheading on the news and wonders why his government doesn’t do something about it.

To the left it isn’t the Caliph of ISIS who starts the wars we ought to worry about, but Joe in Tennessee, Bill in California or Pete in Minnesota

We may live in the strangest times in the strangest society that has ever been.

Bill Clinton was advocating open borders while in Australia on 911

To understand the problems we face with ISIS it is essential to understand the mindset of those who lead the parties of the left, and now even some parties of the conservative right. This is from The Age on September 11, 2001: Open borders to all: Clinton. Here are the relevant parts of the article but you can read the whole thing at the link:

Bill Clinton believes Australia should not shut its borders to immigrants and those genuinely seeking asylum but should open its arms to cultural diversity.

Free trade and an open-door policy would bring prosperity, the former US president told a meeting of 35 Australian business leaders in Melbourne yesterday.

“He discussed the immigration issue in Australia and he took a position on it,” said Tom Hogan, president of Vignette Corporation, host of the exclusive forum.

“The (former) president believes the world will be a better place if all borders are eliminated – from a trade perspective, from the viewpoint of economic development and in welcoming (the free movement of) people from other cultures and countries,” Mr Hogan said.

Mr Clinton showed an understanding of the political problems Australia faced, but said he supported the ultimate wisdom of a borderless world for people and for trade.

He spoke for 45 minutes on topics ranging from the urgent need to combat AIDS to global economic issues. He spent another 45 minutes answering questions.

Mr Clinton said he believed the US was a better place for having opened its borders to a diversity of peoples and cultures.

Of the global economic downturn, he said half the problem arose from real economic issues and half of it was due to self-fulfilling prophecies. If people talked gloom and doom long enough and often enough, he said, what they feared generally came to pass.

This is the progressive internationalist creed and no event in the modern world will change their views. And they have the power to cause our borders to open and remain open no matter what the rest of us think or wish.

Ironically, Bill Clinton was in Australia on 911 while at the same time John Howard was in Washington.

[Via Steve Sailer]

Learning on the job – international division

Malcolm is finding this being PM a bit trickier than he thought it would be. Hanging around with Mark Scott and others of that sort left him with the impression that every problem has an easy solution, and they are all found by watching the ABC. So what sorts of blunders has he made? Let’s look at the international ones, and let me begin with the consequences of his thinking that the solution in Syria would be to allow ISIS into some kind of power-sharing arrangement.

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, your call for some power-sharing there, how open are you to extending that to include some of the Sunni elements that are part of or linked to Daesh?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, this is, you know, in Australia we are, what you need, what we need there is a political settlement. And it is clear that the principal determinants of, the people that will decide who can be in or out are going to be the people in Syria. You know the dictating terms from foreign capitals is unlikely to be successful. . . .

There needs to be a ceasefire as has been asked for in Vienna, and there needs to then be a power-sharing deal, as I mentioned, you know the example of Lebanon is given, I mean, that obviously has had its imperfections as well. But nonetheless, there needs to be a power-sharing deal.

He has backed away from this by denying he said what he said. But it is almost certainly what he thinks, irrespective of what he says. And now we find he has allowed a 99-year lease to be given to the Chinese, another issue he may find he will have to reverse himself on.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has made a significant error in trying to justify the decision to lease Australia’s crucial northern port to Chinese interests, by claiming it is not used by the military.

The Northern Territory Government sparked international controversy last month when it decided to lease the Port of Darwin facilities to a Chinese-owned company.

Some defence analysts have warned the company, Landbridge, has strong links to the Chinese Communist Party. They have also warned China will use the lease strategically to secure a presence in the north of Australia.

The ABC has also been told US president Barack Obama raised the sale directly with Mr Turnbull in a face-to-face meeting this week.

On Friday Mr Turnbull was questioned by Darwin radio station MIX 104.9 about the sale of the port.

“The port that is being leased is not being used by the military, it is a commercial port,” he said.

But according to an announcement by the Darwin Port Corporation on November 16, the lease includes East Arm Wharf commercial port outside Darwin and the Fort Hill Wharf close to the city’s CBD.

Fort Hill Wharf is advertised as a “cruise ship and Defence vessel facility”.

The Darwin Port Corporation website promotes the wharf as catering to “frequent naval ship visits” for visiting international and domestic naval ships.

This isn’t just a rookie mistake. This is plain incompetence. He has no feel whatsoever about any of these issues. His instincts are wrong, which is why he has no ability to even detect such errors as they are being made. Even The Oz is beginning to think better of its own captain’s pick. This is Paul Kelly no less, the leader of the Turnbull claque, writing in today’s paper: Abbott’s strategy as voice of conservatism begins to emerge. Kelly has not, of course, changed sides, but he is beginning to see that Tony was onto something, and was far ahead of his time. A few excerpts:

Abbott thinks Turnbull’s instincts are too progressive for him to become a successful long-run leader of an essentially conservative party. Abbott knows any political vacuum must be filled and he is irresistibility being drawn into the role of leadership of a popular conservative movement designed to ensure Turnbull stays true to traditional conservative values. . . .

Freed from the constraints of office, Abbott’s ability to mobilise conservative opinion should not be underestimated.

So far, the actual Turnbull-Abbott differences are more about style and process than content. This week both said Islamic State needs to be defeated in a military sense but Turnbull is a strong advocate of a political settlement. Abbott wants more boots on the ground. But this is untenable without the lead coming from President Obama. . . .

The appalling statement after the Paris attacks by the spiritual leader, the Grand Mufti, Dr ­Ibrahim Abu Mohammed, shows Abbott’s statement was justified. The issue is not its validity but its wisdom. That Australia has a problem with the nature of its Islamic leadership is beyond dispute. The real issue is how to manage this, discuss it and correct it. . . .

Abbott showed from 2009 onwards an acute instinct in picking the big trend: that carbon pricing would provoke a popular backlash. He has free reign, again, to identify and mobilise around new populist conservative causes.

Abbott is sending a message to the Liberal faithful: we expect the leader to champion, expound and articulate our conservative ­values. Decoded: Abbott is ready to fight Turnbull over the nature of Liberal values. And he believes he better grasps those values than does Turnbull. . . .

Abbott fears the West is too weak to confront Islamic State. Thatcher, he says, would not be weak. Thatcher, he says, understood that “those that won’t use decisive force, where needed, end up being dictated to by those who will”. When Abbott as PM first met Obama in the White House he came with a message: that Australia was willing to fight beside the US for just causes.

He said publicly on that visit that while Australia was not America’s most powerful ally, it would be its most dependable. Abbott is disappointed in Obama, the classic conservative response.

His mantra is that the West, like Australia, must possess the self-confidence to defend its interests and its universal values.

We will know that Malcolm has finally got the message when he makes Tony our Minister of Foreign Affairs. Until then, Turnbull is likely to go from blunder to blunder since he has no apparent instinct whatsoever in finding his way among the international dilemmas we now face. You could put up with it in more benign times, but these are not the kind of times when we should be trying to find our way with such an inept leader as our current PM.

The value of free speech

That letting everyone have their say on any matter of public importance is so evident as the best way to manage differences within a community was never better seen than in the last few days. In my view, there are very few really good liars around, with the Clintons and Obama among the best there is (and even they need the help of the even more mendacious media). Mostly, however, people say what they think, even when they are trying to shape their beliefs into a form that others will find acceptable. So with this in mind, I hope I may be permitted to put in a good word for Australia’s Grand Mufti. This is the press release that got him into such hot water.

mufti statement on paris

First, he didn’t write it. Someone else wrote the first draft and then it was gone over by others until they were satisfied that it said what they wanted said. If you can read what it says, you can see which side those who wrote it are on. Why shouldn’t they be on their own side? They mourn the loss of innocent lives rather than actively condemning the attacks. Such is as it is. What is important is for us to understand what they believe. Their plain speaking has set everything straight. Whether the knowledge we have has any practical value is something else again, but at least we know.

Or take Waleed Aly and his own reaction. All you need is love, apparently:

“If you are a member of Parliament or a has-been member of Parliament [who do you suppose he means by this?] preaching hate [and who’s doing that?] at a time when what we actually need is more love — you are helping ISIL. They have told us that. [Who is “they” and when did they tell us?] If you are a Muslim leader telling your community they have no place here [and who has told them that?] or basically them saying the same thing — you are helping ISIL.

It’s our fault and not theirs. We may think the killers in Paris are savages but he thinks they were provoked, and if we condemn their actions, we are playing into ISIS’s hands. I don’t think so but that’s not the point. The value in hearing it is that you start to understand who and what we are up against. They do not condemn these attacks in anything more than a perfunctory way, since they see themselves as more sinned against than sinning. You may not think so, and I may not think so, but many of them do think so, and that’s what letting them say their piece allows us to understand.

Which is the objective and which the obstacle?

An article that stands out for providing a link between the policies on open borders found across the world that can otherwise make no sense. It has George Soros at its centre. Read it and see what you make of it yourself. That I also believe what I call progressive internationalism is the core of the problem allows me to entertain Soros’s role seriously. The central theme:

The suspicion thickens that Mrs. Merkel’s insane and politically suicidal open-border strategy has been forced upon her by furtive overlords in league with the ghoul, who owns secret Stasi dossiers whose publication would topple her right away and even send her to jail. Small wonder, therefore, that the resistance to her policies becomes always more pronounced. The brave Mr. Orban of Hungary recently declared that “George Soros is perhaps the strongest example of those who support anything that weakens nation states, they support everything that changes the traditional European lifestyle. Immigration and multiculturalism are endangering Europe’s Christian roots and creating parallel societies. Europe is, after all, the land of democracy and it is impossible to go against the will of the people for a long time and without arguments. If we stick to our Christian values, Europe can be saved, but only if we take seriously the traditions, the Christian roots and all the values that are the basis of our European civilisation.”

Which caused Mr. Soros to declare from the depths of his great humanitarian heart that the Hungarian leader “treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle. Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”

I found this particularly intriguing.

Proof of Soros’s involvement has been abundant, most prominently a guide printed in Arabic by a subdivision of his “Open Society Foundations” calling itself, conveniently, “Welcome to Europe.” Distributed probably by the tens of thousands, it informs potential invaders of how to go about in the most effective way. It also contains maps, tips, and phone numbers of organizations and government welfare agencies that are supposed to help once they arrive in Europe.

Soros is not alone but he does have the will. That Obama is fed by Soros with both funding and ideas seems plausible. The hatred for the West is a view he shares with many others. But unlike the rest, he is in a position to effect an incredible amount of harm. Here is Soros’s statement on Rebuilding the Asylum System.

The European Union needs to accept responsibility for the lack of a common asylum policy, which has transformed this year’s growing influx of refugees from a manageable problem into yet another political crisis. Each member state has selfishly focused on its own interests, often acting against the interests of others. This precipitated panic among asylum seekers, the general public, and the authorities responsible for law and order. Asylum seekers have been the main victims.

The EU needs a comprehensive plan to respond to the crisis, one that reasserts effective governance over the flows of asylum-seekers so that they take place in a safe, orderly way, and at a pace that reflects Europe’s capacity to absorb them. To be comprehensive, the plan has to extend beyond the borders of Europe. It is less disruptive and much less expensive to maintain potential asylum-seekers in or close to their present location.

As the origin of the current crisis is Syria, the fate of the Syrian population has to be the first priority. But other asylum seekers and migrants must not be forgotten. Similarly, a European plan must be accompanied by a global response, under the authority of the United Nations and involving its member states. This would distribute the burden of the Syrian crisis over a larger number of states, while also establishing global standards for dealing with the problems of forced migration more generally.

Here are the six components of a comprehensive plan.

First, the EU has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future. And, to do that, it must share the burden fairly – a principle that a qualified majority finally established at last Wednesday’s summit.

Adequate financing is critical. The EU should provide €15,000 ($16,800) per asylum-seeker for each of the first two years to help cover housing, health care, and education costs – and to make accepting refugees more appealing to member states. It can raise these funds by issuing long-term bonds using its largely untapped AAA borrowing capacity, which will have the added benefit of providing a justified fiscal stimulus to the European economy.

It is equally important to allow both states and asylum-seekers to express their preferences, using the least possible coercion. Placing refugees where they want to go – and where they are wanted – is a sine qua non of success.

Second, the EU must lead the global effort to provide adequate funding to Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey to support the four million refugees currently living in those countries.

Thus far, only a fraction of the funding needed for even basic care has been raised. If education, training, and other essential needs are included, the annual costs are at least €5,000 per refugee, or €20 billion. EU aid today to Turkey, though doubled last week, still amounts to just €1 billion. In addition, the EU also should help create special economic zones with preferred trade status in the region, including in Tunisia and Morocco, to attract investment and generate jobs for both locals and refugees.

The EU would need to make an annual commitment to frontline countries of at least €8-10 billion, with the balance coming from the United States and the rest of the world. This could be added to the amount of long-term bonds issued to support asylum-seekers in Europe.

Third, the EU must immediately start building a single EU Asylum and Migration Agency and eventually a single EU Border Guard. The current patchwork of 28 separate asylum systems does not work: it is expensive, inefficient, and produces wildly inconsistent results in determining who qualifies for asylum. The new agency would gradually streamline procedures; establish common rules for employment and entrepreneurship, as well as consistent benefits; and develop an effective, rights-respecting return policy for migrants who do not qualify for asylum.

Fourth, safe channels must be established for asylum-seekers, starting with getting them from Greece and Italy to their destination countries. This is very urgent in order to calm the panic. The next logical step is to extend safe avenues to the frontline region, thereby reducing the number of migrants who make the dangerous Mediterranean crossing. If asylum-seekers have a reasonable chance of ultimately reaching Europe, they are far more likely to stay where they are. This will require negotiating with frontline countries, in cooperation with the UN Refugee Agency, to establish processing centers there – with Turkey as the priority.

The operational and financial arrangements developed by the EU should be used to establish global standards for the treatment of asylum-seekers and migrants. This is the fifth piece of the comprehensive plan.

Finally, to absorb and integrate more than a million asylum seekers and migrants a year, the EU needs to mobilize the private sector – NGOs, church groups, and businesses – to act as sponsors. This will require not only sufficient funding, but also the human and IT capacity to match migrants and sponsors.

The exodus from war-torn Syria should never have become a crisis. It was long in the making, easy to foresee, and eminently manageable by Europe and the international community. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has now also produced a six-point plan to address the crisis. But his plan, which subordinates the human rights of asylum-seekers and migrants to the security of borders, threatens to divide and destroy the EU by renouncing the values on which it was built and violating the laws that are supposed to govern it.

The EU must respond with a genuinely European asylum policy that will put an end to the panic and the unnecessary human suffering.

“We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science”

These are the three quotes that begin the story: rominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit ‘Irrational’ – ‘Based On Nonsense’ – ‘Leading us down a false path’

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: ‘Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.’ – ‘When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.’

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: ‘Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?’

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: ‘We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.’

And then the article begins.

A team of prominent scientists gathered in Texas today at a climate summit to declare that fears of man-made global warming were “irrational” and “based on nonsense” that “had nothing to do with science.” They warned that “we are being led down a false path” by the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris.

The scientists appeared at a climate summit sponsored by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The summit in Austin was titled: “At the Crossroads: Energy & Climate Policy Summit.”

Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, derided what he termed climate “catastrophism.”

“Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial,” Lindzen said.

Lindzen cautioned: “The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc. — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.”

He provided advice on how to challenge those who argue that climate change is a problem.

Lindzen also challenged the oft-repeated UN IPCC claim that most of warming over past 50 years was due to mankind.

“People get excited over this. Is this statement alarming? No,” Lindzen stated.

“We are speaking of small changes 0.25 Celcius would be about 51% of the recent warming and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity – meaning no problem at all,” Lindzen explained.

“I urge you when looking at a graph, check the scales! The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree,” he noted.

Then after that there is Will Happer and after him there is Patrick Moore. But then, after them but not at this conference, there are Barack Obama and Malcolm Turnbull and tens of millions of alarmists in the same mould.

Voting on how to respond to ISIS

The heading is Australia’s most outspoken commentators on how we should fight Islamic State after Paris attacks but more interesting is that at the end of the summaries, you can vote for your favourite position. The five positions in the order they are presented are:

Waleed Aly
Andrew Bolt
Australia’s Grand Mufti
Tony Abbott
Pauline Hansen

The methodology is, of course, skewed and there is little reason to take the results as much more than straws in the wind. But a more important consideration is that Tony Abbott and Pauline Hansen are politicians and therefore think in terms of practical policies, of actually doing things. The others have their expertise in explaining things. In most respects, Abbott and Bolt take the same position, but Andrew writes a blog and newspaper column while Tony had to find a policy that all within his party could accept, or at least live with, as a plan of action. Expressing opinions is easier than making policy, which is not a criticism but a fact of life.

Found at Andrew Bolt.

Crash and burn as a strategic policy

Let me start where Ed Driscoll at Instapundit starts, with Sharyl Attkisson’s comments on Obama’s failure to read intelligence reports that he disagrees with even before he reads them. But there’s more, and this is only what we actually know about.

The New York Times sounds like it grudgingly concurs with Attkisson’s assessment of our epistemically closed president, though you have to scroll down eight paragraphs deep past their deliberately underplayed headline, “In Rise of ISIS, No Single Missed Key but Many Strands of Blame,” to find the story’s real lede:

A 2012 report by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency was direct: The growing chaos in Syria’s civil war was giving Islamic militants there and in Iraq the space to spread and flourish. The group, it said, could “declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria.”

“This particular report, this was one of those nobody wanted to see,” said Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, who ran the defense agency at the time.

“It was disregarded by the White House,” he said. “It was disregarded by other elements in the intelligence community as a one-off report. Frankly, at the White House, it didn’t meet the narrative.”

As John Fund wrote last year, the eye of the narrative draws ever-tighter in the cloistered Obama White House:

Chris Matthews of MSNBC, the former White House speechwriter who once rapturously recounted that he “felt this thrill going up my leg” as Obama spoke, didn’t hold back on Wednesday’s Hardball. “Let’s get tough here,” Matthews began, as he lambasted Obama for being “intellectually lazy” and “listening to the same voices all the time.” He even named names, saying that Obama had become “atrophied into that little world of people like Valerie Jarrett and Mrs. Obama.”

The headline on that last story begins, “As the Obama Administration Crashes and Burns”, but what satisfaction is there in that if Obama’s aim from the start was to take the West down as far as he possibly could. We are all part of the wreckage. It’s only taken seven years for most Americans to work it out, and even then it is more than possible that he would win re-election a third time if he were allowed to run again.

Raising the GST to 15% is not a 5% increase it is a 50% increase

Why is a rise in GST even on the table, never mind one so large? This is why the left is backing Malcolm to the hilt. The ALP could never get away with such a heist, but the Liberals can, since there is no doubt whatsoever that an increase in the GST to 15% will be supported by Labor. And it’s not just a 50% increase since they also wish to broaden the tax to include some of the current exclusions.

The meme that Tony was uninterested in economics never goes away, but he at least knew where he was trying to get to. He was let down by an incompetent Treasurer but there is no reason to think Abbott was uninterested in getting the budget to balance through lower spending.

Malcolm supposedly has a greater interest in economics, but what’s the point of having such an interest if you are so off the mark in understanding what needs to be done to get the economy to grow. Turnbull is a Keynesian. He wants to increase the level of public spending, and wants to rake in the cash so he can do it.

Making money in business is common. Understanding economics is a very different talent and skill, and it is one Turnbull most definitely does not have. If he manages to get the GST up to 15%, he will lead Australia into a recession the likes of which we have not experienced for many many years.

The leader of the free world

obama and turnbull cartoon

None of this is a surprise, but since the implications are so obvious you would think there would be more of a commotion in the US: President Barack Obama does not want and will not read intelligence reports on groups “he does not consider terrorists,”. This is Sharyl Attkisson speaking:

“I have talked to people who have worked in the Obama administration who firmly believe he has made up his mind. I would say closed his mind, they say, to their intelligence that they’ve tried to bring him about various groups that he does not consider terrorists, even if they are on the U.S. list of designated terrorists. He has his own ideas, and there are those who’ve known him a long time who say this dates back to law school. He does not necessarily—you may think it’s a good trait you may think it’s a bad trait—he does not necessarily listen to the people with whom he disagrees. He seems to dig in. I would suppose because he thinks he’s right. He is facing formidable opposition on this particular point.”

Meanwhile we have Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus presenting the Government’s view on how do deal with the threat from ISIS, which he expressed as a comment on the previous thread

“Thank God we have someone rational and adult like Malcolm Turnbull in charge. I suspect Steve and perhaps Tony Abbott are more like General Buck Turgidson or General Curtis LeMay to Turnbull’s JFK. Do you really want WW3 Steve?”

The point is that we are already in WW3. The question for us is whether we are going to fight this war as it should be fought. Neville Chamberlain at least began to re-arm Britain after Munich and declared war in September 1939 after the invasion of Poland. What would it take for Malcolm to take similar kinds of steps today?

LATE ADDITION: The cartoon from The Oz which I just came across.