Despite an onslaught of the great and the good telling us for a couple of years now that Donald Trump would not win the Republican nomination – these attempts becoming ever less connected to reality as time went by – it is now plain that he has won it. He will be the Republican nominee. The stream of establishment Republicans recently trying to sell us the snake oil that Nikki Haley had a hope in hell of winning was just laughable. New Hampshire, the second primary state after Iowa, has a primary in which independents can vote in the Republican race. If she can’t win there she can’t win any state in the U.S. And her own state of South Carolina, which comes third, has seen both its U.S. Senators endorse Trump. The current Governor of South Carolina has too. It’s plain for all to see. Nikki Haley is toast. (Side prediction: Haley is so out of sync with the Republican base on immigration, the border, transgender issues, foreign wars and more that I don’t believe Trump will pick her as his VP choice.)
Of course the establishment class has thrown everything it can at Trump, not excluding the kitchen sink. Indictments, lawfare, a risibly one-sided legacy media that even opted not to broadcast Trump’s acceptance speech after he won in Iowa. And this is not new. Remember back to the first Trump impeachment? It was over a phone call he made (leaked by a bureaucrat who would never have leaked against a Democrat President) to the Ukraine President about Hunter Biden. Turns out everything Trump asked about was true. The impeachment was part and parcel of the Russia collusion hoax and all the other efforts made by Democrats and the managerial class to undermine his Presidency. Heck, maybe worst of all was the four-dozen odd senior intelligence officers who, seemingly at the request of the Biden campaign, wrote the open letter just before the 2020 election stating that the Hunter Biden laptop had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. It was in fact Hunter’s laptop with all its incriminating material (as even the NY Times now concedes, over three years later). Polls afterwards indicated that had the laptop been publicised as probably real Trump would have won. And let’s be honest. These top intelligence people knew it was real when they wrote their letter giving cover to Team Biden. They surely knew as much as Miranda Devine and the NY Post. And she knew it was real and that it showed real corruption in the Biden family.
Now for many establishment conservatives and former conservative politicians in Australia, Canada, Britain and without doubt in the U.S., none of this matters. They simply dislike Trump too much – his boorishness, bluntness, scorn for the elites, plebeian eating tastes. They just don’t think he’s suited to be President. Of course, if you point to his actual record from 2016 to 2020 it is basically impossible for any remotely Right-of-centre (and indeed any independent) voter to deny that it’s the best record of this century. On the economy. On tax cuts. Appointing judges. He did more to secure the border than any Republican President (including Reagan). And to the extent he was undermined it was Republicans like John McCain casting the deciding vote to keep Obamacare and Paul Ryan as House Speaker not really funding the wall. (It’s a bit like looking at 13 years of British Tory rule and noticing that they have not delivered on any of the promises they’ve made to their core voters in all that time – for instance, they could stop the boats pronto, it would just take pulling out of the European Convention and repealing the Human Rights Act and maybe putting Tony Abbott in charge, but the Tory partyroom prefers being welcomed in elite society more than stopping the flood of boats, so will be punished by its party base in the election later this year.) Trump, of course, doesn’t care about being accepted in ‘polite society’ so he tries to do what he promised. And that’s another thing. Take a look at what Trump promised before 2016 and what he did – the man tried to deliver on every promise. To me it is bizarre that so many conservatives implicitly would prefer another term of Biden to a second term of Trump.
One factor might be the Ukraine war. Trump was the only President in aeons whose administration was not involved in any war during his whole term. He lambasted other NATO countries which refuse to spend on defence, wanting American money and soldiers to defend them. One hypothetical question is whether the Ukraine war would ever have started had Trump been in office. He says it wouldn’t have. I tend to agree. But now he says he’ll end this war and quickly. Nikki Haley is full on for keeping it going and punishing Russia. But surely there needs to be exit plan other than “we in the West, who can’t even manage to spend 2% of GDP (the U.S. excepted) on defence, are going to drive the Russkies back to their 1989 borders”. Call me sceptical. (And by the way, under Biden recruitment to the U.S. military has collapsed – he’s impregnated ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ dogma into the military and the sort of people attracted to that career hate it. They’re just not joining.)
That leaves Trump’s handling of Covid. I’ll be frank. It stunk. He turned over too many decisions to puffed-up bureaucrats like Fauci. Ron DeSantis (with Kristi Noem of South Dakota) is the U.S gold standard on how to stand up for civil liberties, against lockdowns, for keeping schools open, etc. He should have made his whole campaign about lockdowns. He didn’t. Meanwhile on every non-pandemic policy count Trump was better, certainly better at bringing out the working class vote and at retail politicking. If you look at Biden vs Trump on lockdown policies Trump was miles better. He never mandated the vaccine. He never pushed school closures. Go down the list and though on some Trump was bad, Biden was worse on every one. (And yes, if that sounds as though I am still fuming mad about what our political class did to us for two and a half years, throwing darts at the dartboard to decide which businesses were ‘essential’ or what you could do outside, not paying a penny of costs themselves, spending more than in World War II per capita, transferring huge monies from the young to the old and from the poor to the rich via asset inflation and printing money, well I am fuming mad. I want some accountability, though it’s plain most people just want to move on.)
Anyway, my point is that we now know that Trump will be the Republican nominee in next year’s election. I think it’s 50-50 whether ‘Weekend at Bernie’s’ Biden can be propped up to run again but the fact is he’s probably the best shot the Dems have. And so I give this hostage to fortune and predict a second Trump term when he wins in November.
James Allan is the Garrick Professor of Law at Queensland University. This article first appeared in Spectator Australia.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Now I understand the current war the current Dutch government is waging on farmers, a war which unfortunately seems to be gaining allies across the world.
Our mega-clever leaders wish to prepare us for the dire prospect of losing a great deal of global food production due to climate change by 2100, by eliminating as much of global food production as they can by 2030… A most cunning plan. Cull hundreds of millions to save – well, if the corona response is anything to go by, to save no one.
Some people might say the better plan would be to make plans for areas that are predicted to be subject to extreme weather to better help them deal with droughts, heat, cold, floods, whatever. Sort of like we should have simply treated sick people suffering from a virus-indiced illness rather than trying to prevent it altogether.
Yes, preparing for any changes to climate that might occur would be 100 times cheaper than NET ZERO and removing fossil fuels. But I think we have to remember that “Climate Change” isn’t really about the climate. Climate Change is simply the excuse for the Eco Socialism. It is the excuse for “Sustainable Development” (A world run by technocrats, controlling the worlds wealth and resources and the global economy). PS There are not really any “predictions” about future climate. There are “projections” from climate models full of assumptions and speculations that don’t even include many of the climate parameters, because they are either poorly understood or not known at all.
Every scientist who remains silent in the face of these ludicrous, laughable, nonsense predictions of doom and gloom is complicit in causing poverty, immiseration and mental distress. There is no excuse that bears any scrutiny. They are self-serving cowards, more concerned with their own precious careers than their responsibility to be decent, honest human beings.
I expect deceit and lies from politicians and journalists, for the truth is not in them, but those that claim to be scientists who still go along with this fantastical, groundless soothsaying deserve a special place in hell.
But there has always been this symbiotic relationship between government and scientists. Today more than ever before though science has been corrupted for political purposes. Scientists are like any other group of people with families to feed and mortgages to pay. If government want to pay them good money to look for purple horses then it is very hard for them to quickly report back that there are NONE . ———They might decide to hedge their integrity with phrases like “The likelyhood of there being purple horses is not inconsistent with our studies”. That way the government get to say they are following the science and the scientists get to say they haven’t told porkies.
“pay them good money” is more accurately described as “waste hard earned taxpayers money”
Yes “hard earned taxpayers money”. But it was good money till the government decided to splash it about like confetti in support of anything remotely they think will help them pretend to save the planet.
If you want the names of the guilty, look no further than the celebrity scientists on TV.
If there was a climate emergency, don’t you think that all these ULEZ, CAZ and LEZs would not be based on paying a fee but on stopping all vehicles that do not meet emissions levels from entering? I, in my trusty old 16 years old diesel can drive happily into any urban centre, spouting my noxious fumes, IF I pay a fee. Likewise, don’t you think that housing estate developers would be forced to include solar panels, wind turbines, triple glazing, EV charging units etc on all their new builds? They aren’t. With rising sea levels predicted, wouldn’t people like Obama, Gore, Gates et al not be buying sea front homes? They are. Also, with air traffic one of the big emitters, wouldn’t all the same lot be leading by example and doing their G7 meetings via zoom? They aren’t. And these are just a few of the examples of the utter hypocrisy that lies at the heart of this fake emergency. Let’s look at what the emergency entails:
No more gas boilers
Less meat
Less farms
More EVs (with their dirty lithium batteries prone to catching fire)
More restrictions in driving
Phasing out of petrol and diesel cars
Phasing out or ban on woodburners
etc etc
And for Absolute Zero (which sounds like a vodka and maybe you need a stiff one to read the following):
No more flying
No more ships
No meat
No gas/fuel
No driving
etc etc
All this for what? Emissions of a gas that is at 400 parts per million, a gas that is plant food. This is not only a massive hoax, it is criminal. The mobsters who pass themselves off as bankers, politicians, judiciary, media…all of them fan the flames of this criminality. Most people would call you and me conspiracy theorists or some label or other. It’s just their way of shutting down debate because they know that in a debate they would lose. If ever the snoozing masses wake up to this and realise they’re prisoners on day release and not free and about to be locked up in zones while the globalists slowly kill us off, this would end.
Agreed – but it’s fewer farms not less.
I know, Epi, I wrote it in haste though.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51281986
Frim 29th Jan 2020
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent
The worst-case scenario for emissions of CO2 this century is no longer plausible, say researchers.
Proponents of climate change and climate policies in government, media and the useful idiot class that glue themselves to things think that climate change is a purely black and white issue. They think it is an issue where you either agree it is happening or you don’t agree (in other words you are a climate denier). To these people there is no in-between the black and white. So when a person asks any kind of question or points out any kind of discrepancy or inaccuracy in some claim about the climate then that must mean they are a “denier”. ———– But isn’t the issue of climate change not supposed to be about science? ——-In science isn’t it the case that scepticism is the highest calling and blind faith the one unpardonable sin? ——–YES. —— So, when science cannot be challenged, because it has simply been declared as ultimate truth and when that science cannot be falsified and there is no way to disprove those scientific claims, then actually we are not really dealing in science anymore. We are dealing in Politics and dogma. We are dealing in “Official Science” that exists for one reason only. ——-To provide the excuse for public policy.——- This “Official Science” that cannot be challenged and which cannot be falsified is the science that supports the Politics of “Sustainable Development”. Without that science, the whole Sustainable Development agenda collapses. So, this is why there can be no discussion, no questions, no expressions of doubt, no indication that maybe there are uncertainties that could use further investigation. But we do not live in a scientific dictatorship. Truth cannot simply be declared by government funded data adjusters, where if they torture the data for long enough it will confess to anything. If they do try to torture data for political purposes then along should come all the Investigative Journalists to expose their shenanigans, but the horror is confounded when we discover that vast swathes of the media supposed to be doing the investigating have simply morphed into climate activists (BBC, SKY NEWS, CNN, Independent, Guardian, New York Times etc etc.. ———We are reminded on TV News nearly every day of the “Climate Emergency”. But where is this emergency? Are storms floods and droughts getting more intense and more frequent? ———Eh NO. They aren’t ——-If someone asks me if there are such things as pillar boxes I can say yes there are, because I have seen them. I have posted letters in them so I know they exist. I have NOT seen a “Climate Emergency” despite the fact that I am continually reminded there is one. It turns out that the emergency exists in only one place —Climate Models. How have we got to a place where 40% of young people don’t want to have children because they fear for the future of the planet? The answer is that propaganda is a very powerful tool which is why governments love using it. They know it works.
Governments are shameless we know. But taking on Goebbels views on the ‘Big Lie’ is the worst of all their crimes.
Please watch Geoengineeringwatch.com. Those chem trails we see EVERY SINGLE day in the UK and around the world, but choose to ignore, are manipulating the weather. And not in a good way.
If you read it, the Washington Post article seems to be more of a discussion of climate change and turbulence than some kind of alarm.
For example, having explained why rising temperatures can increase turbulence, it writes:
But that doesn’t necessarily mean flight turbulence is becoming more common …. Airlines have taken measures to minimize or avoid bumpy air, including through improved forecasting of atmospheric turbulence.
In fact the article makes no predictions at all, much less doom-laden predictions. Yes it refers to Paul Williams but not to the paper that Chris links to. Chris links to a paper first published in 2017 about modelling turbulence. However, the WP article only refers to a 2019 paper providing data on what has been happening on the North Atlantic route (presumably this is the paper it is referring to).
Also amused to see this from Chris:
Apart from small upticks in warmth due to powerful and natural El Nino events, the recent warming is barely measurable within any reasonable margin of error.
Whenever Chris talks about the pause I assume he is referring to Spencer and Christie’s UAH record. There are of course many other global temperature records but even the UAH record looks very much like a rise (and Spencer and Christie don’t deny it). However, allowing for El Nino years is, I think, new. Can we equally allow for the La Nina which has suppressed global temperatures for the last three years?
Yes, but just because something warms does not mean humans warmed it.— Over the last hundred or so years official temperature records seem to indicate warming and cooling periods. There was cooling from 1940-76, slight warming from 76-98 and statistically not much since then despite more CO2 going into the atmosphere. Even the IPCC admit they cannot tell the difference between natural variability of the climate and changes allegedly caused by humans. They also recently admitted that their worst case scenarios are very unlikely to occur, which kind of eliminates the need for “climate crisis” kind of talk. ————— The temperature record of earth though has been fiddled about with more than a hookers knickers. So as Judith Curry has said “Sure, all things being equal, CO2 may cause a little bit of warming, but all things in earth’s climate are not equal”. ——-A little bit of warming is not a “crisis”
Climate change crisis is the biggest Cash Cow in the history of the world. Tens of thousands of scientists and academics rely on this for funding. There is 1 thing driving and maintaining this and it is western governments cash! Until that stops this will continue.
Is public trust in science really being undermined? If so, this article may explain why, but does not show that it is so. Its headline is misleading.
I *suspect* that the current state of science is such that no-one really knows how the climate might change, or what factors might change it. But that is just me, not the public.
Science is not about consensus or trust. What we are witnessing is an utter failure of the education system to prepare people to live in a technically advanced society. I suspect this is deliberate. An educated population ask too many questions.
The humanity-caused climate change industry is very lucrative for some.
They will try their best to keep the money flowing to them.