You know, I cannot even begin to think of a title that can capture how surreal this is

Posted on by
Reply

The story comes with a title that exactly captures what an American president can now say in public: OBAMA: ‘THERE’S LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMUNISM AND CAPITALISM’. And it is not just that the American president is a vacuous cypher, but that it has been evident from the beginning that everything he said today is what he has always believed. That it will only be the usual suspects who are riled by these words that is the disaster. Since he can say them without much worry about capsizing his presidential boat, you now know a very great deal about the country that elected him, its education system, and possibly about why the American economy refuses to recover.

Obama responded to a question about nonprofit community organizations and the necessity of attracting funding from both the public and private sectors.

“So often in the past there has been a division between left and right, between capitalists and communists or socialists, and especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate,” Obama said.

“Those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it really fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. You should just decide what works,” he added.

Obama went on to praise Cuba’s socialist system under dictator Raúl Castro, touting the country’s free access to basic education and health care, although he acknowledged that Havana itself “looks like it did in the 1950s” because the economy is “not working”.

A phenomenon of idiocy. And it is not just the march through the institutions, but comes right down to the way we teach economics that he can be as ignorant as he is since it is an ignorance now shared with many. That the article merely states that Obama “has stoked controversy” shows even the writer of the story sees nothing much out of the ordinary. It’s not even the feature story at Drudge where this was found.

ISIS is not a group it’s an ideology

Posted on by
Reply

The central problem is that the smug European/Western mentality believes that what he seeks is an impossibility. Hardly any story there at the link and the title is inane: We talked to an ex-ISIS fighter in Belgium, and what he said was chilling. It’s not chilling to him; it’s what he is willing to die for.

His dream to “live underneath an Islamic caliphate, underneath Islamic law” would soon become a reality in Europe. ISIS’s brand of militant Islam would not be denied, he said, because “ISIS is not a group, it’s an ideology.”

And just what is it that will prevent this from coming true, do you think, over let us say the next sixty years?

We have had a declaration of war and we know their war aims: Islamic State video calls for jihad after Brussels blasts.

“Every Muslim who is well aware of the history of Islam, knows that the holy war against infidels is an integral part of Islam, and those who read history would know.”

And those who do not read history can watch as it happens around them as they sleep. All that stands between you and this kind of fate is a billionaire property developer from New York who our elites disdain because he is not one of them. See the ISIS recruitment video below in which the voice of Donald Trump shines as the only piece of sanity found anywhere in this horrific mess.

Beyond parody

Posted on by
Reply

From the Herald-Sun, sent to me by my wife so I cannot link. But I can still type:

The star of a US TV political comedy says she has been left “dumbstruck” that Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull has adopted one of its “meaningless” slogans.

Julia Louis-Dreyfus, who plays a US vice-president in Veep, made the remarks on her twitter account about Mr. Turnbull’s adoption of the line “continuity and change”.

The writer of the HBO series, Simon Blackwell, accused the Prime Minister of copying the slogan.

“In season four we came up with the most meaningless election slogan we could think of. Now adopted by Australian PM, Blackwell tweeted in astonishment.

This seems totally unfair. Malcolm is more than capable of coming up with the most meaningless election slogans all on his own. After the next election, he can take up a new post as a comedy writer in Hollywood. But I have to admit that I find this fits perfectly into my own image of the depth and breadth the PM has shown in everything else he has done.

Why only Number 3?

Posted on by
Reply

I am going to have to stop reading The AFR while trying to eat my lunch if they keep coming up with articles like this: PM Malcolm Turnbull comes in No. 3 on President Barack Obama’s best-friends list. I can see why they might have an affinity for each other. What gets me is why Obama’s high approval is not the kiss of death for Malcolm.

President Obama may be in Havana but Malcolm Turnbull can relax knowing he’s one of the top three world leaders on the president’s besties list.

The Atlantic magazine writes that the man in the White House “has intense relationships with many world leaders – and he has become, in his last years as president, a mentor to a handful of important new ones”.

The magazine put world leaders “on a continuum reflecting the state of their relations with Obama”, and Turnbull, who’s only been in the job six months, places quite well coming in third after Pope Francis and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

It is clear that Obama can spot a kindred spirit, another empty-headed narcissist lacking any ideas other than the cookie-cutter inanities of the left. Global warming – check. Open borders – check. Runaway public spending – check.

But the part about Obama’s comments on Malcolm that I found most noteworthy is that I only saw them mentioned once and then only in a small article on page 7 of The AFR. It can only mean that even for the ABC, an endorsement from Obama brings no political momentum whatsoever. This might help you understand why that could be:

Just outside the top 10 are more controversial choices, including Cuban dictator Raul Castro at No. 11, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who placed twelfth, and at No. 13, Nicaragua’s “tiresome Marxist ideologue” and president Daniel Ortega.

You really do have to ask why Obama’s views have not wrecked the Democrat brand? Anyway, Obama will be gone in a year. Yay!

UPDATE – THE MOST DEPRAVED POLITICAL LEADER EVER ELECTED IN THE WEST: That year cannot pass soon enough. This is from an article titled, For Obama, Muted Reaction to Brussels Attacks Is by Design, with the non-reaction having occurred while he was in Cuba visiting a country that has been a one-man dictatorship since 1959!

In the aftermath of a deadly terror attack that stirred Americans’ concerns about the potential for threats to the U.S., President Barack Obama pressed ahead with his tour of Latin America, including a planned family excursion in Patagonia.

Mr. Obama’s public appearance of nonchalance has drawn criticism from Republicans that he is detached from Americans’ fears and isn’t sufficiently countering violent extremism. But his approach partly reflects his belief that overreacting to a terrorist attack—however horrific—elevates extremist groups like Islamic State in a way that exaggerates their influence, his aides have said.

Also driving Mr. Obama is his view that the threat of terrorism in Americans’ daily lives often is overstated, and that the focus on it could become self-paralyzing and an excuse to adopt misguided policies. His aides often note that many more Americans are killed by gun violence than terrorist attacks, for instance.

Mr. Obama, asked about the Islamic State threat Wednesday at a news conference in Buenos Aires with Argentine President Mauricio Macri, urged Americans not to give terrorist groups the power “to strike fear in our societies.”

“Even as we are systematic and ruthless and focused in going after them, disrupting their networks, getting their leaders, rolling up their operations, it is very important for us to not respond with fear,” he said. “We send a message to those that might be inspired by them to say, you are not going to change our values of liberty, and openness, and the respect of all people.”

If you voted for Obama, or supported him either in 2008 or 2012, your right to comment on the 2016 election is hereby rescinded.

Henry Clay, economist

Posted on by
Reply

Adapted from Henry Clay’s entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Jewkes and Jewkes: 2004) for an article I have written on Clay’s incomparable introductory text, Economics: an Introduction for the General Reader, which I have described as the best introductory text ever written. Only those sections related to his work as an economist have been included. The text while truncated is exactly as found. It is the Clay whom I well know from his text, and it is interesting to find that, given how similar we are, I may be properly categorised as a Gladstonian Liberal. Strangely, that very much makes me a conservative in modern times.

Clay, Sir Henry (1883–1954), economist, was born on 9 May 1883. He went as a scholar to University College, Oxford, [graduating] in 1902. Between 1909 and 1917 he lectured for the Workers’ Educational Association under the university extension scheme, an experience that led to the writing of Economics: an Introduction for the General Reader (1916; 2nd edn, 1942). The book had great success, especially in Great Britain and the United States, and, by reason of its clarity and real-world examples, broadened public interest in economic matters.

In 1922 Clay became the Stanley Jevons professor of political economy at Manchester. In 1927 Clay asked to exchange his chair for the new professorship of social economics. He perceived that applied economics could be strengthened by closer regular contacts between economists and business people.

Clay was not a foremost economic theorist. Indeed, he often expressed doubts about the value of much of the theorizing then in fashion. As he told Edwin Cannan, another leading economist who shared his structural diagnosis of Britain’s industrial problems, he always felt that as a Professor of Economics I was a fraud … My reading of English economics has been scrappy … I don’t know enough mathematics to follow our Cambridge friends, however suspicious I may be of their results; and I cannot suppress my interest in current political and social questions sufficiently to stick to any one part of the field of economics and so do some serious work on it.

In 1930 Clay resigned his chair to join the Bank of England. Clay’s shrewd advice and his knack of getting on with people, especially with Montagu Norman, led to his appointment in 1933 [at the very trough of the Great Depression] as economic adviser to the governor of the Bank of England. Clay and Norman shared the opinion that, necessary as was a proper budgetary and monetary framework, financial ingenuity by governments in the form of large-scale loan-financed public works did not offer a long-term solution to the problems of British industry. They believed that the solution lay more on the supply side, where widespread inefficiencies in the use of capital and labour resulted in high costs and low productivity, problems that were being addressed by the bank in its promotion of industrial rationalization.

Clay’s writings from his first and famous book in 1916 to the papers unfinished at his death show the main lines of his thinking unbroken. He was in many ways a Gladstonian Liberal, believing that private enterprise was the most efficient form of organizing production, that the liberty of the individual would be endangered by the continued growth of government, and that Britain should maintain its historic internationalism in its economic policies. His views diverged from the main stream of contemporary Liberal economic thought in at least two ways: in his doubts about the practical results of the Keynesian solution to unemployment or more especially of the views of some of Keynes’s disciples; secondly, concerning industrial monopoly. Clay was not prepared to agree that a competitive system would inevitably degenerate into monopoly unless safeguarded by the state: anti-monopoly legislation in his view was unnecessary, inexpedient, and inequitable.

Although in later years he became something of a man of affairs, he retained the habits and enthusiasms of the scholar; nor might he be mistaken for anything else. He could never resist a second-hand bookshelf and he collected a large library, which included many bargains.

Do you think that just maybe he’s on to something?

Posted on by
Reply

This was published on January 27 in The New York Times: Donald Trump Finds New City to Insult: Brussels. It opens:

He incensed Paris and London by saying that some of their neighborhoods were so overrun with radicals that the police were too scared to enter.

He raised Scottish tempers by threatening to pull the plug on his investments there, including his luxury golf courses, if British politicians barred him from entering Britain.

Now Donald J. Trump has upset the already beleaguered people of Belgium, calling its capital, Brussels, “a hellhole.”

Asked by the Fox Business Network anchor Maria Bartiromo about the feasibility of his proposal to bar foreign Muslims from entering the United States, Mr. Trump argued that Belgium and France had been blighted by the failure of Muslims in these countries to integrate.

“There is something going on, Maria,” he said. “Go to Brussels. Go to Paris. Go to different places. There is something going on and it’s not good, where they want Shariah law, where they want this, where they want things that — you know, there has to be some assimilation. There is no assimilation. There is something bad going on.”

Warming to his theme, he added that Brussels was in a particularly dire state. “You go to Brussels — I was in Brussels a long time ago, 20 years ago, so beautiful, everything is so beautiful — it’s like living in a hellhole right now,” Mr. Trump continued.

Feel free to go to the link and continue from there.

[From SmallDeadAnimals]

What now?

Posted on by
Reply

brussels terrorists

We all know the news:

EXPLOSIONS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, SUBWAY…
‘Allahu Akbar’…
RAIDS UNDERWAY ACROSS BELGIUM…
‘Shocking’ Unpreparedness…
INTERIOR MINISTER: ‘Never could have imagined something of this scale’…
Brussels Ran Ad Mocking Notion of Islamic Violence 2 Months Ago…
FLASHBACK: ISIS Says Paris ‘Start of Storm’…
MAG: Islamic State Overwhelming European Counterterrorism Forces…
Geert Wilders: ‘We Ain’t Seen Nothin Yet’…
Belgium beefs up security at nuke plants…
Aftermath footage shows terrified travelers cowering behind suitcases…
Europe vows to defend democracy on ‘black day’…
American missionaries, military family among wounded…
Attack narrowly missed two visiting U.S. Senators…
Attacks Fuel Debate Over Migrants in Fractured Europe…

The real questions are, what do they want and what do we do?

AND THE VIEWS OF DONALD TRUMP: From Piers Morgan and in The Daily Mail: When it comes to terror, isn’t it time we started listening seriously to Trump?

Trump told me countries must tighten their borders in light of these terror attacks, especially to anyone related to an ISIS fighter in Syria.

Is he so wrong?

He told me he wants law-abiding Muslims to root out the extremists in their midst, expressing his bafflement and anger that someone like Abdeslam was able to hide for so long in the very part of Brussels he had previously lived.

Is he so wrong?

He told me America must make it far harder for illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. and thinks European countries should follow suit.

Is he so wrong?

He told me he believes there are now areas of many major European cities which have become poisonous breeding grounds for radicalized Islamic terror.

Is he so wrong?

Or we could just stand still and do nothing.

“It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory”

Posted on by
Reply

It has been frightening to go through the usual blogs I consult to find unanimity – 100% unanimity – in their opposition to Donald Trump as President. I do find it upsetting, but I am used to it, having had the same experience with Margaret Thatcher in 1979 and Ronald Reagan in 1980. The same again in opposing Obama in 2008 and 2012, where I don’t recall anyone I personally knew or regularly read going for McCain and Romney. I therefore went looking today at The Diplomad who has been pretty reliable up until now, but then again, so has everyone else, up until now. And this is his conclusion, found here:

For now, I’ll go with Donald Trump.

Pretty good, and a standout for me, making me feel I can trust him when things are less clear cut than now. He has more explanation for his view, always worth listening to in the past, and apparently still is:

I had been sitting uncomfortably on the fence re the GOP candidates. After listening to the Romney speech and the other “establishment” types, and hearing the anchor pundits, the pundit anchors, and all the other assorted wise ones, I have jumped off the fence. I have landed in Trump’s farm. He is not perfect, far from it. I might even change my mind, but for now I support Trump.

I don’t know if Trump will be terrible; I do know that what we have right now is horrible beyond words. I can’t bear the thought of a Hillary presidency. I know, I know. I have seen the advice about letting the Dems have the White House, and the GOP will hold the Congress, and thus freeze Hillary in place. Don’t buy it. We have seen what has happened over the past few years when the Dems did not have the Congress; we have seen the enormous damage that a progressive President can do even without Congressional approval. In addition, we have seen that the GOP members of the Washington Cartel refuse to fight Obama on what counts. So, I don’t want another Democratic White House.

That was on March 3rd and he has not recanted thus far. Most intriguing, almost all of the commenters have agreed with his decision, and one has even given me a real laugh:

I am reminded of W. Edwards Deeming’s famous quote: ‘It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory.’

So the GOP establishment’s much anticipated comeback strategy is to drag from the political grave reserved for failed presidential nominees the man who could not get out, or win, sufficient votes in 2012, to stage a hit on Trump, who is winning, and in the process drawing out new GOP voters, all when the DNC’s turnout is collapsing.

Seriously, what could possibly go wrong? The stupidity is breathtaking.

Beyond insanity.

Donald Trump speaks on Israel

Posted on by
Reply

I thought this might be worth seeing on its own rather than as an update to my previous post on TDS. Aside from this being a speech that puts the state of New York into play in November, it has clearly been worked on by others in his foreign policy team. It is both sophisticated and measured, but it is also from the heart. For a change, a conviction politician in the mould of Margaret Thatcher, but someone, also like her, who can get things done and is every inch a conservative. It’s less than half an hour long, and here you will discover a Donald Trump you have not seen before.

UPDATE: From The American Spectator, which begins with the now pro forma declaration of a preference for Cruz: Republicans: Who are You?. And this is the choice. First on the Republican side:

The people who attend Trump rallies and vote for him generally are conservative — fiscally and culturally. They hate big government, they are highly patriotic and wave flags, they hate taxes, affirmative action, gun control, government debt, climate change deals that destroy American jobs, ‎government waste, welfare, political correctness, trade deals they think give away the store, and illegal immigration. They are people who work for a living, are economically stressed out, and see what Obama has done to America economically and culturally and they don’t like it at all. You’d be surprised how many blacks, veterans, soccer moms, and legal immigrants you see at a Trump rally.

And then there is Hillary:

Now many in the party are making the absurd argument that even Hillary Clinton in the White House would be better than Trump.

Huh? This is the Hillary Clinton that wants to raise tax rates to 50 percent or more, is in favor of abortion on demand with no exceptions, wants trillions of dollars of new spending and debt, would shut down America’s oil and gas and coal production, will double down on Obamacare, and was the architect of the disastrous Obama foreign policy of leading from behind. Other than that, apparently, she’s conservative enough.

These independent think-for-themselves types who call themselves conservative but would vote for Hillary give me the impression they have never thought anything not first endorsed by the ABC.