UK CLIMATE CHANGE ACT IS HARMING THE POOR

TEN YEARS ON, UK CLIMATE CHANGE ACT IS HARMING THE POOR

https://www.thegwpf.org/ten-years-on-uk-climate-change-act-is-harming-the-poor/

Leo McKinstry: "The EU is stuck in permanent crisis"

Leo McKinstry´s description of the state of the European Union is spot on:

The EU is stuck in permanent crisis, wrecked by its federalist dogma, economic mismanagement and lack of democratic accountability.
The single currency has become an engine of crippling debts, mass unemployment and stalled growth, while the EU’s model of social protection is hopelessly uncompetitive and unsustainable.
The EU makes up just seven per cent of the world’s population yet incredibly accounts for more than 50 per cent of the world’s welfare spending.
Similarly the EU’s obsession with open borders has only succeeded in fanning the flames of division and extremism, the opposite of its goal of unity. In fact the very existence of European civilisation is now under threat thanks to Brussels’ determination to import alien cultures on an industrial scale.
It is the EU, not Britain, that is heading for catastrophe. We have nothing to be frightened of alone, even without a deal, whereas the EU’s own survival is at risk.

Read the entire column here.

Bjørn Lomborg: The Paris climate agreement will cost at least one hundred trillion dollars - and reduce temperature by three tenths of one degree in 2100

Danish statistician Bjørn Lomborg has made a video in which he shows the negligible end result of the much praised Paris climate agreement, in case everything goes according to plans (which is highly unlikely):

'We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree...the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years...Again, that is using the UN's own climate prediction model.'

Fake science: NOAA manipulating data in order to exaggerate global warming

What many have suspected already for a long time turns out to be true: NOAA has published data, which knowingly exaggerates global warming:

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

Read the entire Mail on Sunday article here.

Breitbart´s Thomas Williams comments on the Mail on Sunday article:

The Obama administration, which persistently denied that a climate debate even existed, channeled billions of federal dollars into programs and studies that supported its claims, while silencing contrary opinions.
Thomas Karl, the lead author on the Pausebuster paper, had a longstanding relationship with President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren, giving him a “hotline to the White House.” Holdren was an ardent advocate of vigorous measures to curb emissions.
“In reality, it’s the government, not the scientists, that asks the questions,” said David Wojick, an expert on climate research spending and a longtime government consultant.
Federal agencies order up studies that focus on their concerns, so politics ends up guiding science according to its particular interests.
“Government actions have corrupted science, which has been flooded by money to produce politically correct results,” said Dr. William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
“It is time for governments to finally admit the truth about global warming. Warming is not the problem. Government action is the problem,” he said.
NOAA, the world’s leading source of climate data, not only produced a severely flawed study for political motives, it also mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data.
Not long after the study’s publication, the US House of Representatives Science Committee initiated an inquiry into its claims that no pause in global warming had existed. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.
President Donald Trump has pledged he will withdraw from the Paris Agreement that binds signer countries to a series of stringent measures to lessen emissions.

Larry Kudlow: "President Trump has the potential to be a transformational figure"

Larry Kudlow, who describes himself as "an old Ronald Reagan guy" focuses on the real message in president Donald Trump´s inauguration speech:

In all the media back and forth over President Donald Trump's inaugural speech, most have missed a central point: His address was infused with a wonderful sense of optimism.
As an old Ronald Reagan guy, I have learned through the years that optimism equals true leadership. And yes, true leadership cannot be achieved without optimism.

Toward the end of his speech, Trump said, "We must think big and dream even bigger." To understand Trump and his message on Inauguration Day is to appreciate the importance of that sentence.
He then added: "The time for empty talk is over. Now arrives the hour of action. Do not let anyone tell you it cannot be done. No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America. We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again." --

Trump and Reagan are very different people. And Trump's governing style will be nothing like Reagan's. But the underlying principle of optimism is the same.
"Finally, we must think big and dream even bigger," he said. How quintessentially American is that? Can we return to being the proverbial City Upon a Hill? Yes, we can.
For these reasons I believe President Trump has the potential to be a transformational figure. And he is moving fast. His actions and energy in just the first couple of days have been remarkable.
Everywhere he repeats the theme of economic growth with lower taxes and fewer burdensome regulations. The war on business is over. We will reward success, not punish it.
He talks bilateral trade deals that can be enforced. He is freezing federal hiring, proposing to cut government spending $10.5 trillion over 10 years, doing away with Obamacare mandates, getting the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines in place, welcoming a constant flow of visitors from businesses and unions and taking calls from foreign heads of state.

Read the entire article here.

Renowned Princeton physicist William Happer: Predicted moderate global warming "will be beneficial"

Princeton physicist, professor William Happer has long been one of the most outspoken critics of the "scientific consensus" on global warming. Despite all the scare propaganda about the "warmest ever" years, the truth is that a possible moderate warming will be beneficial to humanity:

"Global warming is a well-established fact. This statement is only half true. A more correct statement would be “global warming and global cooling are both well-established facts.” The earth is almost always warming or cooling. Since the year 1800, the earth has warmed by about 1° C, with much of the warming taking place before much increase of atmospheric CO2. There was a quite substantial cooling from about 1940 to 1975. There has been almost no warming for the past 20 years when the CO2 levels have increased most rapidly. The same alternation of warming and cooling has characterized the earth’s climate for all of geological history.
…more CO2 will be a benefit to humanity. The predicted warming from more CO2 is grossly exaggerated. The equilibrium warming from doubling CO2 is not going to be 3° C, which might marginally be considered a problem, but closer to 1° C, which will be beneficial. One should not forget that the “global warming” is an average value. There will be little warming in the tropics and little warming at midday. What warming occurs will be mostly in temperate and polar regions, and at night. This will extend the agricultural growing season in many countries like Canada, Scandinavia, and Russia. More CO2 greatly increases the efficiency of photosynthesis in plants and makes land plants more drought-resistant. So, the net result of more CO2 will be strongly beneficial for humanity."

Read the entire article here

Former NATO secretary-general Fogh Rasmussen: "President Trump can restore America’s global leadership"

I have always had the greatest respect for Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former Danish PM and former NATO secretary-general. His latest article on the incoming Trump administration is truly worth reading:

The intellectual elites in much of the Western world are still shell-shocked by Donald Trump’s election victory in November. However, instead of squawking nervously about every tweet, astute political observers should focus on the underlying political dynamics in the coming months and years.
The elites would do well to remember that populism is often based on a core of truth. Rather than ostracize populists, establishment parties are often better off welcoming them and working with them. The government I led in Denmark between 2001 and 2009 was based on a successful coalition of so-called populists and established center-right parties. We didn't agree on every issue, but together we were able to reform the welfare state, improve our immigration laws, and back the U.S.-led coalitions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most importantly, we dealt a cultural blow to political correctness and bureaucratic elitism.
The emerging Trump coalition of conservative activists has broad appeal in America, which remains a fundamentally center-right nation politically. Barring significant errors of execution, Donald Trump has the potential to stabilize American politics and restore reliable American leadership to the world stage in the coming years.
So far, Trump has made several personnel appointments that present a more nuanced picture of future U.S. foreign policy than superficial media coverage suggests. He has brought in many globally respected figures from business and the military. These strong leaders won't tolerate a weak and meek America. And personnel is policy, as the saying goes.

I believe President Trump will be unorthodox, challenge the status quo and look at the global stage with fresh eyes. If applied wisely, this could be an effective approach. Let’s take military spending as one example. It would be disastrous to abandon U.S. allies in Europe, but Trump is right to point out that the U.S. is paying a disproportionate share of total defense costs in the NATO alliance. Trump’s unambiguity on this issue combined with Russia’s saber rattling have sent shock waves through many European countries. Most recently, Latvia and Lithuania have taken concrete steps to reach the 2% defense target in 2018. Others are likely to follow suit.

Read the entire article here.

Hungary´s PM Viktor Orbán: 2017 "will be the year of revolt for European democracy"

The much vilified Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán´s prediction for 2017 is spot on:

“Hungary is a stable island in the turbulent western world because the people were consulted on their opinions here, and we defended the country against illegal immigration.
“This will continue in 2017, which will be the year of revolt for European democracy.
“In many cities in Western Europe people now have no peace of mind, crimes against women rapidly multiply and the terror threat skyrockets.
“This shakes the confidence and self-esteem of the Western world. The economic slowdown, crime, terrorism, migration, indecision and insincere speech all adds up, and Western leaders won’t provide the answers.”

Read the entire article here.

The truth about the Soviet Union and "building socialism" worlwide: 200 million people died

 On the 25th anniversary of the end of the Soviet Union, professor Richard M. Eberling has written a must read article on what this experiment in "building socialism" resulted in:

December 24, 2016 marks the 25th anniversary of the formal end of the Soviet Union as a political entity on the map of the world. A quarter of a century ago, the curtain was lowered on the 75-year experiment in “building socialism” in the country where it all began following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, led by Vladimir Lenin in November 1917.

Some historians have estimated that as many as 200 million people worldwide may have died as part of the 20th century dream of creating a collectivist “paradise on earth.” The attempt to establish a comprehensive socialist system in many parts of the world over the last 100 years has been one of the cruelest and most brutal episodes in human history. Making a new “better world” was taken to mean the extermination, liquidation, and mass murder of all those who the socialist revolutionary leaders declared to be “class enemies,” including the families and even the children of “enemies of the people.”

Read the entire article here.

Trump’s inauguration "will be the beginning of the end for the Green Blob"

There is definitively something good to look forward to next year!:

But with Trump’s inauguration it will be the beginning of the end for the Green Blob—that sinister cabal of corrupt politicians, UN- and EU-technocrats, bent scientists, shrill activists, rent-seeking corporatists, blood-sucking lawyers and gullible journalists which has held the world to ransom these last four decades by promoting the man-made climate change scare story and other, related environmental scams.

Read the entire article by James Delingpole here.

The Trump administration takes on the global warming establishment

There is reason to believe that the Trump administration will return to sanity with regard to global warming:

Now the backers of the global warming alarm will not only be called upon to debate, but will face the likelihood of being called before a highly skeptical if not hostile EPA to answer all of the hard questions that they have avoided answering for the last eight years.  Questions like:  Why are recorded temperatures, particularly from satellites and weather balloons, so much lower than the alarmist models had predicted?  How do you explain an almost-20-year "pause" in increasing temperatures even as CO2 emissions have accelerated?  What are the details of the adjustments to the surface temperature record that have somehow reduced recorded temperatures from the 1930s and 40s, and thereby enabled continued claims of "warmest year ever" when raw temperature data show warmer years 70 and 80 years ago?  Suddenly, the usual hand-waving ("the science is settled") is not going to be good enough any more.  What now?
And how will the United States fare on the international stage when it stops promising to cripple its economy with meaningless fossil fuel restrictions?  As noted above, people like Isabel Hilton predict a combination of ostracism and "loss of leadership" of the issue, most likely to China.  Here's my prediction:  As soon as the United States stops parroting the global warming line, the other countries will quickly start backing away from it as well.  This is "The Emperor's New Clothes," with the U.S. in the role of the little kid who is the only one willing to say the obvious truth in the face of mass hysteria.  Countries like Britain and Australia have already more or less quietly started the retreat from insanity.  In Germany the obsession with wind and solar (solar -- in the cloudiest country in the world!) has already gotten average consumer electric rates up to close to triple the cost in U.S. states that embrace fossil fuels.  How long will they be willing to continue that self-destruction after the U.S. says it is not going along?  And I love the business about ceding "leadership" to China.  China's so-called "commitment" in the recent Paris accord is not to reduce carbon emissions at all, but rather only to build as many coal plants as they want for the next fourteen years and then cease increasing emissions after 2030!  At which point, of course, they reserve their right to change their mind.  Who exactly is going to embrace that "leadership" and increase their consumers' cost of electricity by triple or so starting right now?  I mean, the Europeans are stupid, but are they that stupid?

Read the excellent article by Francis Menton here.

Professor Niall Ferguson admits: "I was wrong on Brexit"

Professor Niall Ferguson now admits that he was wrong in opposing Brexit. Not many academics of his stature are prepared to admit that they erred. Having read Ferguson´s recent column in the Boston Globe, I admire his honesty:

The three words you are least likely to hear from an academic are “I was wrong.” Well, I was wrong to argue against “Brexit,” as I admitted in public last week. By this I do not mean to say “I wish I had backed the winning side.” Rather, I mean “I wish I had stuck to my principles.”
For years I have argued that Europe became the world’s most dynamic civilization after around 1500 partly because of political fragmentation and competition between multiple independent states. I have also argued that the rule of law — and specifically the English common law — was one of the “killer applications” of western civilization.

Read the entire column here.

Extreme weather expert Roger Pielke Jr. on his "unhappy life as a climate heretic"

This is what happens when a top scientist dares to publish something the global warming mafia does not like:

Much to my surprise, I showed up in the WikiLeaks releases before the election. In a 2014 email, a staffer at the Center for American Progress, founded by John Podesta in 2003, took credit for a campaign to have me eliminated as a writer for Nate Silver ’s FiveThirtyEight website. In the email, the editor of the think tank’s climate blog bragged to one of its billionaire donors, Tom Steyer : “I think it’s fair [to] say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538.”

WikiLeaks provides a window into a world I’ve seen up close for decades: the debate over what to do about climate change, and the role of science in that argument. Although it is too soon to tell how the Trump administration will engage the scientific community, my long experience shows what can happen when politicians and media turn against inconvenient research—which we’ve seen under Republican and Democratic presidents.

I understand why Mr. Podesta—most recently Hillary Clinton ’s campaign chairman—wanted to drive me out of the climate-change discussion. When substantively countering an academic’s research proves difficult, other techniques are needed to banish it. That is how politics sometimes works, and professors need to understand this if we want to participate in that arena.

More troubling is the degree to which journalists and other academics joined the campaign against me. What sort of responsibility do scientists and the media have to defend the ability to share research, on any subject, that might be inconvenient to political interests—even our own?

I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.

Instead, my research was under constant attack for years by activists, journalists and politicians. In 2011 writers in the journal Foreign Policy signaled that some accused me of being a “climate-change denier.” I earned the title, the authors explained, by “questioning certain graphs presented in IPCC reports.” That an academic who raised questions about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in an area of his expertise was tarred as a denier reveals the groupthink at work.

Yet I was right to question the IPCC’s 2007 report, which included a graph purporting to show that disaster costs were rising due to global temperature increases. The graph was later revealed to have been based on invented and inaccurate information, as I documented in my book “The Climate Fix.” The insurance industry scientist Robert-Muir Wood of Risk Management Solutions had smuggled the graph into the IPCC report. He explained in a public debate with me in London in 2010 that he had included the graph and misreferenced it because he expected future research to show a relationship between increasing disaster costs and rising temperatures.

When his research was eventually published in 2008, well after the IPCC report, it concluded the opposite: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and normalized catastrophe losses.” Whoops.

The IPCC never acknowledged the snafu, but subsequent reports got the science right: There is not a strong basis for connecting weather disasters with human-caused climate change.

Yes, storms and other extremes still occur, with devastating human consequences, but history shows they could be far worse. No Category 3, 4 or 5 hurricane has made landfall in the U.S. since Hurricane Wilma in 2005, by far the longest such period on record. This means that cumulative economic damage from hurricanes over the past decade is some $70 billion less than the long-term average would lead us to expect, based on my research with colleagues. This is good news, and it should be OK to say so. Yet in today’s hyper-partisan climate debate, every instance of extreme weather becomes a political talking point.

For a time I called out politicians and reporters who went beyond what science can support, but some journalists won’t hear of this. In 2011 and 2012, I pointed out on my blog and social media that the lead climate reporter at the New York Times , Justin Gillis, had mischaracterized the relationship of climate change and food shortages, and the relationship of climate change and disasters. His reporting wasn’t consistent with most expert views, or the evidence. In response he promptly blocked me from his Twitter feed. Other reporters did the same.

The excerpts from the Wall Street Journal article by extreme weather expert, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr, are published by Marc Morano in his Climate Depot blog:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/12/03/extreme-weather-expert-dr-roger-pielke-jr-my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic/

Arizona University climate change specialist: Ten years from now humans do not exist anymore

The end is near! Ten years from now humans do not exist anymore if we are to believe University of Arizona "climate specialist", emeritus professor Guy McPherson:

The University of Arizona emeritus professor says in 10 years, humans will cease to exist. Abrupt rises in temperature have us on course for the sixth mass extinction - similar to one that happened about 252 million years ago that culminated in the "great dying".
That event was the worst of the mass extinction events in our planet's history and saw all complex life cease, leaving microbes and fungi to rule the planet.
"I think we are heading for something like that this time around, too," McPherson said.
"I just don't see how very complex, very complicated organisms that depend upon so many other species, such as humans, I just don't see how we get through that."

PS

For  those interested in other predictions of apocalyptic events, here is one list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

Trump´s realism on environmental policy is most welcome after Obama´s crusading

Donald Trump´s realism and pragmatism with regard to global warming and environmental policy is most welcome after Obama´s ideological crusading. Trump is actually very close to what Bjorn Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus has been propagating. 

John Tierney summarizes in an article in the City Journal:

Trump has vowed to ignore the Paris international climate agreement that committed the U.S. to reduce greenhouse emissions. That prospect appalls environmentalists but cheers those of us who consider the agreement an enormously expensive way to achieve very little. Trump’s position poses a financial threat to wind-power producers and other green-energy companies that rely on federal subsidies to survive.
During the campaign, DebateScience.org, a consortium of science groups, submitted a questionnaire to the candidates. Hillary Clinton responded to a question about climate change by calling it a “defining challenge of our time” and promising to make America the “clean energy superpower of the 21st century.” Steering clear of this litany of green promises, Trump said merely that there was still “much that needs to be investigated” about climate change. Instead of promising to install a half-billion new solar panels, as Clinton promised to do, Trump offered the kind of perspective found in the Copenhagen Consensus, a group of prominent economists who have concluded that other problems are far more pressing than climate change.
“Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources,” Trump said, “should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water. Perhaps we should focus on eliminating lingering diseases around the world like malaria.  Perhaps we should focus on efforts to increase food production to keep pace with an ever-growing world population.  Perhaps we should be focused on developing energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels.  We must decide on how best to proceed so that we can make lives better, safer and more prosperous.”

The Trump presidency: UN climate bureacracy still in a state of denial

I was curious about how the vast UN climate brureacracy has reacted to Donald Trump´s election:
A search for "Trump" on the COP22 site produces an empty page!

http://newsroom.unfccc.int/search.aspx?search=Trump

The UN climate change establishment is obviously still in a state of denial, but they will soon wake up to the hard reality ...

Here is e.g. what is going to happen to the US energy policy, according to the Trump team:

Energy Independence

The Trump Administration will make America energy independent.  Our energy policies will make full use of our domestic energy sources, including traditional and renewable energy sources.  America will unleash an energy revolution that will transform us into a net energy exporter, leading to the creation of millions of new jobs, while protecting the country’s most valuable resources – our clean air, clean water, and natural habitats. America is sitting on a treasure trove of untapped energy. In fact, America possesses more combined coal, oil, and natural gas resources than any other nation on Earth. These resources represent trillions of dollars in economic output and countless American jobs, particularly for the poorest Americans.
Rather than continuing the current path to undermine and block America’s fossil fuel producers, the Trump Administration will encourage the production of these resources by opening onshore and offshore leasing on federal lands and waters. We will streamline the permitting process for all energy projects, including the billions of dollars in projects held up by President Obama, and rescind the job-destroying executive actions under his Administration.  We will end the war on coal, and rescind the coal mining lease moratorium, the excessive Interior Department stream rule, and conduct a top-down review of all anti-coal regulations issued by the Obama Administration.  We will eliminate the highly invasive "Waters of the US" rule, and scrap the $5 trillion dollar Obama-Clinton Climate Action Plan and the Clean Power Plan and prevent these unilateral plans from increasing monthly electric bills by double-digits without any measurable effect on Earth’s climate.  Energy is the lifeblood of modern society. It is the industry that fuels all other industries.  We will lift the restrictions on American energy, and allow this wealth to pour into our communities. It’s all upside: more jobs, more revenues, more wealth, higher wages, and lower energy prices.
The Trump Administration is firmly committed to conserving our wonderful natural resources and beautiful natural habitats. America’s environmental agenda will be guided by true specialists in conservation, not those with radical political agendas.  We will refocus the EPA on its core mission of ensuring clean air, and clean, safe drinking water for all Americans.  It will be a future of conservation, of prosperity, and of great success.

The Trump presidency is the best thing that could happen for solving real environmental problems

The Trump presidency is the best thing that has happened for the advancement of real environmental goals. By finally putting an end to the global warming hoax, the United States will lead the way in working for a better and cleaner environment. The billions of dollars that have been wasted in order to "combat climate change" will now be used for meaningful environmental projects:

Trump’s election also has upended the global near-consensus on climate policy, given his skepticism of global warming and embrace of the coal industry.
The United States has been the indispensable nation concerning global warming politics since the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Environmentalists had hoped the Paris Agreement of December 2015 was the final nail in the coffin of climate skeptics and locked in a permanent, binding agreement curtailing emissions – and future fossil fuel development – for the rest of the century.

Enter Donald Trump. He is the only candidate to become a head of government in the past several years who rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. Between calling that science “a hoax” and actively supporting the U.S. coal industry’s recovery, his ascent could result in the U S. withdrawal from the 1992 Climate Convention Treaty, which underpins the Paris Agreement.
It’s difficult to underestimate how large a political earthquake this would be for many of the world’s left-leaning political classes. The primary focus of European industrial and foreign policy in the last 20 years has been built around climate change treaties, while China has dramatically adjusted its energy production system to come into alignment with U.S. and other developed-economy climate goals. Now, the U.S. will likely entirely reverse its stance, possibly putting China’s planned economy under duress.

Read the entire article here

Michael Goodwin on the Trump voters

Michael Goodwin´s column in the New York Post is worth reading. Here is an excerpt:

Trump voters had the courage of their conviction to go against all their betters, all the poobahs and petty potentates of politics, industry and, above all, the fraudulent hucksters of the national liberal media.
And who, at this extraordinary juncture, dares say that Trump is not worthy of victory and of the salute of his countrymen? He has done what nobody thought he could, overcoming the doubts and scoffs every incredible step of the way.
No candidate in modern times and perhaps ever has suffered such abuse at the hands of the dominant culture. Virtually every day, nearly all the front pages and broadcasters in the entire country vilified him in an attempt to destroy him.
The late-night comics made fun of him like so much trailer trash, Wall Street saw him as a threat, Hollywood looked down on him and even the pope added his two cents of disdain.
It was dirty pool, against any standard of fairness and decency, but that was not the would-be assassins’ biggest mistake. It was that failing to destroy Trump, the elite smart set unleashed its contempt on his supporters.
The effect was the opposite of what was intended. Instead of demoralizing the Trumpsters, the nonstop attacks hardened them and made them more determined to finish what they had started.

Read the entire column here

PS

Steve Hilton´s column on Fox News is another excellent read:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/11/09/trumps-incredible-victory-is-second-brexit-only-better.html

Morning news

After Brexit, now this:

The polls, the mainstream media and the pundits were

all wrong!

EU - the European empire - is doomed to fail

The remains of one failed empire - The Forum Romanum in a 1890s photograph.

One wonders what will remain of the EU headquarters in Brussels a hundred

years from now?

The Dutch historian Thierry Baudet has written an excellent article about the failure of the European Union empire.

Here is an excerpt:

The idea that nationalism leads to war while European unification promotes peace is therefore false. And let’s not forget that Europe has not been at “peace” over the last 50 years. During most of that period, the countries of Europe were engaged in a fight to the death with the Soviet Union, which was once again the expression of yet another anti-national philosophy – in this case communism. As the Communist Manifesto insisted, “Working men have no country.”
As you might expect, today’s attempt to bring about political unity in Europe is a major source of tensions. The political landscape in virtually every country in Europe has now been marked by the emergence of increasingly powerful parties that are opposed to the established order.

Nationalism makes democracy possible

Distrust of the South is increasingly prevalent in Northern Europe, and vice-versa. Here again, it is not nationalism but the European project which is the source of the conflict. It follows that we should seek to create a Europe that is radically different to the current EU.
What we need is a Europe without a central regime: a Europe comprised of nation states, which are not afraid of national differences, and willing to cooperate with each other. The authority of nation states over their own borders should be restored, so that they themselves can decide who they want to allow in their territory.
In the service of their economic interest, they should opt for flexible visa regimes, which will nonetheless allow them to keep control of crime and immigration. We will also have to dissolve the euro to give nation states some monetary breathing space so that they can once again set their own interest rates in response to local conditions. Finally, we will have to get rid of harmonisation which undermines diversity.
Far from being a source of conflict, nationalism is the force that makes democracy possible. Without this unifying force, parliaments would be unable to take legitimate decisions. As the example of Belgium has shown, a lack of national unity can make the administration of a country extremely difficult. The irrational fear of nationalism could ultimately result in the establishment of a restrictive empire in Brussels. The time has come to call a halt and restore the nation state.

Read the entire article here