Is it possible to boost your intelligence by training?

Some actual science from Salon

Scientists achieved astonishing results when training a student with a memory training program in a landmark experiment in 1982. After 44 weeks of practice, the student, dubbed SF, expanded his ability to remember digits from seven numbers to 82. However, this remarkable ability did not extend beyond digits – they also tried with consonants.

The study can be considered the beginning of cognitive training research, investigating how practice in areas ranging from music to chess and puzzles impacts our intelligence. So what’s the state of this research 35 years later – have scientists discovered any foolproof ways to make us smarter? We reviewed the evidence to find out.

The topic of cognitive training is still very controversial, with scientists expressing opposing views about its effectiveness. Enthusiastic claims about the effects of cognitive training programs usually follow the publication of a single experiment reporting positive findings.

Much less attention is paid when a study reports negative results. This phenomenon is quite common in many areas of social and life sciences and often provides a biased view of a particular research field. That is why systematic reviews such as ours are essential to rule out the risk of such bias.

Making sense of conflicting evidence

In a new paper, published in Current Directions in Psychological Science, we synthesize what the reviews say about several cognitive training programs. Our main method was meta-analysis – that is, a set of statistical techniques for estimating the true overall effect of a treatment.

To begin with, music expertise has been associated with superior memory for music material (notes on a stave). Remarkably, music experts exhibit a superior memory even when the musical material is meaningless (random notes). In the same vein, musical aptitude predicts music skills such as pitch and chord discrimination.

However, music instruction does not seem to exert any true effect on skills outside of music. Indeed, our meta-analysis shows that engaging in music has no impact on general measures of intelligence, when placebo effects are controlled for with active control groups. Music training does not affect either cognitive skills – fluid intelligence, memory, phonological processing, spatial ability and cognitive control – or academic achievement. These outcomes have been recently confirmed by other independent labs.

The field of chess presents an analogous pattern of findings. Chess masters’ exceptional memory for chess positions is renowned. However, to date, chess training appears to exert only a small effect on cognitive and academic skills. What’s more, almost none of the studies reporting such effects actually used a control group – suggesting that the results were mainly due to placebos (such as being excited about a new activity).

Similar results have been observed in the field of working memory training. Working memory is a cognitive system, related to short-term memory, that stores and manipulates the information necessary to solve complex cognitive tasks. Participants undergoing working memory training programs systematically improve their performance in several working memory tasks. However, experimental groups consistently fail to show any improvement over active controls in other skills such as fluid intelligence, cognitive control or academic achievement. These findings were confirmed in three independent meta-analyses about children, adults, and the general population.

Video game training also fails to enhance cognitive function. In another recent meta-analysis, to be published in Psychological Bulletin, we show that video game players outperform non-gamers on a variety of cognitive tasks. However, when non-players take part in video game training experiments, no appreciable effect is observed in any of the outcome measures. This suggests the video game players may just have been better at those tasks to start with.

Another group of scientists also recently carried out a systematic review on general brain training programs (often including puzzles, tasks and drills). While the researchers reported some effects, they found an inverse relationship between the size of the effects and the quality of experimental designs of training programs. Put simply, when the experiment includes essential features such as active control groups and large samples, the benefits are very modest at best.

The problem with misinterpretation

A pervasive problem with cognitive training studies is that improved performance in isolated cognitive tasks is often seen as a proof for cognitive enhancement. This is a common misinterpretation. To provide solid evidence, it is necessary to investigate the effects of training programs on “latent cognitive constructs” – the variables underlying the performance in a set of cognitive tasks.

For example, working memory skill is a cognitive construct and can be measured by collecting data such as digit span. But if the training exerts an actual effect on the cognitive skill (construct) you should see the effects on many different tasks and latent factors – multiple measures of the same cognitive skill. And it is rare that these training programs are set up to do that.

That means that, to date, cognitive training programs do not even necessarily boost those cognitive functions that the trained tasks are supposed to involve. What is enhanced is just the ability to perform the trained task and similar tasks.

Researchers and the general public should be fully aware of the limits of benefits from training the brain. However, these negative findings shouldn’t discourage us from searching for ways to boost intelligence and other skills. We do know that our cognition is extraordinarily malleable to training. What we need now is more promising pathways to general cognitive enhancement rather than domain-specific enhancement. Our best bet for achieving that is probably by carrying out research on genetics and neuroscience.

SOURCE

******************************

The Bureaucratic Blind Eye

A brand new scandal has broken out at the Department of Veterans Affairs, where the fingerprints of the department’s bureaucrats are all over the latest evidence of misconduct. USA Today’s Donavan Slack broke the story:

Neurosurgeon John Henry Schneider racked up more than a dozen malpractice claims and settlements in two states, including cases alleging he made surgical mistakes that left patients maimed, paralyzed or dead.

He was accused of costing one patient bladder and bowel control after placing spinal screws incorrectly, he allegedly left another paralyzed from the waist down after placing a device improperly in his spinal canal. The state of Wyoming revoked his medical license after another surgical patient died.

Schneider then applied for a job earlier this year at the Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in Iowa City, Iowa. He was forthright in his application about the license revocation and other malpractice troubles.

But the VA hired him anyway.

He started work in April at a hospital that serves 184,000 veterans in 50 counties in Iowa, Illinois and Missouri.

Some of his patients already have suffered complications. Schneider performed four brain surgeries in a span of four weeks on one 65-year-old veteran who died in August, according to interviews with Schneider and family members. He has performed three spine surgeries on a 77-year-old Army veteran since July—the last two to try and clean up a lumbar infection from the first, the patient said.

Schneider’s hiring is not an isolated case.

Slack goes on to document several other instances in which the VA’s bureaucrats knowingly overlooked the history of the medical professionals they hired, where evidence and findings of malpractice, license suspensions and other misconduct were either ignored or dismissed, where the consequences of those hiring decisions have negatively impacted the quality of treatment that America’s miltary veterans receive at the VA. The new scandal has already drawn bipartisan attention on Capitol Hill demanding an investigation.

Alas, the knowing hiring of individuals with shady track records is not an isolated to the bureaucrats at the VA. The scandal-plagued Internal Revenue Service has behaved similarly. Accounting Today‘s Michael Cohn reports:

The Internal Revenue Service rehired more than 200 employees with previous conduct and performance issues, according to a new government report.

The report, from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, found that 10 percent of the more than 2,000 former employees rehired by the IRS between January 2015 and March 2016 had been previously fired while under investigation for a substantiated conduct or performance issue.

Of the more than 200 rehired employees, 86 had been “separated” from the IRS while they under investigation for absences and leave, workplace disruption, or failure to follow instructions. Four had been terminated or resigned for willful failure to properly file their federal tax returns; while another four employees had been separated from their jobs while under investigation for unauthorized accesses to taxpayer information. On top of that, 27 former employees didn’t disclose a previous termination or conviction on their application, as required, but were nonetheless rehired by the IRS.

Both hiring scandals can be considered to be evidence of a culture of corrupt cronyism within the U.S. government, where its bureaucrats care first and foremost about putting their own interests before all others and to the exclusion of serving the interests of regular Americans. A third case of insider cronyism within a U.S. government agency can be found in recent news headlines involving the largely redundant Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, where the quitting head of the bureau attempted to install his deputy as his replacement in defiance of federal laws governing the filling of permanent vacancies, where the deputy’s legal claim to the position was subsequently refused by a federal court.

To quote Ian Fleming from his James Bond novel Goldfinger: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” At what point will regular Americans receive both the answers and accountability they deserve from the bureaucrats in these agencies who claim to serve the public?

SOURCE

********************************

Contra Activist Judges, It’s Not Discriminatory to Prohibit Transgender Individuals From Joining Military

On Dec. 11, a federal lower court judge in Washington, D.C., refused to stay her earlier Oct. 30 order blocking President Donald Trump’s Aug. 25 directive regarding transgender military service.

That directive, transmitted to the departments of Defense and Homeland Security, put to a halt the Obama administration’s June 2016 plan to allow transgender individuals to serve openly in the U.S. armed forces, beginning in July 2017 (but put on hold until Jan. 1, 2018, by Defense Secretary James Mattis).

If allowed to stand, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly’s decision—coupled with similar Nov.  21 and Dec. 11 holdings in separate case by federal judges in Maryland and Seattle—would have enormous negative consequences.

It would mean that effective Jan. 1, 2018, the U.S. armed services would have to begin admitting transgender individuals, subject to certain guidelines. The armed services also (based on the ruling by the Maryland judge) would have to fund sex reassignment surgical procedures for military personnel—on the taxpayer’s dime.

As a legal matter, these federal court decisions are deficient. Judges have no business displacing the reasoned decision of the president, under his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief, to promote military readiness by establishing sound principles for eligibility to serve in the armed forces.

The lower court decisions acknowledge this presidential authority, but nevertheless claim that, by being prevented from serving in the military, transgender individuals would be denied “equal protection of the law” guaranteed by the Constitution.

But equal protection prohibits invidious discrimination based on immutable characteristics such as race—discrimination lacking any rational justification. It does not apply to rationally based noninvidious differentiation among classes of individuals needed to advance national goals, such as a strong military.

Rules denying military service opportunities to individuals who have serious medical problems (for example, heart disease, chronic asthma, or cancer) are not invidious discrimination—they are fully rational efforts to promote well-run and effective military services. Because individuals suffering from significant medical difficulties drive up costs and tend to impair combat effectiveness, it is perfectly rational to bar them from military recruitment.

These medical considerations apply directly to transgender individuals, who often must cope with serious physical and psychological problems

More HERE 

********************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated),  a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on THE PSYCHOLOGIST.

Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

***************************

Republicans are the workers

I don't think it is a big stretch to say that only the workers would buy an extended-cab pickup truck and those are the vehicles most seen in Republican neighborhoods.  The idea that the car you buy tells you about the person is an old one.  I think we have all heard that a man who drives a big, ostentaatious car is small somewhere else.  And in my observation, short men almost always drive big cars. And in her classic book "Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour", anthropologist Kate Fox gives a very detailed account of what cars the various social classes in England drive.  So the report below sounds pretty informative to me.


In a paper published earlier this year, Stanford computer scientist Timnit Gebru wrote about how neighborhoods can be evaluated by the makes and models of the cars parked in their driveways. The paper appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and it's an interesting read.

By analyzing the images already available as part of Google Street Views, the research team was able to identify which neighborhoods were Republican and which were Democrat as well as many other characteristics.

It determined that in those areas where the number of sedans is higher than pickup trucks, there’s an 88 percent chance of the district voting Democratic. Where there are more pickup trucks, there’s an 82 percent chance it’s a Republican-voting district.

The project devised an automated methodology that estimated the social characteristics of regions covering 200 U.S. cities based on analyzing 50 million images from Street Views. The images were originally created by Google sending cars through every neighborhood in the country, capturing images that are then displayed and accessed on Google Maps. Their automated process took two weeks, compared to 15 years if the images had been analyzed by hand.

The automated process to analyze the images was accomplished using computers and artificial intelligence software called “convolutional neural networks” that learned to recognize the vehicles by identifying unique features on each. That allows the computer to identify the make and model, year, value, and fuel efficiency of the vehicle.

To characterize the automobiles, they hired Amazon Turk workers to develop a library of car images from Edmunds.com, Cars.com, and Craig’s List. Their data came up with 2,657 visually distinctive categories, covering cars found in the U.S. since 1990.

So, what else did their analysis show from the automobile information? They came to the following conclusions, as quoted from the report:

Hondas and Toyotas most strongly indicate an Asian neighborhood.
Chryslers, Buicks and Oldsmobiles “are positively associated with African-American neighborhoods.”

Pickup trucks and Volkswagens are associated with white neighborhoods.

Sedans are most associated with Democratic voter precincts; Republican-leaning precincts are most associated with extended-cab pickup trucks.

The researchers noted how this process could be a supplement or even a substitute for the way census data is now acquired because they found good agreement between their findings and those from the manual surveys.

They also noted that the U.S. spends more than $250 million each year on the American Community Survey (ACS) that sends workers door-to-door to interview the residents in each home in order to gather statistics relating to race, gender, education, occupation, and more. The Census Bureau conducts their survey once every 10 years. While both are more accurate, they each take a long time to analyze and don't pick up recent trends.

While a fascinating discovery, it will require a leap of faith and more validation for us to believe we are what we drive.

SOURCE

**********************************

More on Giovanni Gentile

Dinesh D'Souza breaks down the socialist history of fascism for Prager University.
   
“He’s a fascist!” For decades, this has been a favorite smear of the left, aimed at those on the right. Every Republican president — for that matter, virtually every Republican — since the 1970s has been called a fascist; now, more than ever.

This label is based on the idea that fascism is a phenomenon of the political right. The left says it is, and some self-styled white supremacists and neo-Nazis embrace the label.

But are they correct?  To answer this question, we have to ask what fascism really means: What is its underlying ideology? Where does it even come from?

These are not easy questions to answer. We know the name of the philosopher of capitalism: Adam Smith. We know the name of the philosopher of Marxism: Karl Marx. But who’s the philosopher of fascism?

Yes — exactly. You don’t know. Don’t feel bad. Almost no one knows. This is not because he doesn’t exist, but because historians, most of whom are on the political left, had to erase him from history in order to avoid confronting fascism’s actual beliefs. So, let me introduce him to you. His name is Giovanni Gentile.

Born in 1875, he was one of the world’s most influential philosophers in the first half of the twentieth century. Gentile believed that there were two “diametrically opposed” types of democracy. One is liberal democracy, such as that of the United States, which Gentile dismisses as individualistic — too centered on liberty and personal rights — and therefore selfish. The other, the one Gentile recommends, is “true democracy,” in which individuals willingly subordinate themselves to the state.

Like his philosophical mentor, Karl Marx, Gentile wanted to create a community that resembles the family, a community where we are “all in this together.” It’s easy to see the attraction of this idea. Indeed, it remains a common rhetorical theme of the left.

For example, at the 1984 convention of the Democratic Party, the governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, likened America to an extended family where, through the government, people all take care of each other.

Nothing’s changed. Thirty years later, a slogan of the 2012 Democratic Party convention was, “The government is the only thing we all belong to.” They might as well have been quoting Gentile.

Now, remember, Gentile was a man of the left. He was a committed socialist. For Gentile, fascism is a form of socialism — indeed, its most workable form. While the socialism of Marx mobilizes people on the basis of class, fascism mobilizes people by appealing to their national identity as well as their class. Fascists are socialists with a national identity. German Fascists in the 1930s were called Nazis — basically a contraction of the term “national socialist.”

For Gentile, all private action should be oriented to serve society; there is no distinction between the private interest and the public interest. Correctly understood, the two are identical. And who is the administrative arm of the society? It’s none other than the state. Consequently, to submit to society is to submit to the state — not just in economic matters, but in all matters. Since everything is political, the state gets to tell everyone how to think and what to do.

It was another Italian, Benito Mussolini, the fascist dictator of Italy from 1922 to 1943, who turned Gentile’s words into action. In his Dottrina del Fascismo, one of the doctrinal statements of early fascism, Mussolini wrote, “All is in the state and nothing human exists or has value outside the state.” He was merely paraphrasing Gentile.

The Italian philosopher is now lost in obscurity, but his philosophy could not be more relevant because it closely parallels that of the modern left. Gentile’s work speaks directly to progressives who champion the centralized state. Here in America, the left has vastly expanded state control over the private sector, from healthcare to banking; from education to energy. This state-directed capitalism is precisely what German and Italian fascists implemented in the 1930s.

Leftists can’t acknowledge their man, Gentile, because that would undermine their attempt to bind conservatism to fascism. Conservatism wants small government so that individual liberty can flourish. The left, like Gentile, wants the opposite: to place the resources of the individual and industry in the service of a centralized state. To acknowledge Gentile is to acknowledge that fascism bears a deep kinship to the ideology of today’s left. So, they will keep Gentile where they’ve got him: dead, buried, and forgotten.

But we should remember, or the ghost of fascism will continue to haunt us.

SOURCE

*********************************

California Still Trashing Workers’ Rights

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the state can impose a contract on employers, in the style of Don Corleone, a deal they can’t refuse. News stories hailed the unanimous ruling as a victory for “farmworkers” but it isn’t. The case deals with Gerawan Farming, a fruit grower in Fresno and Madera counties. A full 99 percent of their employees never voted for representation by the United Farm Workers union and many of the workers were not even born 1990 when the UFW contended to represent them. The UFW then disappeared from the scene but Gerawan still payed the highest wages in California agriculture.

Some 20 years later, the UFW had plunged to about 5,000 members, about the same number of workers Gerawan employs. The UFW demanded that Gerawan workers pay 3 percent of their wages to the union or lose their jobs. In 2013, the state Agricultural Labor Relations Board, all political appointees, oversaw an election. The Board then impounded the ballots, set aside the election and imposed a contract. “Nothing in today’s opinion prevents the employees’ ballots from being counted,” Gerawan said in a statement. “We believe that coerced contracts are constitutionally at odds with free choice.” Gerawan will appeal to the U.S. Supreme court but some realities are already evident.

The ALRB’s refusal to release the workers’ ballots from 2013 should come as no surprise in a state that refuses to release voter data to a federal probe of election fraud. Boards of political appointees imposing contracts is more akin to the Soviet collective farm system than a free agricultural and labor market. Only 16 percent of California workers are union members, so unions do not represent “labor” in any meaningful sense. Millennials may not be aware that United Farm Worker icons Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta derided migrant workers as “wetbacks” and “illegals” and deployed union goons to attack them.

SOURCE

*********************************

Republicans Win Historic Race… In Massachusetts

Don’t count the Republican Party out yet: a GOP candidate narrowly won a special election for a Senate seat in deep-blue Massachusetts.

Dean Tran will be the first Republican in recent memory to represent the uber-liberal Worcester-Middlesex in the Massachusetts State Senate.

Tran defeated Democrat Sue Chalifoux Zephir by 607 of the 15,627 votes cast. His strength mainly came from rural areas, as well as from his hometown of Fitchburg. Tran attributed his success to “visiting [voters] at their doorstep, and speaking to them on a personal level.”

The historic victory and celebratory atmosphere were on display as Tran entered his victory party at the local River Styx Brewery, the standing-room-only crowd began chanting: “G-O-P.”

SOURCE

********************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated),  a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on THE PSYCHOLOGIST.

Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

***************************

From disbelief to dismissal, Alabama women who support Roy Moore have their reasons

Note:  No One Ever Drowned in Roy Moore's Car



Patricia Brady remembers being in an elevator 50 years ago at her office building near Mobile. She was a young woman in her 20s, a graphic designer. A salesman stopped by her office with a product she’d been seeking — she can’t now recall what it was — but she remembers being so excited to get it. And then so terrified.

The salesman, she said, must have misread her enthusiasm for something else, and tried to grope her in the elevator on the way out. “I just said: ‘Whoa, whoa, what are you doing?’ ”  All these years later, the episode still bothers her. “It sticks with you,” said Brady, 74.

But it hasn’t changed her politics. Brady is going to vote for Roy Moore on Tuesday, joining with the 39 percent of women who are, according to polls, standing with the Republican Senate candidate in Alabama despite allegations that he sexually assaulted teenagers, including one who was 14.

During this US Senate race, the sensational has overshadowed the myriad problems in one of the nation’s poorest states.

These female Moore supporters have had the same #MeToo moments that, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll, nearly half of all US women have experienced and are now rehashing the episodes in conversations with co-workers and girlfriends.

But many here are drawing a line of tolerance that favors Moore, viewing the allegations against luminaries like movie titan Harvey Weinstein and NBC star Matt Lauer as far worse than Moore’s alleged trawling for teenage girls in his hometown of Gadsden, Ala., when he was in his 30s. Moore has denied the allegations against him.

Call it a collective forgiveness, or a tendency to protect your own tribe. But many women supporting Moore excuse the Senate hopeful’s behavior as more a boorish phase in his past than predatory, if they believe the allegations at all. They are offering him the benefit of the doubt, and it could well be enough to hand him a seat in the US Senate in a special election race Tuesday against Democrat Doug Jones that polls show is close.

“Anything that happened, if it did happen, happened so many years ago,” explained Brady, a retiree who spoke about the race at the Dragonfly Food Bar, a Mexican-Asian restaurant in downtown Fairhope. “He has been a happily married man for so many years,” she added, pointing to Moore’s 32-year marriage as proof that, whatever happened in his past, he did settle down and change.

It’s not that women necessarily like voting for Moore. “I’ll vote for him because I don’t want the other guy to win,” explained Rebecca Markham, 31, of Guin. She lined up with her family hours before a President Trump rally Friday in Pensacola, Fla., just 14 miles over the state line. She said she didn’t vote for Moore in the primary, but she questions the timing of the allegations. “If they happened so long ago,” she said, “why didn’t they come up then?”

Baldwin County — a suburban and exurban county on the southern tip of the state, just to the east of Mobile Bay — is a place so conservative that three out of every four voters cast a ballot for Trump in the 2016 presidential contest. But last week there were many yard signs for Jones, the Democrat, along major roads and precious few for Moore.

Women working in a Waffle House in Daphne got into a heated debate with their male customers, who backed Moore, when the Senate race came up. “All of a sudden now, after 40 years? They’re going to bring something up,” said one male customer who didn’t want to give his name.

“What about Bill Cosby?” retorted waitress Lynda Sage, as she refilled coffee. “Bill Cosby was almost dead by the time it came out,” she said referring to allegations that the entertainer drugged and raped multiple women. “With all that’s going on,’’ Sage said, “when there is some smoke there’s fire.”

Jones’s campaign has attempted to capitalize on the discomfort many women here feel. His campaign ads feature quotes by prominent Republicans, including Ivanka Trump, disparaging Moore’s behavior. He holds weekly “Women’s Wednesdays” that focus on women’s issues. Last week the featured guest was Lilly Ledbetter, the Alabama native best known as the namesake of the Obama-era law reducing gender pay gaps.

Moore’s campaign, too, is trying to find prominent women to pitch its candidate. Gina Loudon, a former Trump media aide, spoke here last week at a Moore rally and reminded voters that Democrats, too, have a list of leaders who’ve treated women badly, labeling Democrats as hailing from the party of Bill Clinton, Senator Al Franken, Representative John Conyers, and former representative Anthony Weiner.

“Why would you listen to them about your own decision in this election?” Loudon asked supporters packed into a barn on a rainy evening. “I know the women of Alabama are just plain smarter than that.”

Many women do see their support for Moore as a political calculation, just as women have long tolerated poor male behavior as an unfortunate price to pay to achieve some other goal in business or social circles.

That’s the case for Donna Horn, the head of the Pike County Republican Party, who said the primary reason that she’s backing Moore is her deeply held views on abortion. Moore opposes abortion, and Jones supports abortion rights. “That is a line I could not cross,” she said.

Horn, 61, owns a Budweiser distribution company in Troy and has long worked in a male-dominated world. She says that she’s never had an experience she considers sexual harassment — but men have sometimes made comments, which she’s managed by swiftly shutting down the men who make them. “You have to handle that in a firm way,” she said.

With Moore, she believes today’s standards of behavior are being unfairly applied to his past, noting that her own grandmother was 17 years old when she married a man in his late 30s who became her grandfather. “It just wasn’t that uncommon,” Horn said. “I know it raises more eyebrows now than it did back then.”

There’s also a sense among some of Moore’s supporters that, in their own personal experience, they’ve put up with plenty of borderline behavior that they didn’t consider sexual harassment or assault. Allegations alone, they said, shouldn’t end a man’s career.

“Being in the military for 20 years, you see a lot of stuff,” said Cindy Dixon, 52, as she shivered in near-freezing weather in Pensacola, waiting outside the Trump rally on Friday night.

“I wasn’t sexually harassed,” said Dixon, who was in the Air Force until recently, when she and her husband retired to Brewton, Ala. “I think people make too much out of this. It’s life.”

And particularly since most of the allegations don’t include physical force, she doesn’t entirely blame Moore for his behavior. “I don’t see him as a child molester,” Dixon said. “When you have 16-year-old girls flaunting their stuff, they’re not acting like children.”

Blaming the accusers was a common theme among women voting for Moore. “If you run with the dogs, you’re going to get fleas,” said Therese Gilmore, 59, who attended a rally here for Moore last week and owns a hair salon near Mobile. “Most of them put themselves in those situations.”

More important to her, Gilmore said, is keeping a conservative vote in the Senate. Gilmore lamented the skyrocketing costs for health care — saying that friends are paying as much as $1,700 a month for coverage. And she’s worried about illegal immigration. She wanted the conversation to steer clear of the accusations.

“You need to get off all this bullcrap, because ain’t nobody interested,” Gilmore told a Globe reporter asking about the allegations of sexual assault.

The most troubling accusation, even for the women who said they are voting for Moore, was that of Beverly Nelson, who accused Moore of trying to force her to perform oral sex in a car when she was 16. She offered what she called proof of their contact: A yearbook that he’d inscribed, signing it “Love, Roy Moore, D.A.” (Nelson has since admitted adding her own notes below his signature.)

SOURCE

*******************************

‘Evil’ Tax Cuts? Nope, It’s Blue-State Panic

Wealthy blue-state foes of the GOP tax bill face a harsh look in the mirror

 Ah, the holiday season. It’s a magical time, bursting with joy and merriment, the laughter of children, jolly parties, twinkling lights, mildly terrifying mall-dwelling Santas . . . and the faint sounds of caterwauling blue-state politicians shrieking that the GOP tax bill signals the end of civilization as we know it. Can you hear it? Fire and brimstone! The weeping and gnashing of teeth!

But hark, New York Times: What have we here? Why, it’s an analysis from your own news pages, dated December 5, with a doozy of a headline: “Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue State Taxpayers.”

Well, this is certainly awkward. Let’s read on: “While the Republican tax overhaul would add up to an overall tax cut for individual taxpayers, at least through 2025, millions could still immediately receive a tax increase,” notes the report.

Interesting! Who might those people be? “For many, particularly those in Democratic areas who earn $200,000 or more, the increase would come from the repeal of the state and local tax deduction, known as SALT.”

If you know anything about California, you likely now know why good old Governor Moonbeam is freaking out. California may be filled with natural wonders, but it’s also a Democratic area chock full of people who earn $200,000 or more — and it’s also known for high state-level income taxes, with a top marginal rate of 13.3 percent. In the bad old days, Californians could count on simply deducting this highway robbery from their federal taxable income, masking the state’s shenanigans and blunting the financial pain. The GOP tax bill yanks what is essentially a federal subsidy away, forcing blue-state residents to face the reality of their local high-tax, high-spending regimes.

This is basic federalism at work. In theory, it should encourage accountability, particularly among high-tax states long dependent on the federal tax code to soften the blow. But as we all know, accountability is no fun. Public panicking and blaming “the rich” — this is all rather hilarious, given that high-income earners in blue states are the losers here, with middle-class taxpayers and small businesses largely on the winning end — is apparently a far more amusing use of time.

Thus, moving forward, when Jerry Brown moans about the tax bill benefiting “the rich,” please loosely translate it as this: “Quick! We need a distraction! California has long been soaking its upper middle class. The GOP tax bill will make it crystal-clear that a significant chunk of this tax burden is coming from . . . from . . . US!”

Meanwhile, when New York governor Andrew Cuomo claims that the tax bill will “rape and pillage” his state — yes, he actually said this — and somberly declares that the bill “taxes the taxes that New York families pay,” he’s laughably wrong, and he probably knows it.

Why should Americans who don’t live in New York have to cushion the state’s unwieldy, ossified tax-and-spend regime? True tax pillaging, after all, starts at home.

It’s not news to point out that people are fleeing blue states for red states. Recent reports show that Texas gained 1.3 million new residents over the past ten years. (Texas, of course, has no state income tax.) During the same time period, Illinois and New York lost more than 2 million.

The GOP tax bill, which rips the mask off of high state-tax regimes, could very well increase the bleeding. “High-income earners on the East Coast understand the implications of this,” a friend who works in finance told me this week. Some of his contacts on Wall Street, he added, are toying with the idea of voting with their feet.

If blue states can’t get their act together soon, perhaps that’s not such a shabby idea. It would certainly send a message, loud and clear: “It’s not the tax bill that’s the problem, dear high-tax state governments. It’s you.”

SOURCE

********************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated),  a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on THE PSYCHOLOGIST.

Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

***************************

Major Leftist newspaper discredits itself

Do they WANT to be seen as purveyors of fake news? The reporter, Dave Weigel, is a deep-dyed Leftist from way back, previously involved in the Journolist hate-fest so his involvement now is no surprise

President Donald Trump took a Washington Post writer to task on Saturday after the reporter posted inaccurate photos of Trump's Friday Florida rally.

Dave Weigel, who writes about politics for the Post, tweeted a photo of a largely empty stadium with a quote from Trump: 'Packed to the rafters.'

Trump immediately hit back, quickly getting an apology out of Weigel - and demanded that the Washington Post fire him to boot.

Trump posted a screengrab of Weigel's Tweet, along with photos of him stood in front of a packed arena.

'@DaveWeigel @WashingtonPost put out a phony photo of an empty arena hours before I arrived @ the venue, w/ thousands of people outside, on their way in,' he wrote.

'Real photos now shown as I spoke. Packed house, many people unable to get in. Demand apology & retraction from FAKE NEWS WaPo!'

Weigel responded minutes later, saying he'd been notified of the error by DailyMail.com's US political editor, David Martosko, who attended the event.

'Sure thing: I apologize,' he wrote. 'I deleted the photo after @dmartosko told me I'd gotten it wrong. Was confused by the image of you walking in the bottom right corner.'

'An hour later he tweeted: 'It was a bad tweet on my personal account, not a story for Washington Post. I deleted it after like 20 minutes. Very fair to call me out.'

But apparently the mistake stuck in Trump's craw, and an hour after spotting the error he tweeted again

'.@daveweigel of the Washington Post just admitted that his picture was a FAKE (fraud?) showing an almost empty arena last night for my speech in Pensacola when, in fact, he knew the arena was packed (as shown also on T.V.),' he wrote. 'FAKE NEWS, he should be fired.'

At Friday's rally, Trump pointed to a CNN correction and other corrections and clarifications by news organizations in the past week.

The corrections came from stories that initially had been damaging to the president but didn't live up to the scrutiny.

SOURCE

********************************

Another recent bit of fake news from the legacy media,/b>

The spectacle began on Friday morning at 11:00 am EST, when the Most Trusted Name in News™ spent 12 straight minutes on air flamboyantly hyping an exclusive bombshell report that seemed to prove that WikiLeaks, last September, had secretly offered the Trump campaign, even Donald Trump himself, special access to the DNC emails before they were published on the internet. As CNN sees the world, this would prove collusion between the Trump family and WikiLeaks and, more importantly, between Trump and Russia, since the U.S. intelligence community regards WikiLeaks as an “arm of Russian intelligence,” and therefore, so does the U.S. media.

This entire revelation was based on an email which CNN strongly implied it had exclusively obtained and had in its possession. The email was a smoking gun, in CNN’s extremely excited mind, because it was dated September 4 – ten days before WikiLeaks began promoting access to those emails online – and thus proved that the Trump family was being offered special, unique access to the DNC archive: likely by WikiLeaks and the Kremlin.

It’s impossible to convey with words what a spectacularly devastating scoop CNN believed it had.  There was just one small problem with this story: it was fundamentally false, in the most embarrassing way possible. Hours after CNN broadcast its story – and then hyped it over and over and over – the Washington Post reported that CNN got the key fact of the story wrong.

The email was not dated September 4, as CNN claimed, but rather September 14 – which means it was sent after WikiLeaks had already published access to the DNC emails online. Thus, rather than offering some sort of special access to Trump, “Michael J. Erickson” was simply some random person from the public encouraging the Trump family to look at the publicly available DNC emails that WikiLeaks – as everyone by then already knew – had publicly promoted. In other words, the email was the exact opposite of what CNN presented it as being.

SOURCE

******************************

Not Tired of Winning Yet XXX

I am beginning to lose track of all the win gushing forth from the news headlines these days. This is number 30 in columns devoted to this topic.

In times gone by, whenever I was feeling too cheerful, I would listen to the news, until a proper sense of cynical gloom and despair and bitter wrath would settle on me as I watched everything I hold dear slowly or quickly being deconstructed by morally perverted Morlocks. Now, whenever I am feeling blue, I flip the news on, and wait for something to send my spirits soaring.

Here is a partial list of victories and wonders gathered in the last forty days.

A tax cut was passed by the House and Senate, and the politicians and pundits on the Left declare it to be Armageddon sure to result in thousands of deaths.  I swear by the tongue of Saint John Chrysostom that I am not making that up.

The sweet savor of covfefe hangs over all, because this is the last in an endless series of things the Left said Trump could not do, which he then did do.

Even the depressing sex scandals cheer me. This is not because the news that Leftists in Hollywood or in DC are lecherous perverts unmoored by common standards of chastity and decency: we all knew that since the Sexual Revolution. The point of the Sexual Revolution was to allow men to act like satyrs and for feminists to act like nymphs. But instead of the Arcadian charm of ancient Greek, what we get is the mainstreaming of uncivilized and unchristian sexual behavior, and the normalization of indecency.

But the nymphs are not happy with the bargain. They are apparently unwilling to don knee pads and perform acts of sexual gratification on adulterous rape-happy sexual predators any longer. They want to be treated with the dignity and civility Christian gentlemen owe to Christian ladies, and not to be treated as, well, Mohammedans treat their female chattels

Where this leads, heaven knows, but to see the downfall of tyrants is always a pleasure, even the petty tyrants of Hollywood moguls and their casting couch. Did I mention 28 Dem senators have called on Al Franken to resign? John Conyers has already been forced to resign.

The Senate tax-reform bill passed Dec. 1 eliminates Obamacare’s individual mandate, the linchpin of Obama’s government-controlled health-care system, which penalizes taxpayers for choosing not to buy health insurance. That nightmare is not over, but it is ending.

An official investigation into the riots on Charlottesville finally puts the blame surely where it belongs: instead of blaming Trump, as the news did and does, the investigation found that the city fathers and the mayor negligently if not maliciously arranged the protest and the violent counter protest to be held the same day, they forbade the police from donning riot gear, and the sheriff’s plan was to let the violence escalate sufficiently to declare the assembly unlawful, and unleash the riot squad.   Another fake news story found to be fake.

Remember the clearly Constitutional and unarguably legal and lawful order of the Trump administration to ban travel from certain nations with whose subjects we are currently at war? Now, it seems, the obstruction of the pro-Jihad Leftists posing as judges has been stayed by the Supreme Court. That such judges have not yet been reprimanded, disbarred, or hanged as traitors disappoints me: such lawless activity by those entrusted to interpret the law is unforgivable.The fruits of Trump’s recent visit to China include a decision by the Chinese to slash import taxes on some 187 consumer goods. This promises to open their markets to our goods.

While the previous three U.S. presidents promised during their election campaigns to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, President Trump on Dec. 6 became the first to follow through. In his official order, Trump also ordered the U.S. Embassy to be moved to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced Dec. 3 the Trump administration is withdrawing from the Global Compact on Migration

The Department of Homeland Security released figures Dec. 4 showing Trump is delivering on his pledge to more strictly control immigration and deter trespassers. I will not bore you with the numbers.

I will not bore you with economic numbers either, but do you remember when the Received Wisdom of the Elites all said Trump was a loon for saying his policies would usher in 3% growth? Do you remember all those voices telling us that stagnation was “the new normal”?

President Trump signed two executive orders Dec. 4 that gave back about 2 million acres of land to the state of Utah by modifying executive orders by President Obama. Trump reduced the federal government’s control of the Bear’s Ear National Monument to just 201,876 acres. He also reduced the Grand Staircase National Monument in Utah from nearly 1.9 million acres to about 1 million.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Nov. 17 the Department of Justice will cease the practice initiated by President Obama of issuing “guidance memos” to enact new regulations that sometimes have had the effect of changing federal laws.

The federal government on Nov. 9 made public more than 13,000 additional documents from its files on President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, under orders from President Trump. It was the fourth released since October, when the president allowed the immediate release of 2,800 records by the National Archives.

EPA Director Scott Pruitt placed 66 new experts on three different EPA scientific committees who espouse more conservative views than their predecessors. Pruitt signed a directive Oct. 31 banning scientists who receive EPA grants from serving on the agency’s independent advisory boards.

SOURCE

****************************

A great anecdote



Monica Crowley recently gave a speech at the David Horowitz Restoration weekend that has to be one of the best political speeches I have heard.  She was fabulous.  I reproduce below just her opening remarks

At lunch today, we had the great fortune to hear from Victor Davis Hanson who was talking about those of us who have been repeatedly judged for our support of Donald Trump by the self-righteous, self-described anti-Trump superiors, and it called to mind something that happened to me last July.  I had an exchange with a Hollywood heavyweight and no, it was not Harvey Weinstein.  That would have been an exchange of a different kind, and this Hollywood heavyweight approached me, and I got the whole condescending treatment about Donald Trump.  I got the condescending tap on the arm.  I got the look, like, feeling sorry for me that I was a Trump supporter, and he looked at me and he said, "Monica, you're a sweet girl and you're so smart.  You can't possibly be for Donald Trump," and I realized in that second that I had a decision to make.

Was I going to go through the usual excuses, like, well, you know, I know, but I still...? I decided in that split second to own it, and I leaned into this guy and I said, "Are you kidding me?  I freaking love Donald Trump," and to my great surprise, it completely disarmed him, and he stood back.  He wasn't expecting it.  I said, "Are you kidding me, I freaking love him, and if I had 100 votes, I'd spend all 100 votes on Donald Trump," and he was immediately taken aback, and he said, "Oh, no, no, no.  No, don't get me wrong.  I hate her.  I just don't know if I can vote for him," and it completely wrecked his entire line of argument.  It worked like a charm.

SOURCE

********************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated),  a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on THE PSYCHOLOGIST.

Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

***************************

Profound Leftist loss of reality contact:  Obama says Trump=Hitler

How could a courageous defender of Israel be like Hitler? Obama also knows that Trump is a capitalist, not a socialist like Hitler and himself. Obama is of course not the first with the Trump=Hitler accusation.  I have commented on previous ones at length here

Obama's comment was enthusiastically and uncritically received in the media but it has its disturbing side.  Loss of reality contact is the prime symptom of psychosis (insanity) but this loss of reality contact is probably just deliberate propaganda. Remember Bush=Hitler?

Obama is eloquent and smart, but he is playing to the dumbed down emotional image-conscious lefties who know nothing, and to the smarter hateful lefties who know the truth but don’t care about it, only about gaining leftist power, even by deception. Obama is a deceiver, a manipulator, and treacherous. Leftism is treachery. It consists of looking good while being evil)

According to Crain’s Chicago Business, on Tuesday night former President Obama compared the era of President Trump to Adolf Hitler's.

Greg Hinz, writing for Crain’s, said Obama spoke in a Q&A session before the Economic Club of Chicago, back in his home town. Hinz wrote that Obama resorted to the usual leftist rhetoric, intoning that the United States has survived tough times before, referencing Joseph McCarthy and former President Richard Nixon. Then he segued to the need for a free press in order to ensure the country’s survival, saying that he had difficulties with the press, as has Trump, but what he himself understood was “the principle that the free press was vital."

Hinz wrote that Obama continued that the danger is "grow(ing) complacent. We have to tend to this garden of democracy or else things could fall apart quickly." Hinz then reached the crux of the matter:

"That's what happened in Germany in the 1930s, which, despite the democracy of the Weimar Republic and centuries of high-level cultural and scientific achievements, Adolph Hitler rose to dominate," Obama noted. "Sixty million people died. . . .So, you've got to pay attention. And vote."

The bald comparison of Trump to Hitler is not surprising coming from the avatar of the Left; the Left has been promulgating the lie that Hitler was to the political Right and not the Left for at least 70 years.

But what is truly ironic is that Obama’s tenure had more than a few similarities to the early phases of Hitler’s Germany. Guess which figure championed universal health care, increased taxes on the rich so social welfare programs could stay afloat, and more government oversight of corporations? Which figure’s party wanted to make college more affordable, saying in the party platform that “the state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious [person] to obtain higher education.”

If you said both, move to the head of the class.

No one would accuse Obama of being Hitler, although the beginning of their tenures had some similarities. But for Obama to use the tired cliché that a right-wing leader resembles Hitler, whose own party referred to itself as the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, is nothing short of patently outrageous, false, and un-American.

SOURCE

******************************

The real story about Roy Moore

Ann Coulter

Apparently, the GOP is now the party of CHILD MOLESTATION! At least the media tell me that’s the meaning of President Trump’s endorsement of Senate candidate Roy Moore.

Are we allowed to mention that Moore denies the charges?

It’s hard to disprove accusations from 40 years ago — that’s why we have statutes of limitations — but, despite that, there are a surprising number of problems with the allegations against Moore.

One accuser has been called a liar by her own stepson, who says he’s voting for Moore. Another neglected to mention that Moore sent her brother to prison.

In defense of one of Moore’s accusers, Gloria Allred produced a yearbook allegedly signed by Moore, apparently in two different inks and giving his title as “D.A.” He was not the district attorney and didn’t sign his name that way. Allred refuses to produce the yearbook for handwriting analysis or to deny that it’s a forgery.

Contrary to what you have heard one million times a day on TV, there aren’t “multiple accusers.” There are two, and that’s including the one with the fishy yearbook inscription whose stepson says she’s lying.

The other “accusers” claim he dated them when they were 16 to 19 years old and Moore was in his early 30s — or younger than Jerry Seinfeld was (39) when he dated 17-year-old Shoshanna Lonstein.

That would also make Moore 15 years younger than Bill Clinton when he had a 22-year-old intern performing oral sex on him in the Oval Office. Moore’s date “accusers” say he did nothing more than kiss them.

The media throw the dating claims in with the molestation claims so they can keep howling about “multiple accusers.” In fact, only two women are alleging anything that, if true, would merit national attention.

TV anchors think it’s very clever of them to ask anyone who isn’t bowled over by the claims of Moore’s (two) accusers: So you’re calling the women “liars”?

Checkmate!

There’s a lot of room between HE’S A CHILD MOLESTER and THE WOMEN ARE LIARS.

They could be misremembering. They could be confusing Moore with someone else. They could be suggestible. They could be delusional. They could have repeated the story to themselves so many times that they believe it. They could be really, really disgusted with Jerry Seinfeld.

The main accuser has gotten a lot of her facts wrong, such as where she was living at the time (she moved to another town 10 days after meeting Moore); the corner where she allegedly met Moore for their liaisons (she named a corner more than a mile away from her house, across a busy intersection); and when she began to get into trouble with boys and alcohol (it was before meeting Moore, not after).

It was 40 years ago! But it’s just weeks before the election and that’s the media’s favorite time to produce wild accusations against Republicans.

Four days before the 1992 presidential election, Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh dropped an indictment of Reagan’s defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, which seemed to implicate President George H.W. Bush in a lie. Bush lost the election, and about a month later a judge threw out the indictment.

In the middle of the 2004 presidential campaign, CBS’s Dan Rather produced forged documents allegedly proving that President George W. Bush had shirked his National Guard service decades earlier.

In September 2006, just before the midterm elections, the media released GOP congressman Mark Foley’s creepy emails to House pages. No physical contact was alleged. The corpus delicti was that Foley told pages they looked “hot” in their soccer shorts.

The entire GOP was crucified by the media for not having discovered this “pedophile” in its midst. Republican congressmen who had never met Foley lost their seats because of the media’s timing of the email release.

More than 20 years earlier, a Democratic congressman, Gerry Studds, who had actually buggered a 17-year-old page, indignantly defied his House censure and proudly stood for re-election. His outraged Massachusetts constituents elected him six more times. Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy denounced the “witch hunt” against Studds, saying his critics wanted “to torch the congressman for his private life.”

When Studds died in 2006, The Washington Post’s headline on his obituary was: Gerry Studds; Gay Pioneer in Congress. The New York Times’ headline was, Gerry Studds Dies at 69; First Openly Gay Congressman.

Moore’s real crime is that he’s a believing Christian who goes around wantonly quoting the Bible on sodomy.

SOURCE

******************************

Dershowitz: It's Not Obstruction of Justice for Trump to Exercise His Constitutional Authority

Retired Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz said a constitutional crisis would erupt if Congress tries to charge President Trump with obstruction of justice for exercising the authority granted to him under Article II of the Constitution.

He spoke to "Fox & Friends" on Monday morning:

You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power to fire Comey and his constitutional authority to tell the Justice Department who to investigate, who not to investigate. That's what Thomas Jefferson did, that's what Lincoln did, that's what Roosevelt did. We have precedents that clearly establish that.

When George Bush the first pardoned Casper Weinberger in order to end the investigation that would have led to him, nobody suggested obstruction of justice. For obstruction of justice by the president, you need clearly illegal acts. With Nixon, hush money paid; telling people to lie; destroying evidence. Even with Clinton they said that he tried to influence potential witnesses not to tell the truth.

But there's never been a case in history where a president has been charged with obstruction of justice for merely exercising his constitutional authority. That would cause a constitutional crisis in the United States, and I hope Mueller doesn't do that and Senator Feinstein simply doesn't know what she's talking about When she says it's obstruction of justice, to do what a president is completely authorized to do under the Constitution.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Sunday told "Meet the Press" she believes Trump's firing of former FBI Director James Comey was obstruction of justice, and she said that appears to be the direction the investigation is heading.

Dershowitz on Monday said President Trump could have pardoned Flynn if he really wanted to end the special counsel's criminal investigation:

"He (Trump) would have pardoned Flynn and then Flynn wouldn't be cooperating with the other side, and the president would have had the complete authority to do so, and Flynn never would have been indicted, never would have turned as a witness against him," Dershowitz said.

"So I think the fact that the president hasn't pardoned Flynn, even though he has the power to do so, is very good evidence there's no obstruction of justice going on here."

Dershowitz also said Flynn was "right" to speak to the Russian ambassador during the transition and urge him to vote against a U.N. resolution criticizing Israel.

"I think he did absolutely the right thing by trying to stop the president, lame duck, from tying his hands."

SOURCE

********************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated),  a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on THE PSYCHOLOGIST.

Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

***************************

Bannon tells Roy Moore's supporters: 'They want to take your voice away' -- and derides Mitt Romney

FAIRHOPE, Alabama. — It already felt a little like a victory party in Alabama Tuesday, where Senate candidate Roy Moore is suddenly feeling love from the Republican Party despite weeks of disclosures that he sexually pursued and assaulted underaged girls.

There was a barn packed, standing room only, with supporters. American flags and twinkling white lights decorated the interior, while rain occasionally pounded on a tin roof. And Stephen K. Bannon, the former White House strategist turned king-maker, was here to help push Moore over the finish line with his trademark defiance.

“They want to destroy Judge Moore. And you know why? They want to take your voice away,” Bannon declared.

“There is no better way to spend a rainy evening in Alabama than with the deplorables,” he said, playing to the antiestablishment crowd gathered to hear him Tuesday night.

Bannon also tore into former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a Republican who is a sharp Moore critic and a possible candidate for Senate in Utah if incumbent Senator Orrin Hatch opts to retire.

“You hid behind your religion,” Bannon said of Romney, referring to his Mormon missionary work in the 1960s in France, which allowed him to win a draft deferment. “Judge Moore has more honor and integrity in his pinky finger than your entire family does.”

Bannon’s support in the contest against Democrat Doug Jones has been crucial for Moore, the former renegade state judge and Christian favorite who has been accused of sexually assaulting teenaged girls when he was a single man in his 30s. The contest, a special election set for Tuesday, is to replace Jeff Sessions who was tapped to be Trump’s attorney general.

Moore drew parallels between his race here and Trump’s 2016 contest. “He fought both the Democrats and the Republicans and became president of the United States,” Moore said.

“When he was elected I felt like a big weight had been taken off my shoulders. It felt like we had another chance. And do have another chance,” Moore said.

This week marked the beginning of an improbable turnaround, after the renegade Moore, and by proxy, Bannon, appeared headed for a repudiation just a month ago.

“Alabama isn’t sending no Democrat to the Congress,” said Les McMinn, 56, who held up a handwritten sign at Tuesday’s rally that read, “Thank you Lord Jesus for Roy Moore.”

Moore appeared to be in serious trouble after The Washington Post reported early last month that he had sexually molested a 14-year-old girl in the late 1970s and sexually pursued other teenagers. Another woman came forward at a press conference and said Moore sexually assaulted her in a car when she, too, was in high school. Many Republicans distanced themselves from Moore and called on him to drop out of the race.

But in a sign of how much the party has changed since Donald Trump’s 2016 election, the president turned the tide back in Moore’s favor two weeks ago, when he said Alabama voters should reject Jones, whom he described as too liberal. This week, Trump explicitly endorsed Moore, the Republican National Committee restored the spigot of campaign cash, and Mitch McConnell moderated his earlier rejection of Moore after the Post’s revelations.

Now Moore has reestablished a lead in the polls. If he wins, it will be seen as a bigger triumph for Bannon and his far-right movement that has inspired cadres of white nationalists than for Republicans in the Senate. One reason Bannon backs Moore is the sheer discomfort he will bring to Washington.

“He’s going to make McConnell’s life a living hell,” said Andrew Surabian, a former Trump White House aide and Bannon confidant.

Particularly in this moment of reckoning about sexual misconduct by powerful men, adding Moore to the Senate — with the president’s blessing — will further radicalize the Republican Party and redefine the boundaries of acceptable behavior for membership in the country’s most esteemed body, according to critics from both parties.

Moore moves the party so far away from the establishment that the previous rebels are suddenly seen as reasonable, Surabian said. “Roy Moore will normalize Ted Cruz,” he said, referring to the Texas senator whose antics contributed to a temporary government shutdown in 2013.

Trump, after initially waffling, gave Moore a full-throated endorsement on Monday, calling him from Air Force One to say: “Go get ‘em Roy.”

Last month, after the revelations of Moore’s alleged sexual misconduct, McConnell said that Moore should step aside. But on Sunday, on ABC’s “This week,” he declared, “Let the people of Alabama make the call.”

But the party is still not united behind Moore, whom many see as an incoming albatross for Republican senators. And Bannon gets the blame. Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona and Romney are among party leaders who have condemned Moore, and Bannon.

“What (Bannon’s) doing is trying to elect people to the US Senate who have one issue, that is to destabilize the leadership of Mitch McConnell,” said Scott Jennings, a Republican strategist and McConnell ally. “I happen to think it is a misguided goal.”

He noted that McConnell has delivered Trump some legislative victories, including Senate passage last week of a tax cut bill that would also repeal the federal mandate that Americans purchase health insurance, a key tenet of the Affordable Care Act. The GOP-controlled Senate has also confirmed a Supreme Court justice and a raft of judges to the federal bench.

Moore is still in a close fight with Jones. Polls are showing the Alabama race within the margin of error, which is in some ways stunning given that Trump won Alabama by nearly 28 percentage points.

Bannon, 64, took over Trump’s struggling campaign in August 2016 when polls suggested little room for a Republican victory. He went on to become Trump’s chief strategist in the White House.

But it’s been since leaving the West Wing in August that Bannon has emerged as a national figure in his own right. On Tuesday, Bannon announced he would return to hosting a morning radio show SiriusXM radio. That’s in addition to his perch atop Breitbart News Network.

SOURCE

******************************

Trump Is Rolling Back Obama’s Last-Minute Land Grab. Here’s What Must Come Next

Today marked an important moment as President Donald Trump made much-needed changes to sweeping land use designations made under previous administrations.

The Trump administration listened to the combined voices of individual citizens, tribal members, small communities, and elected officials from the county, state, and federal levels. In doing so, Trump has responded to Utahns’ calls by dramatically reducing the size of both the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments, which had a combined land mass larger than the state of Connecticut.

This is a good step forward in reforming a law that has too easily been abused to drown out the voices of the people who care most about these lands. Today marks a victory for the people of southern Utah who know and love their public lands the most.

Trump’s bold move to reduce the size of the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears monuments is the result of a true grass-roots effort. Locals held rallies, lobbied their representatives, passed resolutions, fundraised, and so much more, traveling hundreds of miles to do so.

While Kane, Garfield, and San Juan counties celebrate, they understand that these two national monuments were just a symptom of a much larger problem.

Unlike previous designations, recent national monuments were not about protecting specific historic and cultural sites as outlined in the Antiquities Act. Instead, political gamesmanship, outdoor recreation, presidential legacies, climate change, and a host of other motivations drove the designation process.

The result is expansive national monuments that restrict access, weaken local economies, corrode rural communities, and put the very archeological resources they are supposed to protect at a greater risk of destruction.

Presidents of both parties have abused the Antiquities Act for decades and will continue to do so as long as they are allowed to designate national monuments unchecked with just the stroke of a pen.

It’s time that Congress act to transform the Antiquities Act into a law of the people, by the people, and for the people, where constitutional principles safeguard the environment, protect archeological sites, create abundant recreational opportunities, and secure the American dream for rural communities.

If there is no change in the Antiquities Act, Bears Ears, Grand Staircase-Escalante, and southern Utahns will be in danger of future unilateral action with every change of presidential administration. Hardworking Americans and our public lands deserve better.

Here’s what we propose. National monument designations and reductions should be approved by Congress and state elected officials. By integrating state leaders and Congress into the process, we’ll protect the will of the people from presidential overreach and the whims of centralized government.

No longer would Utahns sit on pins and needles waiting to see how a president changes the management of millions of acres. Instead, we can assure that local voices are prioritized over political and ideological interests with the democratic process as a central fixture in the future of our public lands.

We want to thank the Trump administration for finally listening to the voices of San Juan, Kane, and Garfield county residents and giving power back to the people. This is truly a step in the right direction.

SOURCE

*****************************

Illegal Alien Now Faces Federal Charges in Kate Steinle's Death

A federal grand jury in San Francisco on Tuesday indicted Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition; and for being an illegal alien in possessions of a firearm and ammunition.

On July 1, 2015, Garcia-Zarate fired the bullet that ricocheted and killed Kate Steinle, a woman walking on a San Francisco pier with her father.

Last week, a San Francisco jury acquitted Garcia-Zarate on murder and manslaughter charges, but it did convict him on state charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He is still in state custody.

Garcia-Zarate had been deported five times from the United States at the time of Kate's death. He was homeless, and the only reason he was wandering the streets is because of San Francisco's sanctuary city status, meaning it does not cooperate with immigration detainers.

The verdict by a San Francisco jury outraged many Americans, including President Trump, who called the verdict "disgraceful."

If Garcia-Zarate is convicted on either of the federal charges, he faces a maximum of ten years in prison, the Justice Department said.

SOURCE

*****************************

Israel PM Netanyahu's Remarks on US President Trump's Statement on Jerusalem

********************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated),  a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on THE PSYCHOLOGIST.

Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

***************************

The poor get sick sooner and die younger in both the USA and the UK

In the later age cohorts, poor people are 3 to 4 times likelier to get ill and die than are wealthy people.  And, sadly for the authors below, the wonderful universal health care in the UK made no difference.

Their findings are in fact what always emerges when social class variables -- in this case wealth -- are studied.  Poverty is a major influence on death and all sorts of disease.  But medical researchers fear political incorrectness if they mention social class as an influence on their findings so ignore it for around 98% of the time in their research reports.  So it is worthwhile noting here one of the occasions when they have bitten the bullet.

They have several possible explanations for their findings and all their suggestions probably have some merit.  But they overlook the elephant in the room: genetic differences.  If genetics is not an influence on your lifespan, what would be?

So what genetic influence could explain the findings?  What widely-influential genetically determined human characteristic do we know of?  At the risk of sounding like a cracked-record, let me mention our old friend IQ again. I am repetitious about IQ because nature is. No matter what you study, IQ very frequently seems to pop up as an influence.  And I just report the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth -- vastly incorrect  though that sadly is these days.

Some people are born more functional in general. All their bits work well, including their brain. So they have high IQs. And it is very well established that high IQ people both live longer and are  more likely to get rich.  The old challenge: "If you are so smart, how come you aren't rich?" is well founded.  So the findings below can be explained as showing that long lifespans are largely inborn and that those so born are also likely to be rich because they will also have high IQs.  We already knew that from IQ research but it is nice to see the same effects emerging in medical research


Wealth-Associated Disparities in Death and Disability in the United States and England

Lena K. Makaroun et al.

Abstract

Importance:  Low income has been associated with poor health outcomes. Owing to retirement, wealth may be a better marker of financial resources among older adults.

Objective:  To determine the association of wealth with mortality and disability among older adults in the United States and England.

Design, Setting, and Participants:  The US Health and Retirement Study (HRS) and English Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSA) are nationally representative cohorts of community-dwelling older adults. We examined 12 173 participants enrolled in HRS and 7599 enrolled in ELSA in 2002. Analyses were stratified by age (54-64 years vs 66-76 years) because many safety-net programs commence around age 65 years. Participants were followed until 2012 for mortality and disability.

Exposures:  Wealth quintile, based on total net worth in 2002.

Main Outcomes and Measures:  Mortality and disability, defined as difficulty performing an activity of daily living.

Results:  A total of 6233 US respondents and 4325 English respondents aged 54 to 64 years (younger cohort) and 5940 US respondents and 3274 English respondents aged 66 to 76 years (older cohort) were analyzed for the mortality outcome. Slightly over half of respondents were women (HRS: 6570, 54%; ELSA: 3974, 52%). A higher proportion of respondents from HRS were nonwhite compared with ELSA in both the younger (14% vs 3%) and the older (13% vs 3%) age cohorts. We found increased risk of death and disability as wealth decreased. In the United States, participants aged 54 to 64 years in the lowest wealth quintile (Q1) (≤$39 000) had a 17% mortality risk and 48% disability risk over 10 years, whereas in the highest wealth quintile (Q5) (>$560 000) participants had a 5% mortality risk and 15% disability risk (mortality hazard ratio [HR], 3.3; 95% CI, 2.0-5.6; P < .001; disability subhazard ratio [sHR], 4.0; 95% CI, 2.9-5.6; P < .001). In England, participants aged 54 to 64 years in Q1 (≤£34,000) had a 16% mortality risk and 42% disability risk over 10 years, whereas Q5 participants (>£310,550) had a 4% mortality risk and 17% disability risk (mortality HR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.7-7.0; P < .001; disability sHR, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.1-4.2; P < .001). In 66- to 76-year-old participants, the absolute risks of mortality and disability were higher, but risk gradients across wealth quintiles were similar. When adjusted for sex, age, race, income, and education, HR for mortality and sHR for disability were attenuated but remained statistically significant.

Conclusions and Relevance:  Low wealth was associated with death and disability in both the United States and England. This relationship was apparent from age 54 years and continued into later life. Access to health care may not attenuate wealth-associated disparities in older adults.

SOURCE

********************************

DACA Isn’t What Liberals Claim and Will Only Attract Even More Illegal Immigration

Some members of Congress are threatening to block government funding unless Congress provides amnesty to so-called Dreamers—the illegal aliens included in President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which President Donald Trump is ending.

Responsible members of Congress should not give in. Such an effort would be fundamentally flawed and would only encourage even more illegal immigration—just as the 1986 amnesty in the Immigration Reform and Control Act did.

Democrats portray the DACA program as only benefitting those who were a few years old when they came to the U.S. illegally, leaving them unable to speak their native language and ignorant of their countries’ cultural norms. Therefore, the reasoning goes, it would be a hardship to return them to the countries where they were born.

Obama himself gave this rationale when he said DACA beneficiaries were “brought to this country by their parents” as infants and face “deportation to a country that [they] know nothing about, with a language” they don’t even speak.

While this may be true of a small portion of the DACA population, it certainly is not true of all of the aliens who received administrative amnesty. In fact, illegal aliens were eligible as long as they came to the U.S. before their 16th birthday and were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012.

DACA also required that beneficiaries enroll in school, graduate from high school, obtain a GED certificate, or receive an honorable discharge from the military; have no conviction for a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors; and not pose a threat to national security or public safety.

However, the Obama administration appeared to routinely waive the education (or its equivalent) requirement as long as the illegal alien was enrolled in some kind of program. Only 49 percent of DACA beneficiaries have a high school education—despite the fact that a majority of them are adults.

How thorough was Homeland Security vetting? In February 2017, after the arrest of a DACA beneficiary for gang membership, the Department of Homeland Security admitted that at least 1,500 DACA beneficiaries had their eligibility terminated “due to a criminal conviction, gang affiliation, or a criminal conviction related to gang affiliation.” By August 2017, that number had surged to 2,139.

In fact, based on documents obtained by Judicial Watch, it is apparent that the Obama administration used a “lean and light” system of background checks in which only a few, randomly selected DACA applicants were ever actually vetted.

Additionally, DACA only excluded individuals for convictions. Thus, even if a Homeland Security background investigation—which apparently was almost never done—produced substantial evidence that an illegal alien might have committed multiple crimes, the alien would still be eligible for DACA unless Homeland Security referred the violation to state or federal prosecutors and the alien was convicted.

DACA had no requirement of English fluency either. In fact, the original application requested applicants to answer whether the form had been “read” to the alien by a translator “in a language in which [the applicant is] fluent.” The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that “perhaps 24 percent of the DACA-eligible population fall into the functionally illiterate category and another 46 percent have only ‘basic’ English ability.”

This is a far cry from the image of DACA beneficiaries as all children who don’t speak the language of—and know nothing about the culture of—their native countries.

In fact, it seems rather that a significant percentage of DACA beneficiaries may have serious limitations in their education, experience, and English fluency that negatively affected their ability to function in American society.

Providing amnesty to low-skilled, low-educated aliens with marginal English language ability would impose large fiscal costs on American taxpayers resulting from increased government payouts and benefits, and would be unfair to legal immigrants who obeyed the law to come here.

Any congressional amnesty bill providing citizenship for DACA beneficiaries could significantly increase the number of illegal aliens who will benefit unless Congress amends the sponsorship rules under federal immigration law. Providing lawful status to millions of so-called “Dreamers” will allow the extended families of those aliens to profit from illegal conduct.

The U.S. accepts about a million legal immigrants every year. According to a recent study, of the 33 million legal immigrants admitted over the last 35 years, about 61 percent were chain migration immigrants.

The average immigrant has sponsored 3.45 additional immigrants, but for DACA beneficiaries, that number is likely to be much higher. This is because, according to an analysis by the Department of Homeland Security, 76 percent of the DACA beneficiaries were from Mexico. Mexican immigrants sponsor an average of 6.38 additional legal immigrants—the highest rate of any nationality for chain migration.

Providing amnesty would simply attract even more illegal immigration and would not solve the myriad of enforcement problems we have along our borders and in the interior of the country. Congress should concentrate on giving the federal government (with the assistance and help of state and local governments) the resources to enforce existing immigration laws to reduce the illegal alien population in the U.S. and stem entry into the country.

Until those goals are accomplished, it is premature to even consider any DACA-type bill.

SOURCE

****************************

Trump to recognise Jerusalem as capital of Israel, sparking Palestinian ‘rage’

Trump shows what it's like to have a President with balls

US PRESIDENT Donald Trump will officially recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a potentially dangerous change that will spark “three days of rage” in Palestine.

White House officials have confirmed the President’s decision to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, ahead of the President’s speech on the subject.

Senior white house staffers said the move was designed to acknowledge the “reality” that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel and fulfil a “major campaign promise”.

The change in policy is controversial because it is likely to be viewed in the region as the US siding with Israel. King Abdullah of Jordan said the decision “would constitute a flagrant provocation to all Muslims, all over the world”.

SOURCE

*****************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated),  a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on THE PSYCHOLOGIST.

Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

***************************

Triumph of the bureaucrats

MARTIN HUTCHINSON

The typical form of human government moved from absolute monarchy, to oligarchy, to democracy, but it did not stop there. As government grew, popular control over it declined, while its own bureaucracy became the principal factor determining its direction. We have now reached the stage where to term the result a “democracy” is laughably in error. We have entered the era of the Bureaucrat State, and the mechanisms for restoring popular control are very limited indeed.

Two centuries ago, governments had almost no bureaucracy. Under Lord Palmerston in the 1830s, the foreign policy of the world’s greatest power was managed by a total of about 30 clerks, with Palmerston himself reading and signing, and in many cases writing by hand, every dispatch that went out. Such a system required an energetic Minister at the top – under some lazy early 19th Century occupants of Ministerial offices, official business clogged up completely and the department descended into complete stasis.

The problem arose with the rise of the Progressives in the United States and the Keynesians in Britain. Neither Progressives nor Keynesians were remotely democratic in outlook; they believed in rule by experts, which by definition did not include the general public. Even Progressive inventions like the Presidential primary were designed to take politics away from “smoke filled room” politicians who did deals, rather than deciding matters “objectively” as Progressives preferred to do.

In continental Europe, the Progressive urge for control was expressed as socialism or Communism, which were mostly intellectual movements put in place through worker votes, industrial activity, or revolutionary agitation. It is interesting that this tactic, of using workers’ strong-arm tactics to force the adoption of middle class intellectuals’ schemes, dates back to the Reform Bill agitation of 1831-32. The 1832 Reform Act was notable for enfranchising no additional workers at all, because of the high property qualification for voting, while disfranchising numerous workers who had voting rights under the old haphazard system. But the workers fell for it, and rioted when told to do so – poor saps; their only reward was the institution of Workhouses two years later by the 1834 Poor Law.

In the United States, the Progressives were never allowed a long run at power until the failure had become clear even to them of Soviet Communism, the ultimate rule-by-experts, where all resources are allocated by an expert-operated Gosplan. In Britain, a Gosplan approach complete with rationing that lasted until 1954, was tried during the 1940s, but the electorate had the sense to vote it out and return to something a little more sensible.

Rather than direct price controls, the Progressives of today attempt to achieve their ends through a morass of regulations. This tendency first became obvious in the Great Society years, as those in power attempted to build a better society through government programs and regulations. The regulatory zeal then intensified under President Nixon, when the Progressives, out of Presidential power but utterly in control of Congress, took the opportunity to create agency after agency while they could not be blamed for the resulting economic malaise.

Monetary policy is now another area of bureaucrat control. Under the Gold Standard, money was controlled by the markets; if banks overextended themselves or the government ran too large a budget deficit, gold flowed out of the country, forcing the central bank to raise interest rates and draw it back in. Today, the fetish is for central banks that are independent of political control, which means they are run by the bureaucrat class. We have seen the folly of this in the last decade; various cuckoo monetary experiments have been tried, entirely at the whim of the bureaucrats and entirely without the participation of markets or electorates.

Bureaucrats fight back when their power is threatened, and do not allow it to slip out of their hands easily. One recent example of this is the shenanigans at the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was deliberately set up to protect bureaucrats, and where they have attempted to prevent the current non-bureaucrat administration from taking over. Mess things up badly enough for four years, make sure a bureaucrat-friendly President (either a Democrat or a Bushite, Never-Trump Republican) is elected in 2020 and their tenure will be secure, probably forever.

The Brexit vote last year was a magnificent fight-back against the EU’s Bureaucrat State, but the bureaucrats are now doing their damnedest to negate it. They have allowed the EU to escalate its demands for British money on exit to a ridiculous 100 billion euros, and they are spreading scare stories about how a “no-deal” exit from the EU in March 2019 would be an unmitigated disaster. Bank of England Governor Mark Carney is doing their work for them also, not only by propagandizing but also by holding real interest rates at a ludicrous minus 3%, wrecking British productivity by distorting capital allocation, in the hope that Britain’s budget will be so hopelessly out of kilter by March 2019 that Brexit seems impossible. Make no mistake about it, the EU and British bureaucracies are desperate to negate Britain’s last remaining hope for freedom, and will stop at nothing to do so.

The EU itself is the world’s first fully bureaucrat-controlled government with constitutional quasi-democratic forms. It may thus represent the future to which we are trending, as the free oligarchy of 18th Century Britain and Federalist America is replaced by the near-true democracy of 19th Century America and early 20th Century Britain, to be replaced again by the 21st century norm of the Bureaucrat State.

In the EU Bureaucrat State, everything is regulated, while the rubber-stamp Parliament is organized so that a majority political coalition can never be formed. Thereby government is completely run by pro-bureaucrat forces, and any anti-bureaucrat legislators elected are relegated to the fringes of left or right.

Bureaucrats, ratified by a compliant Parliament and bureaucrat-friendly courts, lay down complex and draconian rules of speech and action, so dissent is suppressed. Economic activity at any but the smallest level is not only regulated but completely subject to arbitrary decrees by the bureaucrat elite – thus ensuring that companies toe the bureaucrat line and spend money on further pro-bureaucrat propaganda, to ensure their survival against a state that can turn vengeful. It is the vision of George Orwell’s “1984” – initially richer, but soon descending into abject poverty as the economy is wrecked by bureaucrat economic policies – Keynesianism, without Keynes’ residual if limited feel for the market.

As for China, that rapidly rising economic power; it has transformed itself from Communism, but only by rotating about 30 degrees to a bureaucrat run state “capitalism.” Unlike the EU, it lacks the democratic fig-leaf of the European Parliament, and it has a few more political prisoners, but the two governments are sisters in spirit. Eastern Europeans who think they may escape the control of Brussels by cosying up to Beijing are in for a very nasty shock.

Finally, there are the international institutions, all of them populated by bureaucrats, entirely beyond any democratic control and all dedicated to the rise of that ultimate nightmare, the global Bureaucrat State, from which there is no escape. They were set up at Bretton Woods in 1944 by the proto-bureaucrat Maynard Keynes and the Communist Harry Dexter White, and they have remained true to the vision of both men. As far as possible, they should be starved of resources; that blessed moment in 2005-06 when the IMF appeared to have nothing to do, and could have been shuttered entirely, was yet another massive opportunity missed by the feeble governments of those years.

Apart from a Brexit Britain if against the odds it can be obtained, the only forces standing up against the Bureaucrat state are Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Both have an instinctive hatred of bureaucrats, Putin’s from having grown up in a Communist country and Trump’s from having grown up in a free one. That is why, at global gatherings of the great and the good, they instinctively gravitate towards each other. Putin has not interest in freedom of course; his preference is a tightly-run kleptocracy. But in the struggle against the Bureaucrat State, my enemy’s enemy is my friend. We shall be much worse off when Putin goes, and his successor cosies up to the EU.

Mock this column’s pessimism all you like it. But don’t expect to read another like it in 20 years’ time. The Bureaucrat State, by then in full control, will not allow the publication of such sedition.

SOURCE

****************************

Supreme Court gives the go-ahead for Trump's travel ban to be put in place IMMEDIATELY

Lawless Leftist lower court judges rebuffed

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by allowing his latest travel ban targeting people from six Muslim-majority countries to go into full effect even as legal challenges continue in lower courts.

The ruling is an indication that the Trump administration's third travel ban could be able to stand.

The court, with two of the nine justices dissenting, granted his administration's request to lift two injunctions imposed by lower courts that had partially blocked the ban, which is the third version of a contentious policy that Trump first sought to implement a week after taking office in January.

The justices, with two dissenting votes, said Monday that the policy can take full effect even as legal challenges against it make their way through the courts.

The action suggests the high court could uphold the latest version of the ban that Trump announced in September.

The ban  blocks visitors and migrants from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and North Korea.

The administration cited the president's broad authority to control immigration and national security.

Federal court judges in Maryland and Hawaii had blocked portions of a ban in October pending legal challenges.

SOURCE

*******************************

Refugee Admissions to U.S. Down 83% So Far in FY18

Refugee admissions to the United States were down 83 percent in the first two months of fiscal 2018 (October and November) compared to the first two months of fiscal 2017.

A total of only 3,108 refugees were admitted in October and November down from the 18,300 refugees who were admitted in October and November of last year.

Meanwhile, fourteen months after the Obama administration backed a push at the U.N. for global responsibility-sharing for refugees and migrants, the Trump Administration has pulled out of the intitiative. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said it “is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.”

The weekend announcement comes amid a sharp drop in the number of refugees admitted to the United States during the first two months of fiscal year 2018.

The most striking change between the refugee admissions in the initial two-month period of this fiscal year and last fiscal year was the relative differences in size of the contingents from Syria, Somalia and Iraq.

In Oct.-Nov. 2016, 2,259 Syrians (97.6 percent Muslim, 1.7 percent Christian), 2,463 Somalis (99.9 percent Muslim) and 2,262 Iraqis (75 percent Muslim, 17.3 percent Christian, 7.4 percent Yazidi) were resettled.

In Oct.-Nov. 2017 the numbers had dropped to 33 Syrians (66.6 percent Muslim, 33.3 percent Christian), 126 Somalis (100 percent Muslim) and 76 Iraqis (84.2 percent Muslim, 10.5 percent Christian, 3.9 percent Yazidi).

Among the 3,108 refugees admitted since FY 2018 began, the five largest contingents came from Bhutan (805), the Democratic Republic of Congo (627), Burma (347), Ukraine (290) and Eritrea (281).

The religious breakdown of those 3,108 refugees was: 59.6 percent Christian, 15.4 percent Muslim, 9.6 percent Buddhist, 7.6 percent Hindu, 4.7 percent Kirat and 0.9 percent Jewish.

By contrast, the five countries represented most strongly among the 18,300 refugees resettled by the Obama administration in the U.S. during the first two months of FY 2017 were the DRC (4,236), Somalia (2,463), Iraq (2,262), Syria (2,259) and Burma (1,509).

Now the administration is also withdrawing from a U.N. initiative called the Global Compact on Migration.

In a statement Sunday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. would continue to engage at the U.N. but in this case it “simply cannot in good faith support a process that could undermine the sovereign right of the United States to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders.”

SOURCE

*****************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated),  a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on THE PSYCHOLOGIST.

Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

***************************