Politics as the art of the inconceivable

Julie Bishop’s judgement is, as usual, bottom shelf. Having deposed Tony and instrumental in bringing in Malcolm, today’s AFR headline front page: Bishop warns on Trump. Is it her or her department of analytical morons? Trump has had virtually the entire military endorse him for president, at least those who are able to speak in public. So what’s Julie’s concern?

In her most forthright commentary yet on the US election, Ms Bishop appeared to back Hillary Clinton, whose campaign has been rattled anew by a fresh probe into emails she kept on a private server.

“US engagement in our region is important for us,” Ms Bishop told the ABC. “I believe that will continue under Hillary Clinton.

“It will be up to our region, including Australia, to persuade a Trump administration to focus on the Asia-Pacific.”

Ms Bishop talked up Ms Clinton’s regional credentials, describing her as the architect of Barak Obama’s famous pivot towards the Asia-Pacific region.

“She sees the US as having a global leadership role,” Ms Bishop said. “Candidate Donald Trump does not. He sees the US as having got a raw deal from globalisation and he would focus more on domestic matters.”

She has seen Hillary’s foreign policy judgement in action along with Obama’s and wants her to become president to replace the current disaster. There is a level of density here that defies explanation.

Meanwhile there is a bit of turmoil going on in the US which this might help to clarify: BREAKING TIES: Obama is Now Throwing Hillary Under the Bus. If so, anything is now possible. See the chart below which is from the article:


To which there is this to add.hillary-rush

The top ten of the (so far) top 100 wikileaks

Via Andrew Bolt: The Top 100 Most Damaging Wikileaks (so far). There is nothing new in any of it for anyone who has been paying attention. What makes Wikileaks and now the Weiner additions so devastating is that the media cannot avoid covering them and therefore slowly – very slowly – the tide may be turning against the most morally corrupt individual ever to run for President from a major party. Here are the top ten of the (so far) top 100, but I’ve added in Number 100 to show what a deep bench there is. You should also go to the link to see the detail which really is overwhelming.

1. Obama lied: he knew about Hillary’s secret server and wrote to her using a pseudonym, cover-up happened (intent to destroy evidence)

2. Hillary Clinton dreams of completely “open trade and open borders”

3. Hillary Clinton took money from and supported nations that she KNEW funded ISIS and terrorists

4. Hillary has public positions on policy and her private ones

5. Paying people to incite violence and unrest at Trump rallies

6. Hillary’s campaign wants “unaware” and “compliant” citizens

7. Top Hillary aides mock Catholics for their faith

8. Hillary deleted her incriminating emails. State covered it up. Asked about using White House executive privilege to hide from Congress

9. Bribery: King of Morocco gives Clinton Foundation $12 million to have meeting with Hillary, 6 months later Morocco gets weapons

10. State Department tried to bribe FBI to un-classify Clinton emails (FBI docs)

100. Obama picked people in his administration from the suggestion list of CiTi bank advisor/Wall Street shill

The proof that the media have the astonishing power to hide and distort is shown by the polls that say Obama still has a plus-50% approval rate. After Syria, Obamacare, the open southern border and the state of the economy, and that’s just to begin with, you have to wonder what he could have done to make things worse. But elect Hillary and we may yet find out.

The right question is whether the media is off track

The great genius of the Clinton campaign is to make it seem that Hillary and Trump are just two of a kind, with no signifcant difference between them in what each would bring to the presidency. So when you read this [via Instapundit], remember Peggy Noonan supported Obama not just in 2008 but also in 2012. She is another Democrat shill pretending to be a Republican. This is what she wrote:

What I’m thinking about this week is a focus group led by Peter Hart, the veteran Democratic pollster, Tuesday night, in Charlotte, N.C., still a toss-up state. Present were a dozen late-decider voters, three Democrats, six Republicans and three independents.

What struck me about the group wasn’t its new insights, which were few. What was powerful was its averageness, its confirmation of what you’ve already observed. The members weren’t sad, precisely, but they were unillusioned. They were seeing things with clean eyes and they were disappointed. They wanted a candidate they could trust and believe in.

Which when you think about it shouldn’t be too much to ask.

Raise your hand, said Mr. Hart, if you like both candidates. No one did. Raise your hand if you like one candidate. No one did. Raise if you don’t like either. All 12 did. . . .

Mr. Hart asked: Will the next generation be better off? No one raised a hand. This is not news; it’s been a cliché since the crash of 2008. You get used to the data: Americans no longer assume their children will have it better than they did. But it was striking to see these dozen thoughtful people keep their hands down.

Asked what has been lost in America, one respondent said security for kids: “They can’t just go out and play.” “Innocence for kids,” said another. Parents no longer feel the world, even the immediate one, is a safe place.

What is missing in America? “A freshness,” said a middle aged man. He went on to speak of the 1950s, “Ozzie and Harriet,” when things seemed newer somehow and assumptive of progress.

Is America off track? They all nodded.

The people she describes are so deluded that it is breathtaking.

Donald Trump and Jennifer Hawkins the before and after

This is the video of Jennifer Hawkins introducing Trump in 2011 at the National Achievers Convention in Sydney.

And this is the video that has made the rounds.

But who of the millions who have been lied to about the reality will ever get to find out? And to see what has been made of the story, this is from The Australian: US election 2016: Donald Trump sexually humiliates Jennifer Hawkins.

But the comments at The Australian shows that at least some of these are onto it. These are the top comments in order from the top rated, which are almost all from two days ago which was when the story was released.

james 2 days ago
I am still waiting for The Australian to retract this nonsense with a full apology to Trump, Hawkins and us, the suffering readers, putting up with these hack jobs.

Trump talks about draining the swamp, we have a a few swamps in various Australian news rooms that need draining.

My subscription money can easily be invested elsewhere and I have to say, I am seriously thinking about it. I think it a privilege to be able to comment about articles and opinion pieces, but it does not rule my decision making.

To The Australian editors: Clean out your staff and clean up your act!

Sandra 2 days ago
Oh please. What a carry-on over nothing. I swear this paper is getting worse every day.

Timothy 2 days ago
Just a couple of objective points … that is, if objectivity in “news” is still acceptable.

1. The ‘author’ of this “news” article seems to have forgotten to put their name to this piece but then again, can you blame them given the ‘quality’ of this piece.

2. The ‘author’ of this “news” article seems to have either never listened to the audio or they have intentionally left out more than one line of the back and forth dialog clearly to make the actual event appear more risqué so as to suite their own purpose rather to inform the readership.

3. The ‘author’ of this “news” article seems to have either never watched the video or they have intentionally failed to make the observation that Hawkins appeared to be enjoying the banter and further, that Hawkins on several occasions while standing very close to Trump, did, in fact, make intentional physical contact with Trump first in what appeared to be signs of affection.

4. The ‘author’ of this “news” article seems to have either never watched the video or they have intentionally failed to make the observation that Hawkins could clearly have either not come up on the stage or left the stage at anytime before saying “Thank you.” to the audience before returning to her seat if she had, in fact felt bullied, intimidated, sexually harassed, etc.

5. The ‘author’ of this “news” article either intentionally or intentionally has mislead the readership when they say “The video is the latest of a number that have emerged in recent weeks, showing Mr Trump making crass remarks about women and boasting that he can grab and kiss them without consent because of his fame.” (emphasis added)

I both fear and hope that what has happened here is that some intern has managed to get a “news” article published on-line without it having been reviewed by a ‘real’ journalist and/or even the most junior of editors. I would hate to think that The Australian has stooped to this level and call it “news”. We can but live in hope.

John 2 days ago
I’m no Trump fan BUT…..

Your narration of what the video shows is unhinged and dreadfully unfair.

It’s not – as you claim – Trump sexually humiliating Jennifer Hawkins. Watch it and its actually an amusing, good hearted roast. She doesn’t seem the slightest put out.

Will 2 days ago
Since I know you won’t publish my comment let me say this. I am appalled by the way the dinosaur media have sold their souls to support the obviously very, very corrupt Clinton family and all their minions including those in the FBI, the State department, the department of Justice and the White house. Whoever wrote this crap didn’t even have the decency to put their name to it. Its time to put on the big boy pants, ignore your special interests and actually report the bloody news!

Jean-Pierre 2 days ago
I have “perused” almost all the comments posted below and came to the conclusion that the OZ has shot itself in the foot with this – anonymous – piece of garbage. Refund/termination of subscription is an option I am about to contemplate…… What an utter crap……

Ian 2 days ago
Will you give it up, please?

The number of people I know who are cancelling their Australian subscription after the outcome of the US election – you don’t want to know.

Why you so slavishly repeat the Clinton-owned MSM propaganda, I will never understand.

Have they really bought you too?

Barry 2 days ago
Why is Australia’s leading newspaper giving up on journalism? This is the kind of juvenile muck usually associated with what University newspaper editors think is print worthy.

Come on “The Australian”, lift your game.

Peter 2 days ago
memo to the australian media . . we don’t vote for the US president so strop throwing your biased rubbish down our throat

Ben 2 days ago
This is the final straw. This rag has spent months and months looking for the tiniest story on trump. Yet ignoring the fact we are up to the podesta email leaks 21. Now she’s under investigation again by the FBI and you hardly touch on it. Come Monday I’ll cancel my subscription and source my news via social media, Wikileaks and Russia today. Your hatred for trump is too transparent.

Nick 2 days ago
This is a horrendous article. Writer too spineless to attach their name. You can have your subscription back

James 2 days ago
I’m dropping my subscription. The video showed that both of these people had humour. Who would have thought that when standing in front of a crowd you would embellish a story for a bit of entertainment! Trump seems completely reasonable here in this context. It’s a shame the Australian has lost its integrity.

Frank 2 days ago
Having watched that video, whats the problem? He is telling a joke. A little bit risque. So what? The audience is laughing right along with him. The model doesn’t seem offended. No BS or PC nonsense with Trump. What you see is what you get. Fantastic.

Joan 2 days ago
Big story on corrupt Hillary so what do they do, try a itty bitty Donald is a pervert story. We are on to you.

Anne N 2 days ago
If you want the TRUE story of that video. Google!

I did and found the event in Sydney in 2011 at the National Achievers Convention. Jennifer was on stage for several minutes waving and playing the crowd and then she introduced the next guest, Donald Trump.

He walked out and she greeted him by kissing him on the cheek, then he kissed her on her cheek as her face was turning toward the camera.. He did not lay a hand on her.

She then walked off stage leaving him to talk.

The video is on Youtube dated Oct, 2, 2011.. You will also see this latest edited versions if you Google,, that may even have it’s audio edited to suit the agenda/ but the original is all anyone should be interested in., that is if you are only interested in true facts.

The tape is 1min 58 seconds long.

Lynda 2 days ago
This is an absolute disgrace and insult to our intelligence- you are going to lose HEAPS of subscriptions over this one! We are over it.

John 2 days ago
Interesting…I just watched the video in it’s entirety and it’s nothing like what has been portrayed…indeed, the exact opposite.

I see only two possible alternatives…either the article was written by a junior journalist not capable of doing the most basic research or “The Australian” has an agenda.

Which is it?

Colin 23 hours ago
Disgraceful reporting trying to get attention like the trashy USA media. I was there in the audience and I actually have a similar recording. It was nothing like what this paper is portraying it. Anyone can take a 2 min clip from a longer presentation and twist it to fit. Very disappointed.

John 2 days ago
Is this it, this what I never finished reading? Pathetic. How desperate are these leftie gits going to become? Boy they are worried.

What a rubbish article. Did Clinton pay for this?

What a beat up. It’s all good natured banter.

Donald Trump – National Achievers Congress 2011″ and watch the whole talk.

Then you can see for yourself how stupid this article is and how dishonest the video excerpt provided really is.

Like many other subscribers I’m also thinking of cancelling my subscription. I thought I was paying for journalism and thoughtful opinions. Not propaganda and hit pieces.

All we like sheep

All of the stories from Drudge are crucial but for me one stands out:

Homeless woman attacked by mob for defending Trump’s Hollywood star…
Poll Tampering?
How Clinton campaign allowed hacking of Podesta’s e-mail account…

It may take all of the information that has come from two entirely different directions – from Wikileaks on one side and the Weiner investigation on the other – but the role of the media in distorting and suppressing what the public needs to know to make an informed decision remains to me the greatest scandal of them all. You cannot trust the press. The sudden ten-point fall in the Washington Post-ABC News poll, all before the latest revelations, is a reminder that what you read in the papers is almost entirely what those on the left want you to read. This is the question posed by the report:

Just yesterday we wrote about the very curious ABC / Wapo poll which seemed to show Hillary’s blow-out 12-point lead from last Sunday get cut in half in a matter of just two days. But the ABC/Wapo enigma continues to grow today as their latest poll shows the presidential race has now tightened to just 2 points, which is within the margin of error. Ironically, these new results do not reflect the latest FBI bombshell as polling was concluded on October 27th and it still includes an 8-point sampling advantage for democrats. . . .

Now, while ABC / Wapo claim that the 10-point swing (in less than a week) was driven by changes in “who’s intending to vote,” we find it quite curious that their own data shows just a 2-point swing in people who said they were “certain to vote” on 10/23, when the poll reflected a 12-point Hillary lead, and 10/27 when the lead had collapsed to just 2 points. So, are we really expected to believe that a 2-point swing in voter intentions somehow translated to a 10-point swing in the poll results? Not likely…something tells us it had a little more to do with including “ethnic ‘oversamples’ as required.”

We are fed lies from the very top through to every official and unofficial organ of government to keep us in line. It has required a politically-driven independently-wealthy billionaire with a flair for publicity to perhaps bring us to the point of some kind of change in the way the United States – and pretty well all of the democracies – are governed. But it’s not over yet, but at least there is more hope for change than there was a week ago, which even the Washington Post and ABC are being forced by circumstance to reveal.

But what about her policies?

hillary stroking gun

There is certainly some kind of demented distorted thought process that allows Democrats to vote for Hillary in spite of everything. The latest everything at Drudge:

Computer seized in Weiner probe prompts FBI to take new steps in Clinton email inquiry


And from the last of these:

Approximately 10 percent of Abedin’s emails released through Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act requests were addressed to one of Mills’ various personal email addresses.

Several were found to contain such highly sensitive material that the State Department redacted 100 percent of the content pages, marking many pages with a bold stamp reading “PAGE DENIED.”

The real question is whether any of it matters to the 51%.

Piketty in Melbourne

I went to see Thomas Piketty tonight, author of the socialist tract of our time, Capital in the Twenty-First Century. The left has run out of all of the standard criticisms of capitalism, that it will crush the working class, savage our living standards, prevent production for need rather than profit, and et cetera ad infinitum. That we live in a world of material abundance hasn’t tipped the balance away from the fifty per cent of every society who are frustrated because others do better than they do and want redress. Hence the stellar issue of our time, the demand for equality. It was a short Q&A after with only three questions that ended up being asked, and so I was left with the microphone in my hand but no chance to ask what I had in mind. This was my question:

We are meeting in the Melbourne Town Hall, built when Australia was the richest country in the world, and Melbourne was the richest city in the world’s richest country.

Back then, no one had a car, a computer, a radio or TV. Few had indoor plumbing, hot and cold running water and electric lights. No one flew to London, went to the movies or surfed the net.

What possible difference could it make to anyone whether income distribution in some measure that is invisible to everyone without a dataset and a computer happens to be more skewed in one direction today than it was at some moment in the past?

I have asked a similar question before to someone at an Economics Society meeting in Melbourne, and the chap point blank refused to answer my question because, he said, it didn’t make sense to him.

But the fact is that the poor will always be with us and so will the rich. We have the richest poor people who have ever lived, and there is no reason to think that if we manage our affairs properly, that the standard of living of the poorest amongst us in fifty years will have an income level that is only attainable by the top ten percent of our population today.

So the sad thing is that the one thing we have discovered by increasing wealth and raising living standards to levels inconceivable a century ago has hardly affected the average level of contentment. As for distribution of wealth, the person who did ask the third question instead of me went on a long rant against the capitalist system. My expectation was that Piketty would at least defang to some extent the premise of his question, but he didn’t. So he really is nothing other than a soap box rabble rouser with no other genuine intent other than to stir up as much trouble as he can.