I give the devil benefit of the law for my own safety’s sake

I saw the text below and thought of the scene above.

Mr. Obama doesn’t need anyone to justify his actions, because he’s realized no one can stop him. He gets criticized, but at the same time his approach has seeped into the national conscience. It has set new norms. You see this in the ever-more-outrageous proposals from the presidential field, in particular front-runners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Mrs. Clinton routinely vows to govern by diktat. On Wednesday she unveiled a raft of proposals to punish companies that flee the punitive U.S. tax system. Mrs. Clinton will ask Congress to implement her plan, but no matter if it doesn’t. “If Congress won’t act,” she promises, “then I will ask the Treasury Department, when I’m there, to use its regulatory authority.”

Mrs. Clinton and fellow liberals don’t like guns and are frustrated that the duly elected members of Congress (including those from their own party) won’t strengthen background checks. So she has promised to write regulations that will unilaterally impose such a system.

On immigration, Mr. Obama ignored statute with executive actions to shield illegals from deportation. Mrs. Clinton brags that she will go much, much further with sweeping exemptions to immigration law.

For his part, Mr. Trump sent the nation into an uproar this week with his call to outright ban Muslims from entering the country. Is this legally or morally sound? Who cares! Mr. Trump specializes in disdain for the law, the Constitution, and any code of civilized conduct. Guardrails are for losers. He’d set up a database to track Muslims or force them to carry special IDs. He’d close mosques. He’d deport kids born on American soil. He’d seize Iraq’s oil fields. He’d seize remittance payments sent back to Mexico. He’d grab personal property for government use.

Mr. Obama’s dismantling of boundaries isn’t restrained to questions of law; he blew up certain political ethics, too.

[Via Instapundit]

When you put it that way

The Strange Case of the Secular Progressive-Islamist Alliance has been summarised by Robert at Small Dead Animals. These are the many things that Radical “Progressives” and ISIS have in common:

Both hate Christianity and Judaism

Both excuse the preaching of hatred towards disfavored ethnic groups

Both excuse violent attacks by Muslim terrorists, citing “Islamophobia”

Neither believe in free speech

Neither are capable of even the tiniest criticism, citing micro-aggressions or Islamophobia

Both hold America and Israel in contempt

Both favour rule by an unaccountable elite

Both have dreams of totalitarian rule with leaders selected by political or religious criteria

Both shun modernity, such as that provided by the energy from fossil fuels

Both lie habitually, believing such deception is completely justified

Both are determined to end, or severely curtail, our constitutional democracies that all stem from Judeo-Christian roots

The cruelty of the ready acceptance of climate change

Climate change is a belief system for the smug and oblivious. It is neither believed nor practised in any part of the world in which its population remains at the $10 a day level, which accounts for a major proportion of the world’s population. This is an interview of Indur Goklany, an Indian climate analyst, conducted by Ralf Bodelier and translated from Dutch. The article is titled: Our Biggest Problem is Poverty. I share Goklany’s disgust with the mean-spirited and hard-hearted representatives of the first world who are doing all they can to raise production costs across the world, which in their ignorance means doing all they can to lower living standards across the world by adding to the cost of energy. This is from the interview, which is long but needs reading. It is especially useful because he raises the immorality of the global warming brigade.

Many think climate change is the main problem we face today. Apparently you see that differently.

‘I do. Despite the dramatic reduction in poverty because of economic development, the biggest problems we face today are still extreme poverty and its consequences – hunger, premature death, disease and an impaired environment. Extreme poverty is the fundamental problem of the moment. If we reduce poverty first, we will reduce these other problems. It is therefore good news that the elimination of poverty is still number one in the list of new development goals of the United Nations. ‘

What is the connection between alleviating poverty and your plea for fossil energy?

‘Between 1981 and 2012, the number of people in absolute poverty declined by over a billion people worldwide as the rate of absolute poverty declined by almost three-quarters, from 54 percent to 15 percent. The vast majority of these reductions occurred in South and East Asia – think of India and China. What happened? They got wealthier, because of economic growth fueled literally by fossil fuels. This is why they are also major contributors today to CO2 today. It is not rocket science – you are poor, you need to get richer, but for that you need access to cheap and reliable energy. And today energy is, for practical purposes, synonymous with fossil fuels. However, there are still almost a billion people living in absolute poverty today. Ensuring that they have the means for economic development, which means ensuring they have access to cheap and reliable energy, should be our first concern. We have no idea how pathetic it is to not have energy, although I can still remember from my childhood in India. People with no access to electricity or any of the conveniences we take for granted, cooking their meals using dung, all the while inhaling the noxious fumes from the burning dung; women and children walking miles to fetch water; when the sun set so did all productive activity including studying and working because lighting was rare and expensive; streets without light; the fact that any action took physical effort and was time consuming, because gasoline, diesel and electric powered machines and appliances weren’t available.

Anyone who can turn on a light by the flick of a switch who then seek to deny our technologies to others are anti-social scum. They are vicious, cruel and ignorant; the virtue they believe they have in denying our technologies to the rest of the world makes them some of the most despicable people who have ever lived.

Obama the only one in step

The title is, President Obama, a ‘tortured genius’, but you need to define a genius of the tortured variety before you can see what he means. So here he does just that:

A “tortured genius” . . . is someone who, no matter how obvious the failing or how fair and valid the criticism, accepts no blame and denies all responsibility. In the mind of such a leader, the rest of the world simply can’t see the “genius” in what they do.

In truth, this type of leader lives in denial of the facts as they are, rationalizing actions and refusing to alter or adapt strategies to win. To such a person, maintaining the illusion that he is right is somehow more important than mission success. We have all known a tortured genius or, perhaps at times, have been one ourselves. Such a leader can be a serious detriment the performance of any team and the chief obstacle to victory.

Even here the problem is that unless you understand what Obama is trying to achieve, you have no idea whether he is succeeding or not. To understand what Obama is trying to do, all you need to do is read this from George Soros. No President, in my view, has ever succeeded in achieving his ends better than Obama. It’s just that his ends are not our ends, but in his own lights, there is no one more successful than him.

Where pictures replace words

matilda reading quadrant

I have an article in this month’s Quadrant which is now posted at Quadrant on Line: Drawing the Wrong Conclusions. Three separate issues are brought together – the use of visuals in the place of words in modern academic discourse which not only helps bamboozle others but even helps bamboozle themselves; a review of Mark Steyn’s brilliant book on the hockey stick, A Disgrace to the Profession, which looks at the diagram that has featured in both IPCC Reports and Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth; and a final section explaining my own disdain for Keynesian economics which was entrenched by another diagram known as the Keynesian cross, that has done much to implant aggregate demand among economists since it was published in the first edition of Paul Samuelson’s Economics in 1948.

Since a large proportion of what I read was written a century or more ago, I am very aware how few graphs and diagrams there once were. It may only have been the limitations of print technology, but to understand something once required paying attention where one needed to follow the logic. Today, a picture is provided in place of the thousand words of text. The result is that such diagrams have replaced the need to follow close reasoning in understanding the point someone else is making. With diagrams and pictures of all sorts, there is less apparent need to bother with detail and complexity. And it is no small problem as we can see with the hold that global warming and Keynesian macro continue to have, even though the evidence that either is valid remains thin on the ground.

My grand-daughter, bless her, will be part of the mid-century generation who will come after the millennials. These post-millennials will be starting at the more difficult end by going back to thought and reason, as the photo above clearly shows.

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.

National productivity and IQ

Turns out they are highly correlated:

My colleague at the George Mason economics department, Garett Jones, has written an excellent new book, Hive Mind: How Your Nation’s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own.

The book’s primary and most important contribution is to document the following empirical regularity: Suppose you could a) improve your own IQ by 10 points, or b) improve the IQs of your countrymen (but not your own) by 10 points. Which would do more to increase your income? The answer is (b), and it’s not even close. The latter choice improves your income by about 6 times more than the former choice.

The only thing surprising about these results is that someone was actually allowed to publish them.

C’mon, seven days from now it will all be last week’s news

Everyone lives at a moment in time which vanishes even as a new present arrives. Don’t worry. Be happy. This is today.

TERROR SCARE HITS GERMANY: COPS WARN ‘NOT TO WALK IN GROUPS’
MERKEL DEATH KNELL: RISE OF THE ANTI-IMMIGRATION PARTY…
‘420 DANGEROUS ISLAMISTS LIVE IN GERMANY’…
Video: Turkey fans boo moment of silence for Paris attacks, then chant ‘Allahu Akbar’…
Syrian ‘Refugee’ Already MISSING IN LOUISIANA…
Resettlement group admits: We don’t track them…
WHITE HOUSE WON’T TELL GOVS WHERE SENDING REFUGEES…
Planeload arrives in Britain…
Speaker Ryan calls for ‘pause’ on program…
CZECH PRESIDENT ADDRESSES RALLY AGAINST MUSLIMS…
Israel Outlaws Domestic Islamic Movement as Police Raid Offices…
WASH TIMES WEDS: FBI FEARS HOLIDAY SEASON…
Extensive ISIS plotting, political indifference from Obama raises concerns…

Is this tomorrow?

REUTERS 5-DAY ROLLING POLL: TRUMP 36%, CARSON 14.6%, RUBIO 11.2%, CRUZ 7.9%… MORE…
Trump Rides Blue-Collar Wave…