Category Archives: Politics – international

Trump Derangement Syndrome

Posted on by
Reply

trump leak cartoon

It is annoying that even the brave Bill Leak is filled with Trump Derangement Syndrome. Apparently Melania told her speech writer that she admired Michelle Obama, the speech writer took a couple of passages from Michelle’s speech and put it in Melania’s and Donald Trump has refused to sack the speech writer. That this absolute nothing has become anything of the frenzied talking point it has is a reminder of how corrupt the media has become. It is also something of a sign of how little there really is to criticise Trump about that won’t resonate with most American voters.

Trump embraced the swirling attention.

“Good news is Melania’s speech got more publicity than any in the history of politics especially if you believe that all press is good press!” Trump said on Twitter.

What a maelstrom of contending views surround a presidential candidate. How anyone can keep a calm weather eye in the midst of it I’ll never know but Donald is more likely to do it than anyone.

Focusing on the small stuff

Posted on by
Reply

Reading the puppet columnists at The Australian – you know the ones, for example, who went after Tony Abbott on orders from their boss – is a trial that too often starts the day on the wrong foot. Here we have that empty vessel, Greg Sheridan going after Melania Trump’s speech writer for cribbing a passage from Michelle Obama. At least it wasn’t the passage where Michelle had said she was for the first time proud to be an American. So as we decide the fate of Western civilisation, this is what Sheridan writes: US Republican race: Donald Trump circus adds plagiarism to act. From which:

There were the rowdy demonstrations from anti-Trump ­Republicans, the powerful theme of Make America Safe Again, a stage entry from The Donald himself straight out of World Championship Wrestling, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani doing his version of “I’m Mad as Hell and I’m Not Gunna Take It Anymore”, and Melania Trump plagiarising her cliches from ­Michelle Obama. I didn’t know that anyone would bother to plagiarise cliches. After all, they’re cliches, right?

Given that Sheridan is repeating the identical meme from the left-media in the US, you can see how useless his analysis is going to be for the rest of the American presidential election. Nothing on Guiliani, for example. So for your interest, here is his speech which you will learn nothing about from reading The Oz.

Politics discussed – from Trump to Rand Paul

Posted on by
Reply

I am now listening to the Libertarian candidate for President, Gary Johnson. Former Governor of New Mexico whose Vice President would be the former Governor of Massachusetts. Warmish applause, and if he can’t do better here, he will not do well anywhere else. What can you do with someone who has just said the biggest international threat in the world is North Korea.

More to the point was “Trump Pro and Con: The YUGE Debate”. Wayne Allan Root and Dan Mangru versus Jeffery Tucker and Matt Welch. A year ago Trump was himself here whose favourite son was Rand Paul. Today, a full room who had no patience for any of the anti-Trump people. The issues that came up as questions:

Hillary
Supreme Court
Islam
immigration
pseudo-free trade

The vote by applause at the end was 90% Trump. The booing and catcalls from the audience for Tucker and Welch was amazing. Tucker literally tried to win the argument by declaring Trump is a fascist, about as empty an argument as I could imagine, but he had no other. His colleague began by stating that Hillary was unfit to be president, but then discussed Trump’s threats to Bezos and The Washington Post.

What has been astonishing in the six days I have been here is that I have not seen or heard a single pro-Trump story in the media.

Brent Bozell

This is now Brent Brozell discussing the media and the election. Trump, he says, understands what no Republican has understood re the media – you attack me, I attack you. The new approach by the national press has been not just to lie by statement but now there has been bias by omission. You all know about Benghazi, the IRS, the emails here, but in the media, it is deliberate misrepresentation.

Not one “investigative” reporter in seven and a half years has looked at Barack Obama. We are in the middle of the greatest communication technological innovation, with the social media now connecting 80% of the world. In 2012, Obama spent most of his money on social media. It is this that the right will have to do to overcome the left-media.

Rand Paul

And now Rand Paul. Starts with Brexit – he not only thinks they should have left, he thinks they should never have joined. Talks about the EU Regulated Man from Brexit the Movie. Regs is like being surrounded by invisible barbed wire. US predicament is not much different.

The presidency is a thousand-fold more powerful than Congress. No one wishes to pull it back. But the lesson from history is that power corrupts. Need to surround the power of government with invisible barbed wire.

Brings up the surveillance state. FBI wants judgeless-warrants. Needed 60 votes to pass and got to 58 on the Senate floor. And then there was twenty minutes to find another two. Ultimately failed but close.

The question remains, how can we have a constitutional republic. The question he now has is, “are we doomed”? The majority can now plunder the minority. We can continue but will only work if most Americans still have hope in the American dream. Will only survive if the majority continue to believe in the capacity in self-advancement. People must believe they can be personally successful.

I look at immigrants are assets. Must offer migrants and children of migrants the promise of success. Individuals must believe they can succeed. We should leave their tax money with individuals. If we don’t voters will be seeking wealth by voting.

Conclude: it is harder to sell our message. But that is what has to happen.

In answer to a question on Trump v Clinton, very weak support, based on no more than his promise at the debates to support the eventual nominee.

What did socialists use before they had candles?

Posted on by
Reply

Electricity!

A joke I heard at a wonderful Freedomfest presentation on “The Intellectual Battle for South America”. Here, however, the central question was not about economics but about philosophy. The basis for the talk:

If the evidence of failure is so striking, why keep trying with different forms of socialism?

Their answer: because it’s not about economics but about philosophy and psychology. It’s a moral question, with the almost universal mantra in South America contrary to a market based economy. Two quotes of interest which help sum up the problem. First Eva Peron:

Where there is a need there is a right.

And then from a poster that does seem to help make sense of Venezuela:

If you think greed is bad, wait till you hear about capitalism.

The perfect way to remain very poor but also extremely resentful. I was more than primed for this by my airplane book which I picked up in an op shop just before I left.

Socialism and International Economic Order by Elizabeth Tamedly

I had never come across even its title before, nor the author, but I cannot recommend it highly enough. You see it in South America but unless we are all very careful, what she describes may be coming to a country very near to you very soon.

“Free movement of people is simply incompatible with democracy”

Posted on by
Reply

This is from a commentary on an interview in The New York Times with Michael Ignatieff, someone who almost defines the meaning of the word globalist, and titled, “Who Belongs?”.

Q. Brexit took a lot of people by surprise as a specific political event, but also as an expression of some larger trends. One of those is rising nationalism despite globalization and the development of cross-border institutions like the European Union. Where are these coming from?

A. One thought that does strike me is: Why should we be surprised?

Globalization and a borderless world have been terrific for the educated, the young, the mobile, the multilingual, the multicultural. But globalization has been really tough for people whose jobs are tied to a community, whose mobility is limited by limited education, and — more positively — whose first allegiance is to their community, their locality, their place of birth.

Cosmopolitans are perpetually surprised that, A, they’re only 1 percent of the population, and, B, most people don’t think like them. …

They feel the global, mobile, cosmopolitan world is simply out of reach. Not only out of reach, but malign, in the sense that the global cosmopolitan elite are the people who are shipping the jobs out. …

This is a story not just about nationalism. It’s also a story about inequality. The division between cosmopolitans and nationalists is going to define the 21st century. Brexit is not just a little hiccup on the path toward a bright cosmopolitan future. Nor is nationalism. Cosmopolitans continually condescend to nationalism, but my patriotic pride is your nationalism, right?

Q. But if nationalism comes from positive feelings of pride and connection to one’s community, why does that often seem to manifest in fears of immigration as a threat to that community, as it did with Brexit?

A. The issue always is: Who belongs?

In many ways, global migration is exacerbating the salience of the division between a citizen and a stranger. Citizens are saying everywhere, “The one thing that political community means to me, the one thing a nation means to me, is control of my borders and the right to define who comes in and who doesn’t.”

Brexit was an amazing spectacle in which people who are recent immigrants, Indians, Pakistanis in origin, were saying, “No more Poles.” These were citizens saying: “We’ve lost control of our frontiers. Free movement of people is simply incompatible with democracy. It’s incompatible with the self-determination of peoples.”

That’s what nationalism is: “Take back control, control of our borders. Take back control of our economy.”

The problem, in a globalized world, is that all control is relative.

And here’s some more.

I do think that there’s a real disconnect between an international cosmopolitan discourse about rights — the rights of migrants, the rights of refugees — versus the way in which ordinary people in most democracies see this question.

For ordinary people, a citizen’s relation to a stranger is a gift relationship, not a rights relationship.

They think it’s up to the citizen to decide who gets in. It’s up to the citizen who decides what the boundaries of a political community are.

That’s what democracy means to them. That’s what democracy promises them: control of borders and the handing out of discretionary gifts to those they decide belong in the community.

There are a lot of Brexiters who think a decent country is generous to strangers, is compassionate to strangers. But that’s the language of the gift. That’s not a language of rights. This is an emerging theme that a lot of liberal cosmopolitan politicians — and I have been one! — didn’t understand.

This is a key element of this nationalist turn. We’ve all been slow to see that happening, but that’s a big trend going down, the distinction between rights and gifts. It helps to understand that.

Hillary no charges, unsurprisingly

Posted on by
Reply

VIDEO UPDATE: The video has been added as an update. Quite, quite extraordinary, specially since Comey makes it clear that anyone else doing the same would be prosecuted.

Almost no one I know that I talk to about it has any idea what the issues are. So why should you be surprised that no prosecution will follow. Here is the story at The Daily Mail, since you won’t find it covered in much detail in the American media: Clinton cleared on email scandal by FBI – despite sending and receiving top-secret information on a server which was ‘possibly’ hacked by America’s enemies. The word “possibly” in quotes means its not theirs but the Department of “Justice”.

The reality is that every email sent and received by Hillary was illegally kept on a private server which also meant, firstly, that every email she sent and received was monitored by every foreign agency across the world and secondly, that much of what she wrote is unavailable for others within the American political system to review, should they actually wish to. Naturally Donald Trump has criticised. I imagine most others will say hardly a word. Whatever else, the story has already blown over even before it became a story.

Meanwhile, on Instapundit, The IRS Scandal, Day 1153. The US political system is corrupt to its very core, but the complicity between the Democrats and the media will ensure no issue is ever allowed to blow up about anything that harms its party of choice. Again from Instapundit, the media are Democrat Operatives with Bylines.

BTW the story at Instapundit is titled, The fix was in all along which is, of course, true but hardly pictures the gravity of the story. From the comments:

1) The most mendacious paragraph of the whole statement: “In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”

She set up the server explicitly in a premeditated attempt to obstruct justice, in order to at a minimum, deny Freedom of Information requests. I would say this outcome is unbelievable, but I have realized since November 2012 there is no organization of government not utterly corrupted by this President and his cabal. USA RIP

2) This goes beyond, far beyond, Prosecutorial Discretion……We’re deep into “Parador” country here.
We no longer have a Criminal Justice System, buy a System of Justice of Criminals!

3) The worst national security breach in the history of the US doesn’t warrant anything more than a shoulder shrug from the DOJ.

Disgusting. If she were a Republican they’d be literally calling for her head on a pike.

Not much heat in the response, only resignation about that is how things are.

AND LET ME JUST ADD THIS: This is taken from Lucianne where it was picked up from Gateway Pundit so it is from the more respectable side of the conservative blog world. The article is titled, Coincidence? UN Official “Accidentally” Crushes Throat and Dies Before Testifying Against Hillary Clinton. Well, in fact, the story goes back to Zero Hedge where the article begins:

Call it conspiracy theory, coincidence or just bad luck, but any time someone is in a position to bring down Hillary Clinton by testifying they wind up dead. In fact, there’s a long history of Clinton-related body counts, with scores of people dying under mysterious circumstances.

I do not think any of it is true, but I do find it interesting that it is being said and repeated outside the National Enquirer.

FURTHER VIDEO UPDATE: This is Donald Trump in his own more direct version of the contrast between what Comey said and what Hillary said. Trump’s video, which can be seen at this link, has already had more than five million hits. Below is the same taken from Youtube.

Entebbe – 40 years on

Posted on by
Reply

entebbe memorial

A statue in Uganda of Benjamin Netanyahu’s brother Jonathan, who was killed in the Entebbe raid

For me, the anniversary is on the sixth of July 1976 which is the day the news of the raid at Entebbe reached us here in Australia. Today is the fortieth anniversary of that moment. To show how the world does change, the commemorative service, addressed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – whose brother led the raid and was killed by the terrorists – spoke at Entebbe on the anniversary.

Monday’s ceremony at the scene of the raid was attended by some of the rescued hostages and Israeli special forces who carried out the operation.

Mr Netanyahu said: “Exactly 40 years ago Israeli soldiers carried out the historic mission in Entebbe. Forty years ago they landed in the dead of night in a country led by a brutal dictator who gave refuge to terrorists. Today we landed in broad daylight to be welcomed by a president who fights terrorism.”

His elder brother, Jonathan, was shot dead as he led the operation to free hostages, who had been taken captive on an Air France flight by Palestinian and German militants.

For those who do not know of this moment, the story is told as the story of Yoni Netanyahu, the Prime Minister’s brother, who led the raid on an exhilarating day I have never forgotten.

Who will save us from the experts?

Posted on by
Reply

There are two articles paired at Instapundit that really do capture the Brexit moment. The first is It’s Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses which is exactly what the article is about and is offered without the slightest sense of irony or humility. Here is the para that captures it all:

The Republican Party, already rife with science-deniers and economic reality-deniers, has thrown itself into the embrace of a man who fabricates realities that ignorant people like to inhabit.

These are the experts: global warmists and Keynesians! Who would trust such expertise? Reading the comments at Instapundit shows the level of distrust with such people. Here are a couple:

It’s funny how they keep harping on Nigel Farage supposedly lying to the British voters in order to win their votes. The nerve of such people! Why, progressives and neofeudalists would never dare do such a thing!

Ted Kennedy, on the 1965 immigration: “The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”

Ted Kennedy, on the 1986 amnesty: “This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.”

Yet suddenly Leftists are insisting on truth in advertising laws for politicians. If they want to roll back every left-wing lie of the last six decades they can gladly have a redo on Thursday’s vote.

And then there’s this:

Homogeneous societies are happier. They have much higher social trust and a good deal more willingness and less resentment in looking after their have-nots. Multi cultural societies rob people of a true sense of belonging. The lions share of what is good in life has nothing to do with money and economics. A nation is more than just a souless shopping mall packed with culturally atomized individuals. The elites are indifferent to the cultural destruction they have wrought in their blindered pursuit of a few more pieces of silver and a lot more centralized control. Globalization is a disaster of epic proportions. It can only end in tyranny.

All right. One more:

I *do* believe in reason, expertise, and the lessons of history. However, the “elite” are more wedded to their delusions and power than any of the above. Fer crissake, the people who claim to be “believers” in evolution are now pushing the idea that “male” and “female” are entirely learned! Their learning the “lessons of history” is to ignore the lesson of WWII — when lunatics promise to kill you *BELIEVE THEM*!

And expertise? At what? Fraud, extortion, ginning up hatred? Keeping their hands clean of the violence they incite? At laundering money for their elections through an “education” system that leaves those most in need of an education barely literate and trained to hate?

OK. Another, they are so addictive.

“Science deniers”? Which party thinks “male” and “female” are learned traits and surgically alterable? Which clings to a prediction of ever-rising temperatures despite more than a decade of no change? Which clings to a demonization of CO2 when there simply isn’t any more energy CO2 can “trap”?

There is expertise in how to fix a broken sewer pipe. There is similarly expertise in how to take out an appendix. But expert opinion on social, political and economic issues? I’m afraid that wherever self-interest plays a hand in the decisions of experts, their reliability is not to be trusted. Which is why a democratic process, where the rulers must seek the endorsement of the ruled, remains the only way a modern society should be run.