“Sorry” Or Not, Trump Was Justified In Reaming Turnbull

AS YOU SOW, so shall you reap: these words should ring in Malcolm Turnbull’s ears like a klaxon siren after his entirely justified international humiliation by Donald Trump; having barracked for Hillary Clinton and made no secret of his disgust at her defeat, Turnbull’s refugee deal with Barack Obama, after that defeat, was tantamount to a poke in the eye of the new US President. “Sorry” he may now be, but Trump was within his rights to lash out.

There is one angle to the fracas over Malcolm Turnbull’s fraught telephone call with Donald Trump this week — over the equally contentious prospect of carting asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island off to the United States for resettlement — that every mainstream media commentator I’ve seen or read has missed, and it is an instructive one.

I should apologise to readers for my disappearance over the past few days; three days interstate and a heavy day yesterday back in Melbourne conspired to disrupt the renewed conversation we have been having here, and whilst I have stayed abreast of political goings-on, it has been a little frustrating to be unable to find the time to comment.

But I have followed, with interest, the increasingly embarrassing debacle that was Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s first telephone conversation with the new US President; to say Turnbull has come off second best is something of an understatement, and whilst some — like Daily Telegraph columnist Laurie Oakes — are trying to pump up Turnbull’s tyres, suggesting the PM “stood up” to the President and showed him his “mettle” — the reality is that being made to look a fool to a global audience by willing media is something Turnbull could (and should) have avoided.

First, a little history.

Back in 1992, the Conservative government of UK Prime Minister John Major — itself freshly re-elected in a result that probably owed more to the thumping majority won by Margaret Thatcher in 1987 it was defending, and to the fact its Labour opponent was Neil Kinnock, than it did to any great enthusiasm within the British electorate — leapt into the fray during that year’s presidential election in the US, making no secret of the fact it wanted George H. Bush re-elected, and going to great lengths to ensure that that message received extensive coverage by the US press.

The outcome, as everyone knows, was nothing of the sort; Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton beat the elder President Bush handsomely (thanks, in part, to the votes drained off by billionaire Independent candidate Ross Perot). Clinton went on to serve eight years as President — in a reign many credit his wife, Hillary, as the “real brain” behind — and during which controversy and scandal were never far from the surface.

(It is during this period that my own deep contempt and dislike for the Clintons developed; not because they were from the Left, but because they gave every appearance of being a law unto themselves: an entitled mentality that remained evident up to and beyond Hillary Clinton’s own failed presidential bid last year).

Even so, in 1997 — as Major again faced British voters, this time against a resurgent “New” Labour Party led by the telegenic but vapid Tony Blair — the Clinton administration, always happy to hold a grudge and to act on it, returned fire at the Conservative Party in a concerted endeavour to make sure it got the British government it wanted to work with. Labour would have convincingly won the 1997 election in Britain even without the endorsement and star power Clinton showered upon its campaign, but it hardly takes a rocket scientist to deduce that Clinton’s opinion counted for more in the UK than Major’s did in the US, and Major and the Tories were trounced.

This story is instructive, for it contains a sentiment that I think has changed very little in decades, if not centuries: nobody tells Uncle Sam what to do, or not do; from the War of Independence to the two World Wars — the second of which America was dragged into by the ambush attack at Pearl Harbour in 1941 — and to the Cuban Missile Crisis and more recently, its domestic politics, the bottom line always ends up being the same. America makes up its own mind.

What many people forget, too, is that prior to 1941, the US was quite content to dwell in splendid isolation, and leave the rest of the world largely to itself: this could offer a clue to why, after decades of global military activity over the past 75 years and being co-opted by most of the free world to act as its guarantor, the independent, isolationist message of the Trump platform resonated as strongly as it did. In short, it was a pitch for America to return to a more traditional view of itself.

The reason I relate both the Major-Clinton anecdote and the nature of pre-1941 America is because I think Malcolm Turnbull has probably emulated the former, and been complicit in an attempt to disrupt the latter.

Before last year’s US elections, Turnbull made it clear — crystal clear — whose side he was on; Hillary Clinton was “an old, personal friend” who “Lucy and I” looked forward to welcoming to Australia “as President.” Turnbull anticipated that “President Clinton” would be “a very good friend for Australia.” He was less vocal than some about his distaste for Trump before the election, but as the result became clear, the saccharine acknowledgement Turnbull gave of Trump’s victory failed to mask his obvious and real disgust that his “friend” had lost.

In an age of ceaseless, instant media coverage (and in a time political bunkers across the world receive news in real time, analysing and studying it to determine precise intelligence conclusions) Turnbull’s unabashed rah-rah antics on Clinton’s behalf were never going to escape the attention of the Trump team.

And in turn, the deal for 1,250 processed refugees to be resettled in the United States — formalised with Barack Obama, after the result of the election was beyond doubt — was only ever going to be interpreted by the Trump machine as a poke in the eye: an arrogantly mischievous attempt to lob a grenade into the incoming administrations’s plans that would explode in the new President’s face.

Turnbull himself might not have thought of the deal in such terms, but it beggars belief that Obama (and the Clinton team, which was reportedly involved with planning it) would have regarded it as anything else.

It was, to use the vernacular, the action of a smartarse.

There has of course been a tremendous amount of reportage over what was said and what was not said in the course of the conversation on Thursday between Trump and Turnbull.

What has not been contradicted by either side, despite wild accusations of “fake news” informing some of this coverage, is that a) Trump regarded the refugee settlement arrangements as a “dumb deal;” b) that Trump claimed that countries across the world were “taking advantage” of the USA, and that this had to stop; c) that Trump berated Turnbull, saying (among other things) that the call was the “worst” of his four calls with world leaders that day, including Russian leader Vladimir Putin; and d) that the call abruptly ended 35 minutes short of hour scheduled for it almost immediately after the refugee deal had been discussed.

As an incidental observation, characteristically fatuous remarks by opposition “leader” Bill Shorten — that Trump should have shown Turnbull more “respect,” and that he shared Australians’ sentiments that “petty playground bickering” and political point scoring must stop — deserve to be contemptuously dismissed as the hypocritical and opportunistic blather that they are.

And some readers of this column (and others who follow me on Twitter) may accuse me of hypocrisy in going down this track, too, for I was trenchantly critical of Hillary Clinton during the election campaign, and whilst not a Trump supporter, was resolute that the only result her candidacy merited was defeat. To those people I simply note that this is an opinion column, not a news service; the bulk of the opinions here are guided by my knowledge of and instinct for electoral behaviour. My sense was that beyond the Democratic Party’s citadels of California and New York, there was little appetite for Clinton among Americans. Once the votes were counted, that judgement proved correct.

But Turnbull is the elected head of government in a country very closely allied to the United States, and — like Major in 1992 — had drawn attention to himself for making it very clear to the Americans who he wanted to work with, and who he didn’t.

In this sense, what happened on that phone call should surprise nobody, but if ever there was a time one of Trump’s increasingly famous outbursts of belligerence was justified, this was it.

I tend to think that if it plays its cards correctly, the Turnbull government will find “better weather” in henceforth dealing with Trump: the President has vented, as they say these days, and there is a sense that having blown off a head of steam, the heat in the issue has been dissipated — whatever the eventual fate of the refugee resettlement deal turns out to be.

Indeed, there are some conciliatory overtures emanating from the Trump camp now the dust has settled a little. If Turnbull seriously wants to work Trump, now would be the time to draw a line under the refugee deal once and for all, for it never looked like anything more than a cynical stunt cooked up with a lame duck in Obama that was more about causing trouble for Trump than with achieving anything particularly noble or constructive.

But the fallout from the Thursday telephone call closes the circle on yet another in a long line of spectacularly inept political judgements on Turnbull’s part: having campaigned for Trump’s nemesis relentlessly and given every appearance of deeming her defeat despicable, the Obama refugee deal episode simply meant that the reaming he got from Trump by telephone was inevitable, entirely to be expected, and completely justified.

The real damage to Turnbull will be in the eyes of the Australian public, which already holds the PM in dim regard and will interpret what they have seen and heard of his discussion with Trump as weak, subservient, and a failure.

In this sense, I think Denis Atkins from the Courier Mail has it about right, saying that the Trump call will prove to be the curtain-raiser on a very, very difficult year for Turnbull.

That sentiment, however accurate, is probably the understatement of the year, although we canvassed the same point here last week.

I’ve heard whispers from different places (places, plural) that Turnbull’s papers are stamped, and that the push is on to get rid of him by Easter, or before the budget in May at the latest. The sticking point seems to be who to replace him with. If Turnbull even wants to see the year out, the time it takes the forces lining up against him to coalesce around a candidate represents the amount of sand that remains in the hourglass.

The first Newspoll for the year is imminent. It will find the Turnbull government faring badly, registering the seventh of “30 losing Newspolls” Turnbull used to justify knifing Tony Abbott. I don’t think Turnbull will last the year, or anything approaching it. But more fiascos like the Trump call will simply hasten what is now almost inevitable.

If Donald Trump “Wipes Out” The Left, So Be It

IF THERE’S anything about Donald Trump that merits unequivocal approval, it is the immediate, uncompromising assault he has launched against parasitic left-wing groups leaching money from the public purse, and against the cultural agenda of the Left itself; it’s time the pious, finger-shaking bullshit of the Left — in all its forms — was forced to eke out its own subsistence, or eradicated. This anti-Left crusade is well worth emulating in Australia.

Just when it looked like Donald Trump’s first weeks in office might be remembered for the own goal one of his advisers kicked, along comes something nobody with any common sense could possibly quibble about.

The slithering creep of socialism — cloaked in the finger-shaking tut-tutting of the Chardonnay drunks of the cultural Left — is an evil this column has railed against at various times throughout the six years I have been publishing it; in some respects it is hard to say what is worse: the malevolent advance of this noxious creed, or the fact that nobody in the mainstream conservative polity in this country seems able and/or remotely inclined to puncture it.

John Howard tried, valiantly: his efforts, whilst admirable, were a classic case of the metaphorical finger in the dyke.

But Donald Trump — who took office on Friday, determined to remake America, and determined to erase the pall cast over it by eight years of socialism that have left the US better resembling a stagnant European basket case than a world superpower —  has torn into a range of expenditure targets that seem, even by the debased standards of the Australian Left, grotesque.

I was reading a piece last week from London tome The Times, which provides an insight into just how far-reaching the new Trump broom will be; some of the hysteria extracted from the Left over some of the items it talks about has been debunked in other forums as misleading sensationalism — for example, the pages taken off the White House website are included in sections that are archived automatically at the conclusion of each President’s tenure — but when it comes to those organisations whose agenda can only be described as cultural terrorism, and the more civic-minded measures being wheeled out to replace them, what Trump appears to be doing is a sweeping rationalisation of where the government spends its money to delete expenditure on things that should be forced to rattle the tin themselves.

It is the kind of thing the Abbott government should have done immediately after the 2013 election, but didn’t.

(For clarity, I am not referring to the perennial football of blocking US aid to foreign organisations that perform abortions — a measure that has routinely been restored by every incoming Republican President since Ronald Reagan introduced it in 1984, and repealed by both incoming Democratic Presidents in the same time: and any comment today that accuses me of cheering that on will be deleted as soon as I see it).

Feel-good, Kum-Ba-Ya chanting outfits like the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, which is a noble-sounding euphemism for appeasing the perpetrators of crime, would find their funding grants withdrawn; other organisations — like The National Endowment for the Arts — would be abolished altogether.

In the case of the latter, the article from The Times (republished yesterday in The Australian) notes the NEA doles out millions of dollars in grants each year to the arts community, funding such indulgences as plays “about assassinating Christopher Columbus, gun-control activist lesbians, ‘Doggie Hamlet,’ and climate change poetry.”

This is the problem with some sections of the arts community: their idea of “art” is not art at all. The types of works cited here are absolute, total, complete and utter crap. Yet they are emblematic of what eats up large chunks of taxpayers’ money: as it is in the USA, so too it is here.

Whole industries — overseen, populated and mobilised by the Left — spring up around this drivel, all paid for out of the taxpayer’s pocket. These people get their own minister, their own (sizeable) budget, they employ lobbyists for more money, and the whole commercially unviable (and to people in the real world, distasteful) behemoth gets bigger, and bigger, and bigger.

Like a turd attracts flies, these cottage industries draw hangers-on: the Chardonnay set. The do-gooder set. The bleeding heart bullshit artists, who think they are taking up with just and noble causes that advance humanity, when all this stuff amounts to is doggerel.

And then of course — just like Hollywood, with its jumped-up and overpaid screen legends, coddled in their bubble and fortified by the hundreds of millions of dollars they make from jumping around in front of a camera, whose deluded views get reported by a Left-leaning press pack as “fact” — these people think they have real clout to wield, and they wield it.

And then, the cycle perpetuates itself.

The Times piece correctly observes that the progressive agenda of the Left centres on “changing the world and human nature to accord with a preferred model of existence.” That model is unnatural, synthesised, and relies on engineering human behaviour to conform with a heavily doctrinaire and rigidly prescriptive set of values that are smothering in nature and totalitarian in application.

Just look at what happens on Twitter if anyone dares to say they don’t believe in man-made climate change: the ridicule and abuse is instant, incessant, and for a couple of hours hundreds of seemingly innocuous accounts appear out of thin air to ensure the “bad name” of the “denier” ricochets across the world. You will probably end up on a blacklist somewhere. Try the same thing over gay marriage, gender fluidity (whatever the fuck that is) or any of the other pet fancies of the Left, and the force of the abuse within the social media echo chamber will be akin to being hit by a truckload of bricks.

The point is that for all the “tolerance” these people preach, they have neither tolerance nor patience with dissenting views; for all the stock they place in “diversity,” they refuse to either countenance nor accept any diversity of opinion aside from their own.

These problems and phenomena are, if anything, even more entrenched in Australian society than they are in the USA, thanks to teacher unions run by socialist activists hijacking education curriculums in a concerted endeavour to ensure Australian schools turn out armies of compliant little socialists. They are fuelled by education budgets that throw far more money at “Education” than is actually required (if value for money and educational outcomes are the yardsticks), which means there is always cash for expensive social and “citizenship” education projects which rarely teach basic capitalist principles or entrepreneurship or personal responsibility, but never miss on teaching kids about their rights and entitlements.

(Just making that point is enough to attract charges from the Left of ignorance, sexism, misogyny, and probably of being Adolf Hitler. And that’s just for starters).

There are those in the Australian polity and embedded in the media firmament who scratch their heads and wonder why, with all the Left does for them, people could be inclined to elect someone like Donald Trump to the US presidency; they wonder, without irony, why there are signs of a “Trump effect” taking shape here in Australia.

The simple truth is that a significant majority of people are fed up with being told how to think, and speak, and behave; stripped of the ability to go out creating problems to solve would leave most on the Left with very little to say at all. Yes, there are problems in society, and bad people who give form to them, but the totalitarian and virtually fascist attempts to impose a rigid ideological straitjacket on the world are not the way to solve them.

If they were, the USSR would be flourishing today, and free nations would be clamouring to join. It isn’t, and they aren’t.

And this brings me back to Donald Trump’s America, and the early signs that the Left is not going to have a lot to celebrate in it.

I am literally in two minds about Trump — he may prove to be brilliant, or he may prove diabolical — and I suspect that whilst it will take a little time to ascertain which of those descriptions apply to him, we won’t be left wondering for very long.

If you are a socialist (or, quaintly, a “social justice warrior” — a term that is inherently oxymoronic in this context) then it’s a safe bet you still haven’t recovered from the grief and trauma of Hillary Clinton losing an election: if that synopsis applies to you, then the nicest thing I can say is that whilst I may be ambivalent about Trump, the defeat of Hillary Clinton is the best thing that has happened to both the USA and the rest of the free world in a very, very long time.

When official government communications portals promote actual Police rather than thought police, and when government leaders call out external military threats (Russia, China, Islamic State) for what they are, and promote staples such as reliable, affordable energy supplies and the rule of law instead of a fictitious ideological construct designed to cower and break their citizens, it is difficult to take issue with the changes already becoming evident in the United States at all.

The risk to the established parties in Australia (and to the Liberal Party in particular, which is the traditional home for those disinclined to leftist claptrap) is that not only is the silent majority in this country fed up with the prescriptions of the Left being forcibly imposed upon them, but a growing number of voters are now actively casting around for someone who listens to them and someone who will stop the socialist monster in its tracks.

This is why red herrings like Pauline Hanson are on the march: nobody in the respectable political firmament appears prepared to champion the majority over the snivelling diatribes of the Left, which in any case hates Western society and seeks, through incremental but unrelenting change, to destroy it.

The “Safe Schools” program — an anti-bullying scheme used as a Trojan horse to indoctrinate young children with the gender drivel of the hard Left — is but one piece of proof of this. There have been many others.

None of the pet causes and projects of the Left would survive if forced to rattle the tin and drum up money in the marketplace — in this case, from the citizens expected to capitulate to them — and the argument that people who don’t know what is good for them must be involuntarily forced to comply is in no way a suitable argument to justify a cent of public monies being allocated to fund them.

If Donald Trump’s activities “wipe out” the Left, then so be it: apart from the finger shakers and other parasitic filth dependent on such rubbish for their livelihoods, nobody will miss it when it is gone.

But failure by mainstream politicians in Australia to emulate the attack against the Left that is being unpacked in America will have dire consequences. The best way to ward off the rise of the far Right is to deal with these issues from the mainstream, which means listening to ordinary people rather than the alleged “elites” of the Left: and if Australia’s politicians refuse to do so, then when One Nation and other organisations pandering to the lunar fringe achieve a critical mass, the traditional parties will have nobody to blame for the fallout but themselves.

President Trump: Australia Must Work With The USA

NEW US PRESIDENT Donald Trump has taken office with customary American pomp and ceremony, and has already started work on his quest to “Make America Great Again;” whether you love Trump or hate him, much of his agenda is far more orthodox than either his belligerent rhetoric or the outraged reaction to it from the Left might suggest. Trump should be given a fair go, and Australia must work with the new administration.

At the outset, I will simply note that whilst I am not a supporter per se of Donald Trump, I am not hostile to him either; my only position during the recent presidential election in the United States was that Hillary Clinton (irrespective of who else was standing from any party) should lose, and that excellent outcome materialised very sharply in early counting. The world and the US has dodged a bullet whatever Trump might be accused of or indeed do, and in particular, those who think women have been shortchanged by her defeat in any way imaginable should review this unrebuttable piece.

This column minutes its congratulations to Donald Trump on his ascension to the office of President of the United States, and sincerely wishes him well as he seeks to implement far-reaching change in one of the Western world’s leading democracies; stripped of the rhetoric and assessed on its merits, there is as much to commend his agenda as there is to express unease over, but should the new President succeed he will leave the United States in far more robust shape than he found it after eight years of a socialist experiment that can only be described, domestically and internationally, as a failure.

One of the great ironies, as Trump settles into his new post, is that the chief gripe of the assorted socialists and other left-wing fruit cakes who have staged noisy demonstrations across America and around the world derives squarely from what Trump has actually been elected to do — govern in the best interests of the USA — and the nihilism and cult-like rage over the vanquishing of Hillary Clinton aside, Trump promises a revolution every bit as far-reaching as that overseen by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, which arguably restored a post-Vietnam America traumatised by the Nixon years and crippled by the Carter years to the position of global pre-eminence it had enjoyed in the early decades following World War II.

The Barack Obama presidency wasn’t as bad as that of Jimmy Carter, but by God it came close.

Trump should be lauded, not ridiculed, for his desire to establish better relations with arch-enemy Russia and is leader, Vladimir Putin, in particular; so low had US-Russian relations fallen during the Obama years that a third world war has become a distinct possibility for the first time in 30 years, and the Obama model of delivering rhetoric designed to humiliate Russia (a “regional power,” in Obamaspeak) whilst turning a blind eye to the threat it poses — even pontificating about eliminating the US nuclear arsenal — shows an ignorance of world affairs and historical strategic risk that placed not just America, but the rest of the world, in existential peril.

For years, it has been an open secret that Russia has been modernising, upgrading and expanding its strategic capabilities; for years, it has been building vast underground bunkers to shelter its people — an effort that has accelerated in recent times — and the Obama position, that Russia represents little risk and can be humiliated and put back in its box, is lunacy.

The world has become a much more dangerous place on Obama’s watch; in eight years we have seen Russian insurgents destabilise Ukraine, Russia itself annex the Crimea, forces aligned to the Kremlin commence positioning for a possible move against the Baltic states, China begin to rattle the sabres of war over its claim to the entire South China Sea, building military installations on reclaimed islands in that waterway in defiance of international law, the growth of the threat posed by North Korea, the rise of Islamic State and an apparent US strategy to deal with it that has been completely unproductive, and a deal to “disarm” Iran that any honest assessment of shows the theocracy in that country retains clear avenues to arm itself with nuclear weapons.

On balance, only an idiot can object to fresh attempts to deal with these hot spots: Trump may or may not succeed, but one certainty is that more of the same would not have worked: and more of the same is exactly what could have been expected of Clinton, save for the fact the Russians hate her anyway after her misadventures as Secretary of State (under, of course, Obama) and the familiarity that comes with the knowledge her husband’s presidency — which many believe was actually Hillary Clinton’s administration in all but name — was also largely focused on kicking foreign policy threats down the road instead of dealing with them too.

On Trade, Trump has announced that an “America First” philosophy — to buy American and to hire American — will guide the policies of his administration; he has also said that trade deals struck with global partners must work “in America’s interests.”

This does not mean that dealings with the USA will be precluded from satisfying the interests of other parties too, and in Australia’s case, an opportunity to strike bilateral deals to the betterment of both countries beckons.

It remains to be seen whether Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his ministers are up to this assignment. Yet opposition “leader” Bill Shorten has all but declared Trump, his administration, and by extension the USA itself, an enemy of Australia. It is yet another huge black mark against the suitability of Shorten (and the ALP) to ever hold office, not least during Trump’s tenure at the helm of our most important economic and defence partner. Typically, however, the self-serving Australian Left, devoid of any common sense or obvious signs of actual intelligence, thinks the Shorten approach is just great.

In fact, there are enormous risks to Australia inherent in the Trump agenda that, with proper diligence and appropriate overtures, could be turned to great benefit; Trump is proposing, for example, to cut the corporate tax rate in the US to 15%, which will make Australia’s already overpriced goods and services even less competitive despite our dollar shedding 30% of its value in the past couple of years against the greenback. The change of power in America can and should be grasped as the pretext to enact comprehensive taxation reform in our own country, and not the kind of hot air and bullshit propagated, and dissipated, by Turnbull last year in a grotesque waste of the political capital he began 2016 holding.

Trump is an enthusiastic advocate of Brexit — the UK’s pending departure from the EU infrastructure — and eager to take advantage of opportunities to more closely integrate with Britain as it re-engages more fully with the wider world after 40 years of an overwhelmingly pro-Europe focus. There is scope to work collaboratively here to further the so-called “Five Eyes” relationship between the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and ourselves to build comprehensive economic and security links between the five countries on Earth that arguably share the most in common with each other.

Veteran financial journalist Robert Gottliebsen has published a brilliant analysis of how the international landscape is likely to change under Trump — and how this will affect Australia, and ways in which we might constructively respond — that you can read here. Far from a picture of international doom and gloom, there is plenty of upside for Australia in a Trump administration: if, that is, our “leaders” have the bottle to identify the opportunities that exist and to capitalise on them.

It is at times like this that the retirement of former Trade minister Andrew Robb is likely to be increasingly felt, and regretted, by those in this country with the insight to recognise the real value he offered.

And whilst many rightly find Trump’s 20-year-old remarks about grabbing women “on the pussy” distasteful in the extreme, the simple fact is that the lot of women stood to be far more comprehensively compromised and vastly more damaged by a Clinton presidency than anything Trump will in fact do in office: offensive drivel is one thing, but Clinton “boasts” a decades-long history of real action to destroy the lot of women and, in a litany of cases, women themselves, and those who don’t believe it should revisit the link I posted near the top of this article if they haven’t already done so.

Trump has, in the most part, assembled a first-rate administration — something conveniently overlooked by the outrage merchants of the hard Left — that will, in many cases, check some of the wilder outbursts their leader will undoubtedly make.

He must also deal with Congress, something Obama circumvented by issuing hundreds of autocratic executive orders that Trump is rightly repealing in his first act as President. One wonders what excuse the Australian Left, which claims the Liberal Party is “incapable” of negotiating with an utterly intransigent Senate, might offer in defence of Obama’s dictatorial misuse of executive orders through which to prevail.

Yes, there is much to worry about where Donald Trump as president is concerned; the bellicose rhetoric, the propensity to make unfiltered international announcements on Twitter, and the apparent lack of any “filter” at all for that matter are all points on which a pause for thought is far from inadvisable.

My point today, irrespective of what people might think of Donald Trump, is that he deserves to be given the opportunity to deliver on his promises, and to deliver on the outcomes he has promised those Americans who have elected him. There is much to do.

The final point I would make, for the benefit of those who profess to despise him, is that Trump’s victory is the logical end result of an approach to democratic government that benefits the rulers, is aimed solely at appeasing and buying off minorities and the marginalised, and completely ignores the silent majority in the middle.

This is no green light to the likes of Cory Bernardi — who is a red herring peddling snake oil — or Pauline Hanson who, whilst not a racist personally, has perfected an appeal to the bigoted and the rednecked in a cynical path to harvesting votes, a handful of seats in parliaments around the country, and public election funding.

But political types of all stripes in Australia — in contemplating the “Trump factor” and how it might apply here — would be well advised to remember that whilst winning elections in Australia requires a majority of the vote, it is the actions they take after achieving that which fuel approval and dissent. Ignoring the majority of voters to pander to narrow sectional interests is a recipe for political disaster, and that disaster is already beginning to be reflected in election results in Australia.

Exhibit #101: the 2016 federal election. Both Houses. No Authority. Splintering Support. And a process of revolt that is by no means complete.

This is the most salient lesson from the “Trump factor:” governing for all, in practice, means governing for as many people as possible, and this means for the majority — not just those interests who fit a politically correct, debased, quasi-socialist agenda that shafts the majority of the voting public.

Congratulations, Mr President. We are watching with great interest.

 

Warning Sign: Trump Win A Klaxon Siren For Libs, ALP

THE BOILOVER that saw Donald Trump elected US President on Tuesday is not confined to America, is not a vote “against women,” and is not an illusory phenomenon; people across the Western world are serving potent notice to their leaders they will not tolerate government by the United Nations, being brainwashed, or being marched around with templates for thought, speech and action. Politicians in Australia must take note — or pay the price.

One of the conversations I have had since the stunning triumph of Donald Trump’s Republican juggernaut this week centred on whether Trump was “destined” to win the US election, or whether the Democratic Party’s selection of Hillary Clinton as its candidate sealed the deal; my thoughts — in short — were that Hillary was certain to have been a decisive factor in some of the states that flipped, handing Trump the Electoral College votes required, but that endorsing “a human being” instead of a compromised, scandal-plagued insider might well have yielded a different result for the Democrats.

Welcome to the new world: across the globe, scribes will spend a fair chunk of time in the coming months intermittently dissecting what went on in America this week searching for “answers” as to how someone like Trump could be elected to the most powerful position in the free world; I don’t think it’s a rocket science study, and whilst I don’t mean to simplify complex questions into idiot-simple answers, the warning signs of Tuesday’s boilover have been writ large for years.

Richard Nixon — who, had he been better than a petty crook, might have been viewed by history as one of America’s greatest presidents — often talked of the “silent majority” in the United States; it echoes Bob Menzies’ “forgotten people,” and that cohort — working and middle class, aspirational, rooted in traditional values and yearning for optimism about their lot — can be found today in just about every Western country grappling with 21st century problems of economic restructuring, “disruption,” high immigration, and the odious slithering creep of the diktat of hard socialism.

When I see footage of young activists associated with America’s Democratic Party going on rampages through US cities, chanting “Kill Trump” and other incendiary slogans, I see proof that the purported voices of moderation, tolerance and reason of the Left are only sober and civil if they get their way; there is a difference between “protest” and “incitement to riot.” Nobody would object to a peaceful protest by these people. Calling for the assassination of their President does not constitute a “peaceful protest.”

One of the criticisms I made of Malcolm Turnbull back in 2009, when he was initially the leader of the Liberal Party (and a couple of years before I started this column) was that he was determined not only to minimise the differences between the Coalition and the Rudd government, but to do so by moving too far toward the ALP position; there are those who countered that politics is too confrontational at the best of times, and that Turnbull should have been commended rather than pilloried for his actions.

Yet politics is adversarial by nature — you cannot have a “battle of ideas” without comprehensively thrashing those ideas out — and in the end, public opinion aligned with turbulent unrest on the conservative wing of the Liberal Party to see Turnbull ejected from his post. In some respects, we are seeing a repeat of the process now, albeit with much higher stakes and against the backdrop of a far less forgiving “silent majority” in this country.

Much of the problem, as I see it, emanates from the United Nations; established in the aftermath of the second world war as a mechanism to prevent a third, this undemocratic and fundamentally anti-democratic body has extended its tentacles into the daily governance of member states to the point governments in the West are obliged to comply with UN treaties before they embark upon sovereign legislation of their own.

Tellingly, a lot of this is centred on social policy — human rights, immigration, aid for the third world and so forth — that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with preventing a war between the US and Russia. Certainly, it has never stopped regional wars and insurrections (the Middle East being a residual case in point) from breaking out.

But the point is that the UN has strayed so far from what it was set up for that it is now regarded, rightly, as a de facto One World Government by its critics and certainly, a lot of what drives the popular revolt against so-called “elites” these days in Western countries derives directly from the insidious crawl of the UN further and further into the governance of those countries.

What, pray tell, does a body charged with averting a world war have to do with mandating binding targets on the environment and climate change? Despite the ridiculous soothsaying of the most ardent climate change zealots, the answer is “precisely nothing.”

Britain — voting earlier this year to leave the European Union — signalled its intention to dispense with a localised European equivalent; the small matter of the UK paying the largest annual contributions to the EU aside, that lamentable body has regulated everything in Britain from immigration to industry, affecting everything from the rights of British fishermen to limits on what vacuum cleaners may be sold in British shops. EU regulation has stifled (if not crippled) huge chunks of British industry, whilst flooding the country with “free movement” of people to whom the British government is obliged to pay welfare and social benefits. Anyone interested in more on this issue should spend an hour watching the excellent Brexit: The Movie, which can be accessed here.

Yet the Left (of which the lamentable Hillary Clinton is a standard bearer) refuses to accept the referendum result; some in its midst seek to build “momentum” for a second referendum, with the intellectually insulting implication that those who voted to leave might belatedly come to their senses; others have seen fit to go to Britain’s High Court, with the result that any attempt to trigger Article 50 of the EU charter (the mechanism by which formal disengagement will commence) now requires a vote in the House of Commons to ratify.

This is dangerous ground, and the Conservative Party — less open to accusations of softness or leftward tendencies under the leadership of Theresa May — will almost certainly go to an early election next Spring on this issue; if it does, the opposition Labour Party, which ranks among the worst offenders for trying to obstruct Brexit proceedings, is likely to be absolutely slaughtered in one of its worst results since Ramsay MacDonald first formed a Labour government (in coalition) more than 90 years ago.

But the risk of electoral annihilation is no deterrent to the Left; it argues — fatuously — that a 52-48 result on 72% voter turnout, in a country where voting is optional and the population is 65 million, means only a quarter of Britons actually support leaving the EU. Had the result been 52-48 the other way, however, they wouldn’t utter a word about such dubious mathematics. Yet “the will of the people” is, once again, a disposable concept when it comes to the dictatorial agenda of the Left.

Even if it wasn’t, British Labour is a battle-hardened agent of the disgusting elitist filth spreading like a cancer throughout Western society; it threw hundreds of billions of pounds in bribes at minorities to purchase and seal their allegiance, and saw to it that Britain’s door was open not just to those it was obliged to accept from Europe, but from far beyond — keeping that door closed to easier entry for Australians, or New Zealanders, or others with a genuine claim to common culture and history — in a determined campaign to inflict “diversity” on the UK irrespective of what others thought; it fostered the oozing socialism of political correctness that seeps like toxic sludge through the public institutions it is calculated to diminish and break down. It oversaw the separation of “elites” in the media, the public sector and the ruling class from a population that would do what it was told. And the same vile lexicon of abuse that has become familiar here in Australia was deployed against anyone who dared to speak against it.

It is no wonder British Labour now faces a poleaxing for defying the will of the people that will make its humiliation at the hands of Margaret Thatcher in 1983 resemble an act of leniency.

Across western Europe, the same pattern has been followed: in socialist France, where a government sympathetic to such rubbish exudes neither an inclination nor an ability to respond — and is facing an involuntary fall from the cliff when it faces voters next year. In supposedly conservative Germany, whose Chancellor opened the floodgates to almost unrestricted Muslim immigration triggering social problems on a hitherto unimaginable scale, as instances of immigrant men raping young girls in public swimming pools and other atrocities are desperately hidden from public view, the government responsible for bringing them to Germany in the first place faces a rout.

Look across Europe: in Belgium, in Holland, in France, in Germany and elsewhere, the old world has become a powderkeg: its people taking aim at governments for selling them down the river (with the EU a central player in this process), whilst outsiders and a chosen few within their borders are feted with more privileges and rights than those who made those countries what they were in the first place.

Almost every aspect of what I have described was present in the boilover that saw Donald Trump elected on Tuesday.

The notion of government “of the people, for the people and by the people” is a noble sentiment indeed — one that can and should have application in every democratic society in the world.

Hillary Clinton didn’t lose to Trump because she is a woman, or because of “misogyny;” she didn’t lose because Americans are racist, or bigoted, or homophobic, or “deniers” on climate change (with the unspoken imputation they should face the Inquisition) or any of the other bullshit the Left bandies about to bully ordinary decent folk, or to justify its inevitable failures.

She lost because a) it was her personally, which is pertinent because b) Hillary Clinton is probably the highest-profile figurehead in the world for all this garbage.

And as I said in my post-election piece on Thursday, the US public — fed to the teeth with the Clintons and everything they stand for, after decades of scandals, crises, and a litany of misdemeanours that seemingly drags on forever — finally decided to simply say “no.”

This brings me rather neatly to Australia, where a government led by a proven sympathiser with most of the garbage now attracting electoral retribution abroad was lucky to be re-elected narrowly four months ago.

In the red corner sits a self-professed champion of everything ordinary people have just about had enough of: being told they’re “racist” for not wanting unlimited Muslim immigration. Being told they are “bigots” for not supporting same-sex marriage. Being told they are “sexist” and “misogynist” if they don’t support women being given jobs based on gender irrespective of whether they are the best fit for those roles or not.

It is an indictment on Bill Shorten that despite his claims this week to be “calling out” sexism — by ripping into Trump, jeopardising Australia’s relationship with the United States in the process, to continue a partisan battle on Clinton’s half that is already irretrievably lost — he’s never “called out” the CFMEU thug who called a female Fair Work Australia inspector “a fucking slut.”

It is an indictment, too, on the miserable scum lurking in some sections of the press who overlook such omissions out of herd-like solidarity.

Like all of the spearheads of this leftist elitist disease, Shorten’s adherence to “principle” is a flexible, elastic concept.

Meanwhile, over in the blue corner, sits Malcolm Turnbull: not an abusive specimen at all, but an ardent proponent nevertheless of the pet issues of the Left that the silent majority in Australia have come to bitterly resent. Climate change. Gay marriage. “Diversity,” with its overtones of involuntary enforcement and the message that objections will fall on deaf ears. Slavish adherence to the illegitimate United Nations. On and on it goes. If Turnbull wonders why his popularity has returned to the S-bend — where it has traditionally resided — he need look no further than this agenda, which might play well in his trendy electorate around Bondi and Randwick and Kings Cross, but which is reviled beyond their latte strips.

In the process, politically correct, socialist obscenities abound, unhindered and unrestrained by an allegedly conservative government.

Gillian Triggs, even after an outrageous report into child detention deliberately calibrated to transfer opprobrium from the socialist Gillard government which locked the kids up to the Abbott government that had released most of them by the time it was tabled, and after the disgusting fiasco of an ambit section 18c discrimination case at the Queensland University of Technology, has still not had her plum statutory appointment terminated.

The so-called “safe schools” programme — designed to brainwash kids about gender to destroy traditional values — lives on, despite the withdrawal of government funding: some states have picked up the cudgels; in others, variations of the scheme are taught anyway. Outraged parents (and I’m one of them) get no say over the crap their kids are being “taught.”

And as ever — in the examples we have already looked at, and in others unique to Australia — people in this country are increasingly face legislation (and hysterical bullying drummed up by irresponsible sections of the press, social media, the churches and the education sector) that governs what they may say, think, and do.

There is a difference between common decency and thought Police; there is a difference between genuine respect for each other and parroting prescribed lines that enunciate approved terms of reference for interaction.

And there is a limit to how much of this rubbish people will stomach — especially whilst watching their political masters rort entitlements, expenses, staff appointments, and shovel billions of dollars out in the interests of buying the loyalty of minorities — whilst they are told (almost in as many words) that their opinions do not matter, and neither do they.

Right now, the Liberal Party and the ALP — to varying degrees — are both guilty of perpetuating these fancies; the ALP because it means it, and the Liberals because the quislings advising it are too terrified of risk to properly or effectively stand up to it.

I saw a meme last week: it is instructive to share it now.

Image result for political correctness is totalitarianism pretending to be manners

Frankly, there is no credible argument against it.

The ALP (and Shorten) is a lost cause; a basket case that on current trends will fall into office again only on the receiving end of a backlash against Turnbull and his refusal to do more than mouth platitudes to assuage the conservative wing of his party. Even now — with a healthy election-winning lead across all polls — the ALP can’t do better than about 38% of the primary vote. The cultures of division and complaint are central to its success. The pursuit of of the PC socialist agenda, both in 1996 and in 2013, were central to its demise.

But the Liberal Party is able to do something about it: I am not advocating a change in the leadership; not today, at any rate.

But the party that is the usual guardian of individual opportunity, freedom of choice, traditional values and national pride has taken its eye off the ball.

Ordinary folk — that silent majority of forgotten people — are being priced out of essential services as cheap, inexhaustible coal is phased out in favour of unreliable and ultra-expensive renewables that would be dearer still if government didn’t shovel countless billions of dollars out in subsidies to make them “viable.”

They see an Australia where freedom of speech and freedom of thought are open only to people they are told they must unquestioningly accept — even if those minorities are, in fact, wrong — and an Australia where an opinion running contrary to this diabolical regime elicits a lawsuit from a government-sponsored body.

They see jobs disappearing at the same time family reunion schemes for refugees bring thousands of people to Australia who will probably never contribute economically: it is these people who are the target of complaints about migrants and welfare, not the ones who come to Australia (from literally anywhere in the world), join in with the rest of us, and work like the rest of us.

They see an Australia where a cabal of figures in the media, Parliament, its advisors, unions, government-funded social lobby groups and other fellow travellers smugly decree what is and isn’t acceptable, and where it is literally their way or the highway.

The rise of figures and parties on the far right are the confused embodiment of their resentment; One Nation, the Australian Liberty Alliance, and more extreme groups like Rise Up! Australia garnered more than 10% of the Senate vote between them at the July federal election, and enough in the lower house to influence many contests — in most cases, against the Liberal Party.

If the Liberals do not recalibrate their policies and public messages with mainstream conservatism to replace the broad capitulation to the PC agenda it has made in recent years, it will be unable to fend off the far Right in the medium to longer term.

Amateurish outfits like One Nation might be a political pain in the arse, but they have limited reach; at some point, however, someone is going to find a way to craft a vehicle of the radical Right that actually has mass appeal, and if and when that happens, the Liberals will be helpless to avoid the electoral consequences.

These are not necessarily my personal views, even if I’m a mainstream conservative frustrated by the direction (or lack of it) emanating from the corridors of power; rather, they are a snapshot of the contact I have with thousands of people each year (I almost live in two states, and make regular forays into two others) from all walks of life, spanning university-aged people to senior citizens. Today’s article simply reflects my observations, an assessment of the likely electoral repercussions, and a juxtaposition of these onto what is happening elsewhere in the world.

To make a penultimate point, we’re not that different to people in the UK, the USA, or anywhere else where the eventual effects of all this crap are now playing out.

And this is why the election of Donald Trump in the United States cannot be dismissed, explained away or ignored; the same forces that have propelled him to the White House are at work right here in Australia.

Australian politicians ignore the warning signs at their peril. Like a Cold War nuclear attack drill, the klaxon siren is blaring; if the warhead detonates, the status quo that will be obliterated: not the Trump-like agent of change, whoever it (or they) might be. The silent majority is restless, restive, and has had enough. The major parties must change — or pay a heavy price indeed.

 

USA: Trump Wins The Election Hillary Clinton Was Born To Lose

AMERICA has delivered a vicious rebuke to Hillary Clinton and the Washington establishment, voting Republican firebrand Donald Trump the 45th President of the United States; despite early uncertainty, the sky will not fall in, and Trump’s task is to make good his vow to “make America great again.” For Clinton, the repudiation is a brutal, thorough, deserved humiliation. For her party, it remains to be seen whether it can recover by 2020 — if at all.

First things first: congratulations must be minuted to President-elect Trump, his family, their supporters, and the 60 million Americans who voted for them; Donald Trump has been elected to the most powerful political office in the free world — and will become its 45th occupant on 20 January — and it is to be hoped, for the common global good, that the eloquent vision he articulated during his victory speech last night (Melbourne time) is one he delivers upon.

I am not a supporter of Trump, nor am I hostile toward him; I am however (as regular readers well know) flatly opposed to the Clintons ever again holding public office and in this sense, the United States and the world have been spared four gruelling and traumatic years of legal machinations, a probable impeachment, and quite possibly armed conflict with Russia. And this is before we even contemplate the divisive, insiderish, illiberal junta that would have comprised a second Clinton administration.

Donald Trump, to be sure, is far from an ideal candidate for the presidency of the United States.

But his alleged misdemeanours — real, imagined, or laid bare by Wikileaks as campaign plots by a morally bankrupt and repugnant Democratic Party — pale into insignificance alongside any contemplation of decades of shady legal and business manoeuvres, questionable (and possibly criminal) behaviour during four years as Secretary of State, or the arrant and abhorrent sense of entitlement with which Hillary Clinton pursued the position of President.

This is not to say that dirty talk about women and other insulting and/or demeaning conduct should be sanctioned or condoned; far from it, although there are those leftist zealots who will accuse me of doing precisely that irrespective of any declamations to the contrary. For those people, reality is a jaundiced concept.

But a woman whose conduct may yet be found to have been brazenly and wantonly criminal — and who, in “supporting” her husband has repeatedly silenced women who levelled accusations of rape and sexual assault against Bill Clinton — is in no position to wail about “misogyny” or the mistreatment of her gender; in any case, she has singularly failed to satisfactorily answer the charge that her flagrant misuse of email systems as Secretary of State at best divulged highly classified material, and at worst compromised the national security of both the United States of America and its allies.

Hillary Clinton is, to be sure, the most unsuitable candidate to ever seek to be President. Whilst the alleged misdeeds of Trump are nothing to recommend, they do not outweigh any reasonable or reasoned assessment of her claim to that office. On that score, one of the best deconstructions of that campaign I have seen can (and should) be viewed below.

At the time of publication, it appears Trump and Clinton are level pegging with 47.6% of the popular vote apiece, with the balance claimed by a raft of minor party candidates, although as counting concludes in the Democratic fortress of California, Clinton will likely edge Trump on this measure by about half a percentage point overall.

In the Electoral College — where it really matters — this translates into 310 of 538 votes for Trump to 228 for Clinton, as the Republican carried EC votes from 31 of the 50 states to Clinton’s 19 plus the District of Columbia.

It is, in EC terms, a convincing win that falls short of a landslide. The only real surprise is that the margin isn’t greater.

One of the points of interest I have noted is that of the seven extra states Trump won, six — Ohio, New Hampshire, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — are clustered in the north-east in and around the area variously described as “Hillary’s firewall” and the home of America’s liberal Left “elites.”

In other words, the Trump victory has been primarily fuelled by a rebellion against Clinton and the Democrats on what is to all intents and purposes their home turf: the only extra state he picked up elsewhere was Florida, whose 29 EC votes ultimately proved surplus to the required 270-vote threshold.

The notion Trump’s win was driven by a backlash against the Democrats in their heartland is further underlined by the fact almost every state the Democrats nevertheless carried in the immediate vicinity of those they lost — New York, Maine, Connecticut, to mention a few — were carried with significantly reduced margins.

There is a very clear message to politicians of the liberal Left — in and beyond the United States — and one that transcends the populist claptrap that at times characterised Trump’s campaign tactics: people are fed up with being told how to think, and act, and behave, or that someone else knows better than they do how to run their lives or spend their money, or that their country is the plaything for profit of a cabal of mostly unelected spivs legitimised by the fig leaf of an electoral endorsement obtained by gross deception.

This message (and its impact) has now been felt twice in Britain, once with the majority victory by the Conservative Party last year and subsequently in the Brexit referendum in June; it was a key reason for yesterday’s victory by Trump in the USA; and the prospect of sitting governments being turfed out in western Europe in favour of nationalist and/or conservative libertarian outfits is high, with the Front National in France a real chance to push the ruling Socialists out of contention in next year’s elections.

It is one that is quickly generating a backlash here in Australia, as people fed up with the finger-shaking agendas of an insiderish few profiting from the public purse, aimed at enshrining political correctness and hard socialism, find their voices in (for now) minor fringe parties.

If the Liberal Party rediscovers its proper role as the steward of the individual, freedom and respect for traditional institutions and values, it will prosper; but if it does not, the risk a new conservative force rooted in the mainstream rather than the far Right may usurp it is very real.

In other words, the forces that have led to the ascension of Trump are on the march across the Western world, as people react against the scam of “climate change,” the spectre of unlimited mass immigration, the prescriptive regulation of speech and thought, and the consequent destruction of everything that made their countries great to begin with.

Contrary to nightmare scenarios bandied about by Clinton and her cheer squad in global media — in increasingly shrill tones as election day drew nigh — the world will not end under President Trump, and the sky will not fall in; it is an obscene intellectual dishonesty to suggest otherwise, but in the US, Australia, Canada, Britain and elsewhere, it is fashionable for the Left to frame any conservative electoral mandate as the precursor to unmitigated social, economic (and in this case, military) destruction.

Ironically, the prospects for global conflict will recede after yesterday’s win by Trump; far from the a candidate with “inappropriate links” to Russia, Trump has demonstrated that he understands the need to ratchet tensions with the re-emergent superpower down.

In this sense, the so-called “bromance” he enjoys with Vladimir Putin appears likely to provide a circuit-breaker in US-Russia relations that would not have materialised under Clinton, who spent four years as Secretary of State giving every appearance of being as provocative toward Putin as possible, and whose campaign articulated a series of positions on Syria and the Middle East that seem contrived only to goad Russia into armed confrontation.

Global financial markets — which initially reeled on discovering compliant media reports assuring a Clinton victory were incorrect — will soon enough stabilise, as they did in the UK in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum.

And whilst some of America’s trading partners may be entitled to feel nervous about changes Trump says he will make — backed by majorities in both Houses of Congress, no less — the truth is that US interests have been badly damaged during eight years of spectacularly incompetent Democratic rule. Whilst the Trump prescription might not be perfect, the prospect the American economy can be revived under this new approach is at worst no less probable than anything Clinton might have attempted.

Significantly, Trump has made it clear that the relationship with Australia is a key priority for his incoming administration: to safeguard our own interests, Australian officials have been building bridges to the Trump camp for months, and media reports yesterday featuring senior US figures suggested these prove fruitful.

But in the end, yesterday’s election result — a vindication of the Trump message, however unorthodox — was really a judgement on the illiberalism and socialism and failed international and domestic strategies of a moribund Democratic Party.

After two eight-year administrations in less than 25 years, it is easy to forget that America’s Democrats have lost six of the past ten US elections and that a seventh — Bill Clinton’s first win in 1992 — might have ended very differently had Ross Perot not drained off 19% of the vote as a third-party candidate: a development widely acknowledged at the time as having cost the senior George Bush a second term in the White House.

And in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, the euphoria of initial victory was quickly displaced by deep unpopularity and electoral mauling as soon as mid-term elections fell due; in Clinton’s case, a second term was made a certainty only by exceedingly poor candidate selection by the Republicans.

In short, the US Democratic Party of the past 40 years isn’t the most successful outfit on the planet.

I was shocked to learn, flicking through Wikipedia at the weekend, that many prominent names at Democratic presidential selection contests 30 years ago have remained prominent for most of the time since; the current Vice-President, for example, initially sought the presidency in the 1980s.

And with an eye to the future, it seems a tall ask for the Democrats to be competitive in four years’ time, let alone be in any position to win.

Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was, in some respects, the last lunge by a patronage-addled, insiderish junta at an undeserved return to power in Washington; it has rightly been punished with defeat, and there are few credible names coming through that party’s ranks who might make plausible claims to the White House even after a further four years.

By contrast, the Republicans are blessed with fresh blood, with the likes of Scott Walker and Marco Rubio seemingly on the cusp of acting as standard bearers for a new era of American conservative politics.

I would be surprised if Trump seeks a second term in 2020, at the age of 74; whether he does or not, I suspect the axis of American politics is very much tilting away from the Democrats.

Either way — and whether he does or not — the onus is now on Trump to deliver on his rhetoric, and to make good his promise to “make America great again;” this project doesn’t start for another ten weeks, and until it does, I will reserve my judgement.

For Hillary Clinton, yesterday represented a brutal and thoroughly deserved humiliation, and a savage repudiation of everything she and her insidious cabal stands for; as I publish, Clinton has had neither the grace to publicly concede the election to Trump, nor the basic decency to address the American public or her long-suffering supporters. In defeat, Hillary Clinton has shown just how poor a champion she really is for the groups she claims to represent, and her actions remove any final vestiges of doubt that her only real agenda was power at literally any price.

America — and the world — are the poorer for the bruising and at times tasteless election campaign that concluded yesterday. It is Trump’s responsibility to now restore some decorum and prestige to institutions and processes that have been considerably tarnished.

But this election was destined to be lost by Hillary Clinton, who was born to lose any contest for the highest office in the United States at which she may have sought to slake her thirst for power and the imbecilic delusions of entitlement and public adulation that may have fed it.

In the end, this had nothing to do with oppressed women, or male dominance of spheres of influence, or the inherent “sexism” of the electorate, or any other bullshit with which the Left seeks to justify the failure of undesirable and contemptible candidates for high office.

Hillary Clinton has failed because the US public — weary of her after 40 years in public life, and contemptuous of her litany of scandals, fixes and other embarrassments — has finally decided to simply say “no.”

There is nobody else to blame. The result perfectly reflects her unfitness for office. Hillary Clinton emerges from this contest with precisely what she deserves, and that — literally — is absolutely nothing.

 

Trump vs Clinton: Choosing Between Political Correctness And The Truth

AS THE RACE to find the 45th US President enters the final stretch, it looks increasingly likely America — and the world — will be lumbered with the most unfit candidate to ever hold the office. A Hillary Clinton presidency is not and will not be a triumph, but a disaster; such an outcome is not a victory for women, but a curse upon them. In a turgid race pitting leftist fantasies of political correctness against a potty-mouth, a certain casualty is the truth.

Today’s post is as much an opportunity to “share” as an opinion piece in its own right; as we recommence the discussion in this column I’m mindful there are many issues we have missed, and with a known two-day hiatus starting off the new week, I want to try to get a separate piece up in time for Monday morning readers in addition to this one.

But the electoral contest playing out in the United States offers perhaps the most uninspiring choice of candidates ever seen at arguably the most important US election since Dwight Eisenhower triumphed in 1950, if ever; this election actually matters — not just to the USA, but to the rest of the world — and has become, like everything Hillary Clinton touches, a filthy slugfest between an allegedly rotten enemy that must be destroyed at any and all costs, and a tawdry set of “principles” to which unconvincing lipservice is paid but which are utterly disconnected from the reality of their so-called champion.

At the outset, I want to emphatically note that I am not a supporter of Donald Trump, even if the practical effect of my position could be construed as marking me out as exactly that; on the contrary, I am flatly, resolutely and implacably opposed to the Clintons — be it Hillary, Bill, Chelsea, or the army of quislings who do their bidding — and can more accurately be described as sitting in the “anyone but Hillary” cohort.

Indeed, one of the despairing laments those around me have heard over the past couple of months is that it’s a shame (an almost criminal shame) that the independent candidates in the field, and Gary Johnston in particular, do not seem to have their shit together; the imperative of barring Hillary Clinton from the Oval Office far transcends any jumped-up indiscretions on the part of Trump, but through the negligence and selective amnesia of most of the American press, the sins of the latter seem certain to pave the way for the ascension of the former: with her own, far more reprehensible track record simply skated past and ignored.

The explosive revelation some weeks ago that Donald Trump had engaged, 20 years ago, in what he described as “locker room banter” but which at root was a filthy diatribe about what he would physically like to do to women he found attractive were inappropriate, abhorrent, and distasteful in the extreme, although I should note that a) were he not a candidate for the US presidency, they would never have come out, and b) if you show me a heterosexual male who has not articulated sexual desires toward a woman at some point, however foolishly, I will show you a liar. It doesn’t make it right, or justifiable, or even tolerable in the context of the election campaign, but it should also be noted that these sentiments — tasteless or not — were nothing more than words.

Of course, the Clinton campaign has followed up the salacious and scandalising revelations by producing a stream of aggrieved women with accusations of actual sexual “misconduct” against Trump; curiously enough, every one of these accusations has died out within a few days. Some have been allowed to quietly slip when contradicted by credible third-party witnesses; others when irrefutable proof has emerged that Trump was geographically nowhere near the woman in question at the time the alleged misconduct occurred.

The strategy is simple; operating from the grimy platform of the Clintons’ own debased standards (which we will come to presently), to paint Trump as a monster not dissimilar to the former US President in their own midst.

Just because Bill Clinton is a predator and a monster in his own right does not mean Donald Trump, by extension, must also be a predator on account of the fact he has dared to range himself against the Clintons in an electoral contest.

But if you are a Clinton, this is the mentality that underpins your words and deeds; Hillary is “a champion” of women and of women’s rights, and the “agent of change” who will encourage women across America and the world to speak out about their experiences at the hands of evil men, safe in the knowledge their grievances will be believed and assured that whomever they accuse will have the living shit kicked out of them by society, public opinion, and the law.

It doesn’t matter, in the jaundiced and warped Clinton world, that their own reality could not be more disconnected from this nirvana of women’s rights and the damnation of men at the merest denunciation, however fallacious; in fact, this outlook is a heinous and unforgivable slight upon those women who really have been raped, or assaulted, or otherwise physically mistreated by men who are never brought to account.

But when you are a Clinton, such distinctions are treated with contempt, for the only thing that matters is power: and if that means using a few women as pawns, or trashing a few men guilty of nothing more than a few loose (if grotesque) words along the way, then so be it.

This brings me to an excellent video editorial by New York media identity, former prosecutor and judge, Jeanine Pirro, from her programme on Fox News three weeks ago at the height of the fallout from the initial reportage of the Trump remarks; with surgical precision (and whilst failing to excuse what Trump said in any way, shape or form), Pirro made the case — irrefutably — that far from a defender of women, Hillary Clinton is in fact a destroyer of them; far from a champion of women’s rights, Hillary Clinton is a serial malevolent whose only priority has been to further her own (and her husband’s) political agenda even if it means actively compromising the very cause she has the audacity and gall to claim, po-faced, to be the greatest advocate for that America has ever seen.

Take the few minutes to watch this, folks. It isn’t intended to exonerate Trump, but those wedded to the imbecilic notion of Hillary Clinton as a President who might add any value whatsoever to the lot of women cannot reasonably adhere to such a misguided notion after an exposition of the case against her, laid out with forensic exactitude, such as this.

(That clip is pinned to the top of my Twitter feed, and will remain there until election day in the US; I urge readers who use Twitter to visit me @theredandblue and retweet it to their followers, and to encourage them to do the same).

But more broadly, why are 300 million Americans apparently determined to select a President based on this issue at all?

With the exception of Fox News (and even then, not unilaterally), the bulk of the US press appears singularly determined to simply ignore the shocking record of the Clintons where misdemeanours against women — actual, physical, often allegedly criminal misdemeanours — are concerned.

The complete whitewash of anything remotely negative in connection to Hillary Clinton is reminiscent of the treatment given to Kevin Rudd in 2007 by the Australian press; despite “a rich seam of shit” on Rudd, as I put it to a former senior Liberal frontbencher at the time and which was later validated by events more thoroughly than any of us hoped or believed, the media in Australia had simply decided who they wanted to win that year’s election and proceeded, blindly and unthinkingly, on that basis. The same phenomenon is in evidence in America today.

And without putting too fine a point on it, this election matters, for reasons that far transcend issues of women’s rights and the politically correct railings against an indisputed potty mouth with an apparent penchant for talking dirty.

The warnings by 2012 GOP candidate Mitt Romney about the resurgent threat posed to the United States by Vladimir Putin’s Russia have proven disturbingly correct, so much so that the very real prospect of nuclear conflict over Syria, or over any move by Russian forces into the disputed Baltic states, is now growing; eight years of abjectly pathetic Democratic management of foreign affairs have signalled a weakening of American prestige and resolve on the world stage, with Iran widely perceived to have walked all over Barack Obama in striking a deal on nuclear security that left it open to developing nuclear weapons, and with a plethora of other international flashpoints — North Korea, Syria, and the scourge of Islamic State — seemingly beyond the capacity of the Americans to deal with.

Domestically, the US faces intransigent challenges in healthcare, immigration, crime, the moribund state of its economy, and the haemorrhaging federal budget: all issues for which Clinton has exhibited a cavalier disregard.

And Clinton’s own record — with unresolved allegations of criminality over her misuse of classified emails, Benghazi, and the supposedly charitable Clinton Foundation, amongst others — is seemingly being overlooked by the mainstream media altogether.

It is instructive to note that Wikileaks — curiously, looking as if it wants to torpedo Clinton — has been unearthing an avalanche of damning evidence against Clinton that is failing to register with American voters, presumably because the mainstream press simply isn’t interested.

But what is equally telling is that the Clinton camp and its adherents — who in the past lauded Wikileaks as a “hero” whenever it took aim at George Bush, or John Howard, or Stephen Harper, or a swathe of other Right-of-Centre leaders — is now letting it be known that the document leaking portal is “a disgrace.”

I don’t resile from my long-held view that Wikileaks is nothing more than a criminal outfit: a front for the commission of treason, sedition, and other violations of the national security of sovereign states. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and the only thing protecting Clinton is the apathy of the press, which is relentless in striving to achieve her election as President.

In an ideal world, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and even the independent candidates on the ballot who seem incapable of capitalising on the horrendous choice provided by the major parties would all be absent from this contest; it is the most lacklustre field in living memory, and makes the likes of Barry Goldwater and Walter Mondale appear positively statesmanlike by comparison.

And in a final demonstration of the contemptible double standards of the Clintons, their “outrage” at suggestions by Trump that he “might not accept” the election result if Hillary wins warrants a look no further than the behaviour of the Al Gore campaign — aided and egged on by the Clintons — when it dragged the USA through a protracted legal dispute that lasted for weeks when George W. Bush narrowly triumphed in 2000.

Yet whoever emerges, the tragic casualty is likely to be the truth: and if Clinton is elected, the USA and the rest of the world will soon regret the day she was ever selected by her party to run against Trump, let alone handed the keys to the White House.

Trump may have proven little better than a filthy gnome during this campaign, but that pales in comparison to the actual misdeeds of Clinton, and the genuine threat a second Clinton presidency would pose to international security and to the United States itself.

In this sense, the least worst of the available candidates is, in fact, Donald Trump: something it gives me no joy whatsoever to opine.

Yet unless an outburst of reality and commonsense quickly afflicts the American press — and the tens of millions of voters who depend on it to provide a balanced assessment of all relevant aspects of this campaign, and not just the sanitised PC blather of the Clinton junta — then a Clinton presidency is exactly what America will get.

Should it come to pass, then fair-minded and rational people the world over will have ample reason for alarm.

God help the United States of America.

 

Hillary For Prison 2016: The Indictment Looms

THE PROSPECT of POTUS fancy Hillary Clinton finally ending up where she belongs — in gaol — has drawn nearer, with a key report slamming her misuse of classified material on a private email server. This column has despised the Clintons for decades, with their entitlement mentality and penchant for acting as laws unto themselves. The likely Democratic nominee facing prison as a consequence of her actions would be no less than she deserves.

At some point late today or tomorrow morning, I am going to post a quick review of where our own federal election campaign sits with three weeks down and five to go; for some time I have thought Malcolm Turnbull was on track for a narrow defeat, although the best efforts of the ALP this week to deal the Coalition back into the game just might save Turnbull’s hide. Stay tuned.

But this morning I want to share a report carried by The Australian yesterday from The Times, which moves election season in the United States into some seriously interesting territory; a key State Department report into the unorthodox email management system utilised by Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State — using a private server — has slammed the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, finding the arrangement was not officially sanctioned, and was used to handle confidential and classified materials that were at heightened risk of hacking or interception as a consequence.

Clinton, tellingly, has apparently been “sweating” on this report exonerating her of any misconduct.

But in a further excoriation of her behaviour, the report also found that 30,000 emails deleted from the private server included classified documentation: and that not only should they not have been there, but they should not have been destroyed by Clinton either.

It now seems inevitable that Clinton will face charges over the matter, and if found guilty, faces prison: and with decades of history of acting, with husband Bill in harness, as a law unto herself, a stint in a federal penitentiary would seem no less than the one-time First Lady and New York Senator deserves.

THE decades-long endeavour to bring Hillary Clinton to justice may be nearing its conclusion.

This column has never made any secret of its deep loathing of Bill and Hillary Clinton; neither is able to point to any legacy in office of any particular value, and both fit the nauseating stereotype of would-be emulators of the “Camelot” mentality of the Kennedy family with their sense of entitlement, their penchant for doing whatever they like, and the expectation they will always get away with it: and that Americans will and indeed should love them irrespective.

I’m sorry, but even in the insiderish Washington establishment that protects its own at almost any cost, this is simply too much to stomach.

Not least from a woman who — 20 years ago — found herself at the centre of the Whitewater scandal, in which her role was never satisfactorily or convincingly explained; and not from an individual who now seeks arguably the most powerful office in the world, free to dispense patronage and favour to fellow travellers in the Democrats’ insidious liberal Left tradition, and whose ascent to that office could provide sufficient cover to ensure she never faces justice over the alleged misdemeanours of which she now stands accused.

This scandal has been years in the making, literally, and many decent Americans have wondered whether the whole sordid business would be swept under the carpet. In this sense, the release of the State Department’s report, and the obvious signal it sends to prosecutors to indict Ms Clinton, is a refreshing development.

As readers will note, the article I have linked to this morning sets out a likely timeframe for Ms Clinton to be indicted, the charges considered by a Court, and a verdict arrived at; this process will by its nature run longer than the remainder of the presidential election race, giving rise to the very real prospect that Clinton — if elected President — could earn the shame and ignominy of being the first US President to ever be jailed whilst holding office.

This, of course, is no excuse to defer or avoid justice being carried out.

But it adds fresh fuel to the campaign of Donald Trump — who, whether you approve or not, appears likelier by the day to be elected in November, providing the seemingly inevitable march toward the GOP nomination he has all but completed follows its course to conclusion.

And it raises the question of whether the Democrats persist with Clinton, disallow her candidacy on some arcane pretext and substitute her with ageing socialist troglodyte Bernie Sanders, or cut their losses with the pair of them and find a fresh candidate altogether, such as Clinton’s rumoured running mate, Elizabeth Warren.

Personally, I think the Clintons have been allowed to get away with far too much for far too long, and if Hillary ends up in gaol at the conclusion of the State Department’s action against her, it will be exactly what she deserves — and put her precisely where she belongs.

We will follow this issue as it develops, and of course with the nominating contests all but finished, this column will pay closer attention to the presidential race as it cranks up in the rundown to election day in early November.

But if it is decided at law that Clinton has destroyed classified documents (or worse, if it can be established that they have been intercepted) then that isn’t a piffling matter to get away with: it’s an offence against US national security, and should that verdict come to pass, it will be a damnation of somebody who has always held herself up as the “brains” trust in the God-forsaken Clinton sideshow: and a prison term in those circumstances would be a fitting punishment for someone who, on any measure, should have known better — and known better than virtually anybody else in the United States.

I will be back late today or in the morning, as promised, to talk about matters closer to home.