This is exactly what the video show: Obama’s Former Asst. Defense Secretary ADMITS Obama Spied on Trump (VIDEO). As the article asks:
How is this not front page news at every news organization across the United States?
Once again President Trump has been proven right when he said that his wires were tapped by President Obama.
We know why it’s not in the news but it’s still a scandal. In fact, the absence of reporting may be a scandal almost as large.
There was this story on the front page of the Financial Review yesterday morning with the heading: Trump reforms ‘not understood’. It begins:
The United States economy is poised to enter a period of sustained higher economic growth on the back of President Donald Trump’s supply side economic reforms, according to two leading US economists who have been tipped to join the US Federal Reserve board.
Should you wish to have some idea of what Trump is trying to do, you might therefore find of interest the endorsement by Professor Art Laffer – the Art Laffer of the Laffer Curve – that he has provided for the third edition of my Free Market Economics.
“This book presents the very embodiment of supply-side economics. At its very core is the entrepreneur trying to work out what to do in a world of deep uncertainty in which the future cannot be known. Crucially, the book is entirely un-Keynesian, restoring Say’s Law to the centre of economic theory, with its focus on value-adding production as the source of demand. If you would like to understand how an economy actually works, this is one of the few places I know of where you can find out.”
Art Laffer is the original supply-side economist. Free Market Economics is indeed one of the few places you can go to find out what supply-side economic theory means in practice and in detail.
ADDITIONAL COMMENT ON THE COMMENTS: Supply-side economics as an approach to understanding how an economy works is different from the how these principles might be applied in any given circumstance. It is not a theory of tax, although, as in Reagan’s time, these principles were part of the effort to get taxes down, where the real point was to transfer spending from the public sector to the private. If all you know about supply-side economics is the Laffer Curve, I’m afraid you actually know very little about the base principles. The central issue is Say’s Law. Unless you understand what the classics meant by Say’s Law, I’m afraid the underlying principles are unknown to you. Art Laffer, however, made Say’s Law the touchstone of his own understanding of supply-side theory. If you are truly interested in understanding these principles, you can either read Mill, or Clay or my own Free Market Economics. If you have another you would like to add to the list, by all means let me know. They hardly exist although there are others, but that is what you need to know.
[My thanks to TMc for directing me to the AFR article.]
Before I get to the rest, I have had two lovely emails from Catallaxians who have received their copies of The Art of the Impossible, which is more than I can say myself. Now that the books have actually been printed and are being distributed, we are preparing to have the book properly launched into the universe, which will take place in Sydney and Melbourne and perhaps elsewhere. Until then, you can order books from Connor Court here in Australia or from anywhere at all at Amazon and for those who have asked, I will happily sign the books when we meet up next. As a reminder, this was my own take on the nature of the book.
As for the perils of being president, let me begin with something I wrote on Friday about what ought to be the greatest political scandal of our times, the bugging of Trump and his associates by the Obama administration during the election campaign and in the period leading up to the inauguration:
So we shall see if it is still news come Monday, whether the don’t-want-to-know crowd will get their wish and end up not knowing.
Well Monday has come and Monday has gone and so too has the story. It has almost completely vanished, demonstrating as nothing else could, that Trump was almost certainly right about everything he said. If the media and the democrats have backed off and dropped the story, it is only because there is absolutely nothing in it for them.
And also, strangely, mention of the pulling of the anti-Obamacare bill has nearly itself completely disappeared, again because it may not work out all that well for the Democrats. See below:
As Trump says, Obamacare is once again fully owned by the Democrats. He also says he has learned a lot by the process, including, no doubt, whose judgement he can rely on and whose he cannot. As for Obamacare, when the rotting has gone to the fullest extent, there will be another attempt to fix things up. Meanwhile onwards to other issues, of which there are no end. The best thing about Trump may yet be his temperament.
Let me begin with something I wrote on Friday about what ought to be the greatest political scandal of our times, the bugging of Trump and his associates by the Obama administration during the election campaign and in the period leading up to the inauguration:
So we shall see if it is still news come Monday, whether the don’t-want-to-know crowd will get their wish and end up not knowing.
Well Monday has come and gone and so too has the story, demonstrating as nothing else could better show, that Trump was almost certainly dead on about everything he said. If the media and the democrats have backed off and dropped the story, it is only because there is absolutely nothing in it for them.
And also, strangely, mention of the pulling of the anti-Obamacare bill has nearly itself completely disappeared, again because it does not work for the Democrats. See below:
As Trump says, Obamacare is once again owned by the Democrats. He also says he has learned a lot by the process. When the rotting has gone to the fullest extent, there will be another attempt to fix things up. Meanwhile onwards to other issues, of which there are no end. The best thing about Trump may yet be his temperament.
There are many issues that have from the start surrounded the attempts to unwind Obamacare, with the actual attempt to get rid of this obnoxious piece of legislation only one strand, however important it might be. More important has been the imperative that Trump comes to understand the lay of the land. The one thing that is certain is that Trump has been around the street himself a few times, and while he is new to being an elected official, he is not new to politics. He does not and has always known that cannot trust Ryan but he also knows this is someone with whom he has to work. He knows there are endless agendas running even on the Republican side of the aisle, and in among all if it is the certainty that most of those he is dealing with are owned by others whose bidding they must do if they are to continue to fund their re-election campaigns. That among the Republicans there are 52 who would like to see the present arrangements sent packing is far from certain. The same interests that have backed the Democrats on the present system also back many of the Republicans. If it comes down to whom I trust, Trump remains near enough the only one since he is among the few for whom the kinds of policies I would like to see closely line up with what he himself most assuredly wants to do.
So this is where I think we are. First, however the Democrats may see some kind of victory in keeping Obamacare intact, they will continue to own its failures. It is true the Republicans have not been able to remove it as yet, but no one who wishes to see it go will see any reason on this account to vote for the Democrats instead. They are more than ever associated with this rotting system, and the worse things become, the more they will have it hung round their necks.
Second, Ryan has demonstrated that he may well not have whatever it takes to shepherd important parts of the Republican agenda through Congress, and the House in particular. Trump basically gave Ryan his head on the mechanics and Ryan has failed. Personally, I cannot tell whether the process that was put in place was the right way to do things – and many others who I do trust say that it was not – but the tactics were as much Ryan’s as anyone else’s.
Third, there are many other things that Trump will now do to continue his agenda, with tax and spending cuts apparently the most important. And there is no doubting that Trump means to get taxes down and is certainly doing what he can to cut spending at every turn. This will be the next test set before Ryan. We shall see whether he can deliver. It’s one thing to be in opposition where nothing depends on you if things are to get done; it is quite another to be expected to deliver in government. Trump – political neophyte though he may be – really means what he says and knows how to get things done. Ryan does not repreresent the Trump agenda, but if he cannot deliver, will be gone and never missed.
I have been reading the American press that I can find on the web and this seems the closest to what I think myself although nowhere near everything I personally believe: Ryan unmasks himself as biggest threat to GOP, Trump presidency. This is what he says:
House Speaker Paul Ryan didn’t just step in it again, big time, on the Ryancare bill this week. The Wisconsin Republican unmasked himself as the man most capable of demolishing his own party and the Trump presidency.
The Ryan American Healthcare Bill is a piece of moderate GOP trash that Mr. Ryan owns and has been trying and failing miserably to sell as the long-promised Republican repeal and replacement of Obamacare.
By telling conservatives in the House and across America to go have intimate relations with themselves and not meddle in the medical-care matters of him and the rest of what passes as House GOP leadership, he has done American politics a favor.
Specifically, he has convinced many conservatives that his time as maximum leader of House Republicans might best end before even more damage is done to the other lawmakers in his party, to President Trump and to the brand of the party and the president.
Politicians in both parties and the press call the bill “Ryancare.” If it passes — and it won’t — Democrats and eventually angry Republicans will be calling it Trumpcare. Talk about brand destruction.
Mr. Trump is not a policy guy. He doesn’t know the ins and outs of healthcare legislation, let alone of a bill that the tight little Ryan crew guided through the House this far, with no conservative consultation or approval.
Mr. Ryan, with the historically august title of House speaker, sold Mr. Trump a bill of goods, namely that the bill will appease conservatives and moderates in the GOP Congress and in the hinterland, get everyone re-elected in 2018 and 2020 and everyone could go to the seashore on Sunday.
This is March 2017. The election is in November 2020. This is the time for Trump to test the waters and to find out who he can trust and where he can find a realistic guide to policy. He is also saying to the Republicans in Congress that they must get their house in order, and the Senate as well, if he and they are to prosper together.
There was this in the comments on the previous thread that quite caught my eye:
George Wallace
#2335836, posted on March 24, 2017 at 7:17 pm (Edit)
One of the biggest stories on earth right now – the illegal surveillance of a president-elect by a sitting president in the USA – is being totally ignored by the ABC. No mention at all. Quite incredible.
And you know what, he’s right. One of the genuinely astonishing parts about discussing politics with most people is that the only things they know about are what they find on the news or in the papers, which means everything that might in any way contradict their leftwards worldview is kept from them by every means possible. This is what their ABC does. They either do not report, or distort what they do report or misstate the significance of what they report or just outright lie. But as an example of the way in which the community is mis-informed, just as Mr Wallace said, it really is incredible that no one who depends on the ABC is aware of this: OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE: Obama INVOLVED in “Wiretapping”. They might be told that Trump has said as much, but they would never ever have an inkling that any of it might be true, or that these are issues they might wish to weigh up for themselves. Instead, the story, even where it is reported, is bundled up for their viewers so that not only are they told what the right view on each and every issue is, but the proper response is provided as well.
For us over here, we get an almost lethal dose of the ABC and friends’ pre-digested news, since how could we not, even if we tried. But for ABC types, they are kept in their safety zones to prevent their ever having to come across news that might disturb their peace of mind, even if that peace of mind requires an almost complete ignorance of what is going on in the world.
Yet you do have to wonder how this will be kept from going through the roof. From Drudge, right now:
NSA To Provide ‘Smoking Gun’ Proof Obama Spied on Trump…
Gathered, disseminated secret electronic communications prior to inauguration….
So we shall see if it is still news come Monday, whether the don’t-want-to-know crowd will get their wish and end up not knowing.
UPDATE: I just don’t think it comes across exactly what we are dealing with. Let me take you to the words of that last story linked above. This is from the story:
Nunes said he was alarmed by what he saw in several dozen intelligence reports that include transcripts of communications, including communications directly from Trump. The reports were based on a foreign electronic spying operation between November and January. They were revealed by an intelligence community insider who alerted Nunes.
Nunes said on CNN that after reading the reports he was confident the Obama White House and numerous agencies “had a pretty good idea of what President-elect Trump was up to and what his transition team was up to and who they were meeting with.” . . .
The intelligence reports, which number in the dozens, suggest that the names of Trump and his advisers were not properly “minimized” in the foreign intelligence reports, as required under intelligence rules protecting the privacy rights of Americans.
“We don’t have the full scope of all the intelligence reports that were produced, or who ordered the unmasking of additional names, and we’re hoping to get that,” Nunes said.
The transcripts appeared to be the result of legal intelligence collection against a foreign target. The problem, Nunes said, was that someone in government ordered the names of the Americans to be unmasked and the reports to be distributed to government agencies. . . .
The explosive reports uncovered by Nunes contradict public testimony Monday by FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers.
Comey and Rogers stated during an intelligence committee hearing that they had no information to support Trump’s claims in a series of tweets that he had been placed under electronic surveillance by President Obama. . . .
Asked if he could rule out that Obama was personally involved in the surveillance, Nunes said “No, I cannot.”
This is the question Powerline’s John Hinderaker asks: SO, WERE TRUMP’S TWEETS RIGHT AFTER ALL?. This is what he quotes:
Members of the intelligence community collected “incidental” communications of the Trump transition team during legal surveillance operations of foreign targets, a top Republican lawmaker said Wednesday afternoon.
House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said this produced “dozens” of reports which eventually unmasked several individuals’ identities and were “widely disseminated.”
He said none of the reports he had read mentioned Russia or Russians and he was unsure whether the surveillance occurred at Trump Tower — as President Trump has suggested. Nunes also was unsure if then President-elect Trump was captured by the surveillance, which occurred in November, December and January.
That the intelligence agencies of the American government under a Democrat administration should be undertaking surveillance in any respect of the Republican nominee for President is a scandal of the most extraordinary kind. This is the work of a police state, not an open and democratic society. The issue of the moment is to make it clear that IF this happened, then that is an INDICTABLE OFFENCE that should cause individual to END UP IN JAIL. Since we know that as far back as January, before Trump was inaugurated, exactly this kind of surveillance was being reported in the New York Times, there should be no doubting that something absolutely unacceptable was going on. This is from the NYT of January 19:
American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.
The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.
How did the NYT know? Who authorised such leaks? Why is there no one being prosecuted? What was the role of the previous administration – the administration of the then-president – in any and all of this? That is what we would like to know. Instead, this is what we find at Powerline, and so many others who are on the conservative side of politics:
Closer to the heart of the matter may be Nunes’s observation that the identities of Trump associates subject to such incidental surveillance were “widely disseminated.” This “unmasking” is a federal crime, as House members discussed with Comey and Rogers on Monday. So, while President Trump may have been wrong in believing that the Obama administration directed surveillance at him or his associates–the jury is still out on that question–he was certainly right to be angry about the fact that information reflecting badly on his associates, collected through apparently legal surveillance, was leaked to the press in an effort to damage his campaign or his administration.
Weak, weak, weak! Every conjecture might be wrong, but that is taken for granted. Here the issue is what did happen and who did it and for what reason? Because it certainly looks like something very wrong, very illegal and very ominous really did take place.
And that’s not the half of it. The other half is where we would be if Hillary had won. Slow going on the Trump agenda may be a nuisance and annoyance to some, but not to me. I am aware always of the train wreck that didn’t happen. Meanwhile, it is Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court which is going before the Senate today. The picture comes from Ace of Spades. As he writes:
I’m happy when they are sad; it’s a simple political philosophy for those of us who don’t really pay attention to the blue check mafia or the whatever those kooky shade throwers are calling it these days. Dig me homes?
Oh, and pssst…Hillary won’t ever be President.
The Dems no doubt have many other equally unsuitable people in the cupboard for future presidential nominees. But that is still future. Now we can watch and wait. Trump can’t be everywhere and do everything, but at least whatever he does do won’t be as bad as what she would have done in his place. The next thing right now is the Supreme Court nomination.
In every Western country the political division comes down to the Party of Multiculturalism versus the Party of Preservation. So two things from today. First the Government, our Party of Preservation, has introduced a new multicultural policy. Here is how the report begins:
Australia’s national identity will be redefined along fundamental principles of integration, citizenship and unity in a pointed shift away from welfare entitlement, in the first multicultural statement by a federal government to also recognise the impact of terrorism on the nation’s social fabric.
In a landmark departure from the 2011 statement delivered by then-Labor prime minister Julia Gillard, the Turnbull government has included for the first time a list of individual freedoms, including freedom of speech, as core Australian values. The statement, released to The Australian ahead of its launch today, is a rejection of multiculturalism as a vehicle for grievance and identity politics.
The government has dropped past emphasis on equitable access to welfare and services for new migrants, and instead promotes values of opportunity, self-reliance and aspiration.
For a better understanding of what’s at stake, there is this article asking Is Denmark On The Brink? which is found at Instapundit. It is an interview with someone watching the disintegration of Swedish society from the Danish side of the border and drawing some conclusions of her own. Read every word but here is the start:
E Tavares: In a sense Sweden is the canary in the coalmine of Europe’s demographic future, since they have been at the forefront of this transformation and openly embrace it. Being a close neighbor we would like to get your views on what is happening there, as well as in Denmark. How do the Danes look at Sweden, with hope or apprehension?
I Tranholm: With absolute horror!
The Swedish media, which is quite pro-government and its leftwing policies, does not always report the full extent of the problems in their society. So it is hard to have a very accurate picture of what is going on. But we in Denmark have a good sense. We are very aware of the murders, rapes, riots, violence and the hand grenades that go on there. This does not often make the news but we know it is going on. And we don’t want to go down the same route.
This is the result of decades of policies promoting multiculturalism in Sweden. And what is left is this hollow house. You know, in the Bible it is said that if a house is left swept, tidied and unoccupied it eventually it will be taken over by evil. And I fear that this is what is happening in Sweden. Far from being a multicultural paradise, the problems can no longer remain hidden.
ET: Indeed, even President Trump made some controversial comments about Sweden at a recent rally in the US, causing an international uproar, with many debates on whether he was right or wrong. Did this cause some discussion in Denmark as well?
IT: It wasn’t much of a discussion because we in Denmark know what is happening in Sweden. Malmo is very close so we only need to go there to see it with our own eyes.
There was a TV ad partially paid by the Swedish government recommending that all Swedes integrate into this new multicultural society they are creating. Think about that. Even old Swedes now need to adjust to this new reality, instead of immigrants adapting to Swedish society. They call it “Det nya landet”, which means the new country. Traditional Sweden is gone.
The title of the post at Instapundit is ‘EUROPE: Danes look at Sweden today “with absolute horror”’which you will understand without much trouble if you read the interview yourself. It is paired with another article, Gramscian damage, which you also need to read to build your fitness for the the ideological wars of the future (as well as being better able to understand the ideological wars of the past).
UPDATE: The 15 Top Comments in order from the top at The Australian.
Roderick
“What ‘multiculturalism’ boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture – and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture.” Thomas SowellSerge
Fabulous, although we should stress assimilation not just integration, that’s what made the US’s melting pot so successful. When we arrived in 1951 from China my Russian parents stressed assimilation. We never moved near a Russian community but locked in with the locals. Initial references to us as reffos fell away with the years. Speaking the same language is most important because it leads into the same culture. We’re Australians first and foremost, any institutional mode to divide us should be resisted. That’s why I find it distressing that even in sport today we have indigenous rounds, multicultural rounds, they only serve to separate and are racist by definition. Assimilate, not divide.David
meanwhile there remains two classes of citizens, minorities who bleed welfare and Government funding and us poor mugs who pay the highest tax rates in the world to fund it. Then we are vilified for doing so and denied a real voice on pretty much anything. Yes if your a new or relatively recent immigrant to Australia – it’s utopia, not so for those of us who are forced to smile through clenched teeth at how wonderful it is. Because, quite frankly some cultures are not that easy to live side by side with, which while not being PC is the straight up truth.sandfly
Multiculturalism is for elitists, academics, dreamers and leaners …assimilation is for Australian lifters who know how to make things work.Patrick
Multiculturalism usually means a community with no Anglo-Celtics; something like a community that is mostly Lebanese with a few Sudanese, Afghans, Indians, or Samoans. Such will represent a very diverse community but its main source of income is welfare, that’s multiculturalism.Rick
If the government doesn’t dump 18C, it will make a complete mockery of this move.Gordon
“Practices and behaviours that undermine our values have no place in Australia.” This should read: “Religions and behaviours that undermine our values have no place in Australia.”Dannielle
Excellent first step however I think that adding that women are equal to men and men are not allowed to seek to control adult women should also be a clearly annunciated value. I just hope that our Government has the good sense to look at the Hong Kong and Singapore immigration models which allow working visas and an up to 7 years before residency before you can apply for citizenship. The citizenship is vigorous, with the applicant needing to PROVE that they have been employed, paid taxes, formed links to the existing community and have no criminal record AND most importantly no know associations with criminals. They get the best and brightest immigrants who are committed to integration and contributing because they demand it. We, on the other hand are importing expensive elderly people, family reunion ie “I just happened to have family here” but I have nothing in particular to offer and an ever growing welfare list. Our immigration in recent years has been run more like a charity than an expanding sovereign nation and the numbers are overwhelming to the existing population, infrastructure and services.Judith
Another Gillard bomb that has caused destructive damage requiring remediation action. Fancy defining our country as one based on welfare to all but not cohesion and a common lau gauge and set of values.John
Without repeal of 18C all the talk in the world is meaningless.Darren
Don’t care about multi-whatever you call it. I care about free speech and I care about integration. That is acceptance of certain set of standards/values that are non-negotiable. IF you don’t like it go shop for another country. There are plenty around.wayne
It seems so long ago that a public servant decided that Australia need to change so that those who came as immigrants didn’t have too. The new ‘multicultural ‘ Australia has since that time required the traditional Australian taxpayer to bend over and bare their a**e to be shafted. Apart from telling immigrants that they didn’t have learn English or adapt to the simple Australian life, Governments have flooded State and Federal Legislation with laws that actually attack the average Australian. With the laws came quangos and bodies such as then AHRC, which set out to enshrine the rights of immigrants over Australians. Those bodies, and the laws they persued are still in existence today. They are even oppose free speech! So in return, we are meant to celebrate that the Government is finally seeing the destruction that policies such as multiculturalism is causing. They are saying they see it and its many problems, plus other problems that have festered in Australians for over a decade. One thing hasn’t changed though! It’s the law! It doesn’t matter how much Turnbull talks about this because until he removes the legislation, including 18C, and shuts down, actually closes the various quangos and Commissions such as the AHRC, nothing has or will actually change. I’m won’t hold my breath for Turnbull to actually do something, other than talk of course.Dave Wane
In Australia, or in fact every country on the planet, people will discriminate every day for any number of reasons, regardless of whether there is a law against the many forms of discrimination. Should not a person be free to discriminate without being fearful of breaking the law? It begs the question: Do we need anti-discrimination laws? We certainly do not need an AHRC. As for citizenship requirements: It is our country and we should set the highest possible standards for gaining citizenship, including a reasonable standard of English and a strong understanding and appreciation of western civilisation.Bryan
A step in the right direction but meantime we continue importing huge numbers of ” refugees” who will never adopt our way of life and whose progeny make us less and less safe. Every time I go through security at my small country airport, where there used to be no security, I curse this blind adherence to multiculturalism and political correctness.Merv
Nothing has,or will change, the welfare, and services will still be the priority attracting migrants, and are a given. Until rules are applied to make welfare an earned entity it will be open slather !Donald T
Multiculturalism is true evil and destroys society and social cohesion. We are beginning to see the effects of this in Europe and it will only get worse. This statement released by the government, is in itself, a response to the failings of multiculturalism.Lex
I think a great deal was lost when the term “assimilation” became non-PC. If new arrivals are not prepared to make a written commitment to assimilate and integrate into our way of life, they should be invited to leave again. They need to leave their former “culture” behind and become Australians first and foremost. They must learn to speak English and adopt Australian values, practices and dress – the less they look and act different, the more they will be accepted by the mainstream population – that’s just a simple fact of human nature.
MARCH 16, 2017
READER BOOK PLUG: From Steven Kates, The Art of the Impossible: A Blog History of the Election of Donald J. Trump as President.
I also liked the comments of which there were only two three:
Jesse Hand Conroy •
Brilliant idea for a bookJquip •
“The Art of the Impossible”
I just found my favorite way to refer to the mission of the National Endowment for the Arts.kennycan •
THIS TIME FOR SURE!
THIS TIME FOR SURE!
THIS TIME FOR SURE!
THIS TIME FOR SURE!
THIS TIME FOR SURE!
THIS TIME FOR SURE!
THIS TIME FOR SURE!
THIS TIME FOR SURE!
THIS TIME FOR SURE!
THIS TIME FOR SURE!
THIS TIME FOR SURE!
THIS TIME FOR SURE!
WTF? HE WON?
I still think it’s greatest interest may even be in reading it a hundred years from now, assuming our civilisation survives. You just see how it happens which has an immense interest in itself, but only readers in the future will also be able to see how things went after the election was over.
Law of Markets 