Levin: The ‘So-Called’ Conservative Intellectual Movement Is on Life Support

Levin in fact concludes that "there really is no conservative intellectual movement" and that is right.  But it is right for a good reason. It overlooks what an "intellectual" is.  An intellectual is someone who puts a sophisticated gloss on a simple idea.  And the great headquarters of simple ideas is the Left.  They never think anything through, which is why their policies are always disastrous -- check Obamacare

In fact Leftists have only one idea:  "If people won't behave the way we want, then we will MAKE them behave. Compared to the complexities of libertarian policy proposals, their ideas are childish and unoriginal.

So when someone comes along who can make Leftist thinking sound half-decent, he is greeted rapturously, hailed as an "intellectual" and given lots of publicity.

Conservatives don't need that.  Between the Bible and America's founding documents, they have all the guidance they need to create a good society and a good life for its people.  They already have policies and ideas that work and are well-known. Erudite men like Levin can help publicize those mighty founding ideas and show how they apply in modern times but that is just a badly-needed educative role, not any kind of new discovery.

I can't put it better than Reagan did:

"In all of that time I won a nickname, 'The Great Communicator.' But I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: It was the content. I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation -- from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in principles that have guided us for two centuries."

So we can safely leave intellectuals to the Left.  We don't need them.  The average IQ of Leftists and Rightists is about the same but we apply our minds to practical problems and the real world, not high flown theories, speculations and justifications for hate.


On his nationally syndicated radio talk show Thursday, host Mark Levin began his program’s opening monologue on a somber note, suggesting that the “so-called conservative intellectual movement” is “on life support.”

“[T]he so-called conservative intellectual movement is very weak right now – very weak,” stated Mark Levin. “In fact, I think it’s on life support.” Below is a transcript of Levin’s remarks from his show on Thursday:

“From time to time, often actually, I sit back and I watch what’s going on in the news or go on the internet and start reading various stories and so forth, and then I try to think back to history and philosophy and try to think back to our founding and try to make sense of it all.

“The vast majority of what comes across the television, what comes across the internet, what comes across the radio, in terms of news, is about the federal government. Maybe it’s about a congressman, maybe it’s about the Supreme Court, maybe it’s about a tax bill – it’s about the federal government.

“And this really is a massive alteration of what the founders of this country intended, that we would be spending so much time talking about the federal government, fearing the federal government, trying to win elections so we can control the federal government, expanding the federal government. It was never supposed to be this way.

“And you can see the deleterious effects.

“I said yesterday that, as a result of the conservative movement, we’ve had a lot of electoral victories at the federal level, but very few advances in terms of rolling back what the left has done and advancing liberty.

“And I believe that. I believe men and women, most of you, believe in America’s founding principles, believe in Americanism – Americanism.

“I also believe – it’s a sorry truth – that the so-called conservative intellectual movement is very weak right now – very weak. In fact, I think it’s on life support.

“You know, I write books about liberty, and I write books about the Declaration and the Constitution. And I write books about Supreme Court rulings. I write books about natural law and liberty and what all that means.

“The reason that most of these books sell about a quarter of a million copies or more every time I write them – which is by far the largest among conservatives, and yet receives virtually no attention among the fledgling, barely existing conservative intellectual movement – is because there really is no conservative intellectual movement. Or it’s very small, it’s very weak.”

SOURCE

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

A Constitutional Republic or a Police State?

Eight years of Obama's efforts to "fundamentally transform" America left corrupt law enforcement institutions

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office that there’s no way [Donald Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” —one of the text messages sent by FBI official Peter Strzok to fellow FBI official and DOJ attorney Lisa Page, Aug. 15, 2016

After eight years of Obama administration efforts to “fundamentally transform” our nation, Americans may be facing the reality that our major law enforcement institutions are fundamentally corrupt, and that Democrats and their Leftmedia allies — now indistinguishable from one another — will attempt to minimize this damning reality.

Yet at some point, Americans are owed an explanation about an “insurance policy” that resembles a strategy to undermine the 2016 election. We can already surmise that “Andy” refers to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife received nearly $700,000 in campaign donations for her Virginia Senate race from Clinton allies — while he was supervising the Clinton email investigation.

That Strzok was removed from the Russian collusion investigation for this text and the approximately 10,000 other exchanges between him and his extra-marital partner — a removal exposed by leaks, as opposed to full disclosure by Special Counsel Robert Mueller — begets a reasonable question: Why does he remain at the FBI in any capacity?

Strzok was once the nation’s second-in-command for counterintelligence. Yet he carried on an easily traceable affair with a colleague — when he wasn’t busy leading the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email scandal and critically editing the memo that gave former FBI director James Comey cover to exonerate her. Strzok also failed to charge Clinton associates Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, despite proof they were lying about having no knowledge of Clinton’s private server, even as he facilitated the indictment of Trump’s former national security advisor Michael Flynn — for the same crime.

Strzok was hardly an outlier. The stench of partisanship attaches itself to other members of Mueller’s team. Bruce G. Ohr, the former associate deputy attorney general and director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, was demoted after evidence revealed he was in contact with Fusion GPS, producer of the infamous Steele dossier paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. (His wife, Nellie Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS specifically to probe Trump). Andrew Weissmann emailed former acting AG Sally Yates to express his “awe” for her refusal to implement Trump’s legal travel ban. Aaron Zebley represented Clinton IT staffer Justin Cooper, the man who set up Clinton’s server — and smashed her Blackberries with a hammer. Jeannie Rhee was a Clinton campaign donor, represented the Clinton Foundation, and functioned as Obama deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes’ personal attorney.

Page and Strzok had another equally damning exchange. “Maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace,” Page stated in a text that also included a Trump-related article. “Of course I’ll try and approach it that way,” Strzok replied.

Was Strzok’s aforementioned editing job that included changing the words “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” in Comey’s memo part of that “approach?”

During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Dec. 7, current FBI Director Christopher Wray insisted his agency is above reproach. Yet when Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) asked him if the Steele dossier was used to spy on Trump associates, Wray refused to answer, citing the ongoing investigation conducted by the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General as the reason. Six days later, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein declined to answer the same question — but insisted there’s no bias in Mueller’s investigation.

What about illegality? Trump attorney Kory Langhofer is accusing Mueller of illegally obtaining transition team emails from career staffer at the General Services Administration (GSA), including confidential attorney-client communications, in an apparent violation of the president’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Moreover, Wray and Rosenstein aren’t the only stonewallers. On March 20, 2017, Comey told Congress the counterintelligence operation into Russian collusion was recommended by Asst. Director of Counter Intelligence Bill Priestap, who was Strzok’s former boss. Priestap also decided not to inform congressional overseers “because of the sensitivity of the matter,” Comey testified.

Disingenuous? Priestap’s boss was McCabe. McCabe’s boss was Comey.

McCabe was scheduled to testify behind closed doors before the House Intelligence Committee last Tuesday, but abruptly canceled due to a “scheduling error.” Some members of the Committee apparently weren’t buying it. “McCabe has an Ohr problem,” a congressional source surmised.

He is scheduled to testify this week, and while the Committee is prepared to subpoena McCabe to compel his testimony, one suspects he would invoke his constitutional right against self-incrimination — before stating anything that might reveal the nation is in the midst of the biggest political scandal in its history.

In the meantime, a trio of other stories buried by the Leftmedia are extremely troubling. First, former DNC Interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile revealed that after the DNC’s servers and computers were was hacked, they replicated the information on both — and then “destroyed the machines.”

Those were the machines the DNC refused to turn over to the FBI for examination, and the agency’s assertion they were hacked by the Russians is based solely on the assessment made DNC-hired cyber security firm CrowdStrike.

Brazile insisted the DNC cooperated fully with the FBI, and that Comey’s testimony to the contrary was false. Yet Brazile is a documented liar who initially denied sending primary debate questions to Clinton’s campaign before admitting the truth.

Second, Robert Mueller was granted an ethics waiver to serve as special counsel — and the DOJ refuses to explain why they accommodated his blatant conflicts of interest.

Third, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, a 2012 Obama appointee — who also sat on the FISA Court while the Trump team was under surveillance by the Obama administration — recused himself from the Michael Flynn case without explanation.

With so many players and moving parts it’s easy to ignore the one individual who may have been the prime mover behind all of these machinations. “Lest we forget, President Obama had endorsed Mrs. Clinton … to be president,” Andrew McCarthy writes. “Moreover, Obama had knowingly participated in the conduct for which Clinton was under investigation — using a pseudonym in communicating with her about classified government business over an unsecure private communication system.”

Americans should also remember former AG Loretta Lynch’s airport tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton while his wife remained under investigation, and that she directed Comey to call that investigation a “matter.” Emails released Friday by the DOJ reveal department officials were less concerned by the meeting itself than that it was leaked to the press and how to prevent further leaks.

Americans should also remember Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice and U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power unmasked Americans.

Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz’s office has compiled more than 1.2 million pages of documentation, and even if the aforementioned players don’t cooperate, indictments are a real possibility. Thus, Americans will soon learn if we are still a constitutional republic — or whether the aforementioned “fundamental transformation” has succeeded beyond the former president’s wildest dreams.

Trump is said to be dismantling Obama’s “legacy.” Taking down a potential police state should be priority number one.

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)

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

Trump 'Miracle' — over 10 regulations killed for every new one, billions saved

The Trump administration has blown out of the water its goal of killing two Obama regulations for every new one created, resulting in an “economic miracle,” according to a senior administration official.

Previewing President Trump’s Thursday announcement on his team’s success, a top official said that the reduction on regulations has topped 10 for every new one imposed.

“An economic miracle is happening,” the official told Secrets. “We are pulling away from the economic headwinds we faced early and the tax cut will sustain our efforts. It’s a two for one punch."

Trump will reveal the exact number of regulations cut and the savings in a Roosevelt Room address.

When he came to office, he signed Executive Order 13771 to cut two regulations for every new one. Part of the goal was to overturn 600 last-minute rules imposed by former President Barack Obama at the end of his term, at more than a $15 billion price tag.

In office, Trump put his team on notice to cut regulations, and one department — Interior — has led the way.

While Congress moved first to cut regulations with the Congressional Review Act, the administration’s cuts are what is fueling the repeal of rules.

Neomi Rao, the head of the Office of Regulatory Affairs, will address the success in a Wall Street Journal column Thursday morning.

In it, she writes that legally required regulations will stay but those imposed by Obama not in law will be cut.

“Some regulations legitimately address important health, safety and welfare priorities identified by Congress. The Trump administration respects the rule of law and will not roll back effective, legally required regulations.

But in the previous administration, agencies frequently exceeded their legal authority when imposing costly rules. Some agencies announced important policy changes without following the formal rule-making process,” she wrote.

Rao added, “Regulatory reform not only promotes individual liberty and a flourishing economy, it also supports constitutional democracy. Through OIRA's regulatory review process, we ensure that agencies stay within the legal authority given by Congress.

When the law provides discretion, we work with agencies to ensure that regulatory policy reflects presidential priorities. This executive direction makes the rule-making process democratic and accountable.”

SOURCE

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

Trump is the modern day JFK

How sad is it that the party that brought us John F. Kennedy's tax cuts, economic growth and higher wages is now the party that puts redistribution ahead of prosperity.

Not a single House Democrat on November 16 or Senate Democrat on December 2 voted for their version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Not one.

Some argue that the Trump tax cut will increase the deficit, but they should listen to the wisdom of JFK in 1962, when he, too, was battling a large deficit. President Kennedy declared at the New York Economic Club that "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -- and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now.''

JFK knew that America's biggest problem was not the budget deficit but a growth deficit. And based on Donald Trump's proposed tax cuts, he seems to share JFK's wisdom.

Kennedy was, of course, proven exactly right. After the tax cuts were enacted after his death, America experienced one of the greatest periods of prosperity in our history.

Larry Kudlow's 2016 book "JFK and The Reagan Revolution" documented the post-JFK tax cut growth spurt. "The tax payments by the wealthiest filers nearly doubled," he wrote. "We had many quarters of 6% growth back then."

That same effect was duplicated when Ronald Reagan chopped the top income tax rate from 70 to 28% and the corporate rate from 46 to 34%. The share of taxes paid by the richest 1% rose around 6% from 1980 to 1990. Total tax revenues surged from $517 billion in 1980 to just over $1 trillion by 1990.

Which brings us back to the 21st century "progressive" Democrats‎. In 1986, Reagan's tax reform bill passed the US Senate -- are you sitting down? -- by a vote of 97-3. This included the votes of such prominent Democrats as Bill Bradley, Ted Kennedy, Howard Metzenbaum, and Sam Nunn.

In 1997, Bill Clinton -- who admittedly raised taxes in 1993 -- signed into law one of the biggest bipartisan tax cuts in history, including a slashing of the capital gains tax. Although some argue that Clinton's tax cuts were not the cause of the economic prosperity that followed, I don't think it was a mere coincidence that America experienced a growth and employment boom so great that the budget reached a surplus.

Yet some seem to disregard this history and claim that tax cuts don't work. We also hear claims that Republicans are no longer the party of deficit reduction. Perhaps not. But the party has transformed itself into the party of growth. The Democrats are the new austerity party.

Democrats say they wish Trump had put forward a bipartisan tax plan, but what are the Democratic alternatives? Bernie Sanders' proposal would raise the top tax rate to over 50%. Can anyone with a straight face argue that this would help the economy?
The Democratic party today has repudiated JFK economics. Donald Trump has picked up that mantle.

As Kennedy said in his 1962 address on the state of the national economy, "Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary."

Question: does that sound like Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer, or Donald Trump?

SOURCE

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

Some end of year observations about Europe

By Rich Kozlovich (Rich is of Serbian origins so Europe is an interest of his.  Serbs were passionately involved in both world wars)

One of the things everyone should easily be aware of - nothing is ever as it appears in politics, national or international. The only constant we can be assured of is - there will be change. Foundational systems for a stable world are crumbling, and although these structures continue to exist who can say for how long and what the outcome will be.

However, there are certain fundamentals that apply that allow for reasonable conclusions and anticipation of world events. One of them is - finances! Eventually everything has to be paid for! And that's not just a problem in the United States with over 20 trillion in outright debt, not to mention the financial obligations regarding Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. That might be a total debt load of over 100 trillion dollars.

Europe is a mess. There's talk of their era of harmony being over, but I say - there never really was any real harmony right from the beginning. The Brits have decided to leave the EU, causing a ton of anxiety on both sides of this issue, but I believe it's sending shivers down the backs of all the EU leadership and bureaucracy as they see this as the tip of the iceberg, and the harbinger of their doom.

Poland and Hungary are in revolt and simply refusing to adhere to EU demands, especially involving immigration, and the EU leadership is outraged and mostly helpless as the Eastern periphery of the EU revolts. Poland is moving toward what most western nation would view as undemocratic by taking control over what's seen on television and heard on the radio. They also planning on taking control over the judiciary. That really doesn't sit well with the EU. But we also have to understand all the EU countries have taken positions that could absolutely be construed as anti-democratic.

The center of the EU - Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands - along with Sweden, Norway and most likely Denmark want the Eastern bloc punished for their refusal to go along with the wishes of these dysfunctional leaders who've been leading Europe into an eventual oblivion of Muslim domination. Eastern Europe will not accept these suicidal EU policies and eventually the Center EU may be left to form their own coalition and continue the policies that's destroying Europe.

But the Eastern EU countries, and I include the Czechs in this, are a far different breed from the center, or even Britain. They don't really like the idea of being a singular entity, they don't like Muslim immigration, and they like their individuality. Europe is a mismatch of different cultures and different languages. How do you unify that mix, especially when their citizens don't really want unification?

Did you know the United States is officially on the metric system? That became official decades ago. But no one wanted it, and we're still measuring in inches, feet, gallons, miles per hour, etc. Making something the law doesn't mean it will be reality.

Europe isn't a nation. Europe is nothing more than a geographical expression, as a result it's simply not possible for EU politicians to be effective and force their views on the whole. Politics is the art of the possible. The EU isn't possible, in spite of the fact the leadership wants and thinks in terms of being an entity that's in harmony - the rules imposed by the EU make that impossible.

In the meanwhile, Europe's economic growth has been meager and anti-immigration forces are garnering strength, all of which is tearing Europe apart. And that includes their financial wherewithal.

Europe is in deep debt and here's the reality. If there's a worldwide economic downturn the EU will cease to exist overnight instead of in five years - which is my prediction - the EU will cease to exist as we know it within five years.  And countries like Greece will cease to exist as independent nations within 15 years, and it may be far less. 

The United States is one of the few, and possibly the only nation, that can actually survive such a downturn as the US, being a natural capital generator due to many factors, has the ability to overcome the debt load we discussed at the beginning.  The US is also capable of feeding itself, fueling itself, arming itself and defending itself, irrespective of what's going on in the rest of the world.   Neither Europe, Russia, China or much of the rest of the world of international trade is capable of doing all four of those foundational things.

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)

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

The Saker

A Saker is a large bird, a falcon.  It is also the name of a popular Leftist blog.  The blogger is anti-American, anti-Israel and quite paranoid: It was of course George Bush who blew up the twin towers.

The Saker is an example of an older Leftist type that precedes the modern-day Democratic party.  As Trump points out, the modern-day Democrats are the establishment, the people in charge of most things in American life. They would still control the Presidency if they had put up Sanders against Trump but the personal ambition and deep pockets of Hillary Clinton derailed that.

But there is an older leftist type that is anti-establishment.  They used to complain about "the system", "The bosses",  "Wall St.", "Big business" etc. They yearned for a "workers' paradise".  They saw themselves as ground-down and the victim of all sorts of conspiracies, including "The capitalist press".

And they still exist. A majority of Democrat voters still believe that George Bush blew up the twin towers.  So how come those people now vote for the establishment?  It's because the old and new Leftists have one thing in common: hate.  And in classic Leftist style it is an inchoate hate, a hate that is always in its infancy and therefore flits here and there from one hate to another:  One day it can be traditional marriage and the next it can be statues of Confederate heroes.  As long as the Establishment can find hate-objects to campaign against, it sounds right to the old-style Leftist.  He knows he will always be ground down so all he hopes for is that the status quo is under attack, somehow, somewhere.

But Trump has disrupted all that.  He has declared that the establishment "Emperor" has no clothes.  He has pointed out that the Left in fact control the country -- via the "swamp" -- and that they therefore are the proper hate-object. Instead of chasing after small hate-objects, he has given individual Leftists one big hate object to oppose.  And for that reason, many former Democrats voted for him, upsetting all expectations.  The combination of anti-authority Leftists and anti-authority conservatives gave Trump a big win.

Sadly, however, the anti-authority Leftist still believes in all the old nostrums, false beliefs about why the world is all wrong -- including "The Jews". He still believes that behind the facade we all see are Jews pulling all the strings of power and impoverishing little guys like him.  And with Ashkenazi names like Blankfein and Goldman frequently found among the great powers of Wall St., one understands their mistake.  They don't understand why the world really works so they resort to conspiracy theories.

And so we come back to The Saker. Both America and Israel are great conspiracies to him and he loves Hizbollah, Muslim terrorists. He is an "Anti-Zionist". And because the official Left no longer preach all the old suspicions, The Saker has got himself a big audience for his theories.  He has become a spokesman for the non-establishment Left.

So it is amusing that some of his articles are half-right.  One such article is "Fascism?  Surely not", in which he correctly notes the pervasive control wielded by modern States and compares it with Fascism in the first half of the 20th century.  He doesn't actually seem to know much about historical Fascism but notes the tendency of businesses to expand by mergers etc and become semi-monopolies in their respective fields.  That is indeed not too different from the "corporations" set up by Benito Mussolini.

But the things he blames on corporations are eccentric.  I quote:

"The issue of Vaccination is just one area of concern. There are many others that are appearing on the horizon that society has never had to think about or, debate before. The long term safety of water fluoridation, the spraying of our crops by Monsanto chemicals or, the consumption of GMO foods are just a few issues that raise serious concerns for millions of people. Instead of having a public and scientific debate to ensure safety, we instead see cover-ups, studies funded by the very Corporations who make the products or, paid experts appearing in the Media assuring us that everything is okay. Orwellian!"

He seems simply unaware that we have in fact already had a most extensive "public and scientific debate" about vaccination, fluoridation, GMO foods and chemicals on crops.  Because he doesn't understand those subjects, he resorts to conspiracy theories.

So, Yes.  Modern states are very reminiscent of historical Fascism, but it is not because of vaccination, fluoridation, GMO foods and chemicals on crops.  It is because of government controls on so much in our lives.  More on historical Fascism here

The Saker and his cohorts are in fact an example of the old saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  A real understanding of the world we live in requires a knowledge of economics and psychology, particularly economics.  And most people don't have that knowledge so give up attempting to understand why things happen. But the Saker and his cohorts don't give up.  They are intelligent people with enquiring minds so try to find explanations that make sense to them.  And conspiracy theories are a classic resort of those who don't actually understand.

They read far and wide and still find puzzles. And only a conspiracy theory explains why so many bad things happen for no apparent reason.  So only a theory of bad men secretly getting together to do bad things fits the facts as they know them.

I found the same thing in my studies of neo-Nazis long ago.  They were people with a real interest in world affairs and a considerable knowledge of what was happening. But only a Jewish conspiracy made sense of it all from their point of view.

For both the neo-Nazis and the Saker crowd, a course in economics would have given them a real understanding of what was going on -- but economics is hard.  Ricardo's law of comparative advantage, for instance, runs up hard against everyday assumptions about trade -- so requires real thought. Commonsense will get you nowhere in economics

An example of how things are non-obvious in economics is the  effects of the velocity of circulation of money.  Major Douglas built his Social Credit movement on a misunderstanding of that  and both Left and Right at times use that misunderstanding to demonize "the banks".

It is such a powerful misunderstanding that my own brother believed it for many years and I had the devil of a job to show him where the error lay.  More on Social Credit here.

So one can't blame the Saker for his errors but it is a pity that he propagates them. Humility would better become him -- JR

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

Tracking Progressivism's Progress
 
If the expression déjà vu had any competitors, likely they would be found in 2017’s proliferation of diatribes exploding from the lips of Donald Trump’s opponents. In fact, “opponents” barely touches the stridency of the president’s antagonists; enemies and death-wishers more fully embrace descriptions of journalists, academics, and Hollywood types — America’s true one-percenters — whose words often color the air bluer than the industries that employ them and the states they call home. Although the country has witnessed name-calling since George Washington was at the helm, one needs only to sample political invective from the past century to understand how far progressives have, well, progressed.

Consider, for instance, Woodrow Wilson’s offerings to enrich the dictionary definition of “scathing.” His opponents were:

imbeciles, pinheads, dolts: Of all the blind and little provincial people, they are the littlest and most contemptible… They have not even got good working imitations of minds. They remind me of a man with a head that is not a head but is just a knot providentially put there to keep him from raveling out. But why the Lord should not have been willing to let them ravel out, I do not know, because they are of no use… They are going to have the most conspicuously contemptible names in history. The gibbets that they are going to be erected on by future historians will scrape the heavens, they will be so high… If I did not despise them, I would feel sorry for them.

Pretty strong stuff, and in 1919 one might surmise it hardly seemed logical that denunciations could get any worse. Except logic was another thing Wilson said he didn’t give a d—n about, and things did get worse as the progressive ethos permeated every institution in American society.

Which brings us up to now, 2017, a good time to take stock of progressivism’s progress, which the Media Research Center has recently catalogued. Joe Scarborough insists that insiders believe Trump is mentally unfit and suffering from early stage dementia. MSNBC acolytes label him as a madman, unhinged, not fully rational, and dangerously out of control. So far, largely Wilsonian, but it gets worse. Thus, CNN characterized Trump as a sociopath, malignant narcissist (how did it miss that with Obama?) who was vomited up by the electoral college system, constitutes a stain on our country and a danger to the world. Trump has done more damage than Osama bin Laden and ISIS combined; he is the Charles Manson of American politics, and by the way, only a white nationalist like Trump would condemn communism (nice to know where media sentiments lie, thank you). Naturally, these samplings do not include Keith Olbermann-types trying to obliterate Trump with F-bombs.

Nothing new here by today’s standards, but the important question is what to make of it. Several explanations come to mind. First, much foaming-at-the-mouth rage against Trump reflects infantilism of many commentators who never outgrew the “I’ll double dog dare you, stinkpot!” stage of intellectual development, especially among those in positions to avoid a contrary thought; their word toys changed, that’s all. Second, Freud’s concept of projection-transference, which has been part of public discourse for the past century, helps us better understand the fascist Left’s obsession with assigning characteristics to their opponents that define themselves. Calling Trump and Republicans fascist would be amusing if the politics and psychology behind the charge were not so serious, especially given progressivism’s totalitarian yearnings to control every aspect of American life — the very definition of fascism.

Now, President Trump utters many foolish things, but that isn’t the point; if it were, critics would have relished the inanities of Mr. Corpse-Man-in-Chief himself, Barack Obama, a glib mediocrity propelled by narcissism and media sycophancy into the presidency. But Obama was untouchable because he is “one of us,” so progressive media launched a “slobbering love affair” instead.

Third, this point suggests that facts don’t matter, which Roger L. Simon explained in I Know Best: How Moral Narcissism Is Destroying Our Republic, If It Hasn’t Already. Moral narcissism embraces “ideas and attitudes, a narcissism of ‘I know best,’ of ‘I believe therefore I am.’” Simon states further, “It doesn’t matter that [your ideas] misfire completely, cause terror attacks, illness, death, riots in the inner city, or national bankruptcy. You will be applauded and approved of.”

Trump fits into this scheme in that narcissistic elites believed, to thundering self-applause, that in 2016 America’s rubes got it colossally wrong; how dare they elect someone who like Woodrow Wilson doesn’t give a d—n about what they think! Thus, narcissists conjured Russian collusion and threw that into the mix as well; never mind that Hillary Clinton’s self-serving tenure as secretary of state produced one tragedy and embarrassment after another, including a real Russian debacle with national security implications. No matter, remember this impenitent shrew is still “one of us.”

Unfortunately, a deeper tragedy awaits America when progressive narcissists resume power, which inevitably will occur. Joachim Fest, whose research into the Third Reich’s leadership leaves readers easily imagining him shaking his head in puzzlement, confessed that “The chronicler of this epoch stands almost helpless before the task of relating so much incapacity, so much mediocrity and insignificance of character, intelligibly to their extraordinary results.”

So far, “extraordinary results” in America have included progressives’ efforts to end free speech, supersede the Constitution, and micromanage the economy — this is the short list. More extreme measures to expunge the Trump interregnum likely will follow, because if there’s one lesson progressives have taught us, it is this: Hell hath no fury like an elite scorned by its inferiors.

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)

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

Is your blood pressure too high?

I don't intend to make this blog a medical one but I do at times mention findings from medical research that are of particular interest -- and blood pressure is very widely attended to.  Many doctors measure it every time you visit. So it is clearly of some importance.  In particular, high blood pressure is often a precursor to heart attacks and stroke -- which are no fun at all.

So it attracted a lot of controversy recently when the American medical authorities (The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA)) increased the level at which blood pressure becomes a problem.  Previously the maximum "safe" level was 140/90, which happens to be about where my blood pressure levels are. The new "safe" level is 130/80.  Above that level you should receive treatment to bring your pressure down.  That has of course thrown tens of millions into the "diseased" basket -- which produced howls of outrage from many sources -- including me.

A recent article In JAMA by a Dr. Philip Greenland has however hit back and said that the problem is the high level of unhealthy lifestyles among Americans -- including unhealthy diets.  He said that the critics are shooting the messenger -- and his article is overall a good defence of the new guidelines

An article by the ever-skeptical Prof. John  Ioannidis is more cautious, however.  He doesn't altogether disagree with the new guidelines but points out that the reseasrch on whih it is based has some rather large flaws if used to guide policy.  It is good reseearch but as a basis for public policy guidelins, extraordinary rigor is required in the research.  The big flaw in the existing research being that it is based on an unrepresentative sample of people who already had heart symptoms.  How far can we generalize from them?  Possibly not at all and probably only weakly,

I would like to add some further criticisms:  Some of the benefits of therapy were tiny.  Adding one extra drug to a conventional regime, for instance, gave an improvement in health outcomes of just one half of one percent (0.54). That could well be illusory.  The authors appear to rely on the finding being statistically significant but, given the large sample size (9361) practically everything is guaranteed to be significant. Statistical significance in that case means nothing.

One also has to be pretty suspicious about the proportion of the population who have ideal cardiovascular health -- from 0.5% in a population of African American individuals to 12% in workers in a South Florida health care organization. One understands that Africans do tend to die younger but saying that 99.5% of that population has some degree of risk seems extreme -- perhaps extreme enough for the finding to be ignored.

A final difficulty I see lies principally with Dr Greenland's article.  He stresses the importance of a "healthy" diet in getting heart attacks down.  That's a very conventional view  but is it right?  And if it is right, how do we know our diet is healthy?  Up until a couple of years ago fat was regarded as bad and sugar as safe, but that has now been stood on its head. The opposite is now the accepted wisdom.  So color me skeptical.  If there is such a thing as a healthy diet, I doubt if anyone knows what it is.  So what do I eat to avoid a heart attack?  I don't think Dr Greenland or anyone else knows.

So I come down to the conclusion by Prof.  Ioannidis, who states, "The ability to generalize these gains across diverse settings in clinical practice and to use limited resources wisely remains an open challenge."  In other words, we don't know when someone would be helped by the new guidelines.  They are a long way from gospel   -- JR

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

A treasonous President leaves a treasonous legacy>/b>

Peter Stzrok was the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI and second in command over counterintelligence, since demoted.  He is a liberal progressive who supported O.  He felt that Trump was a security risk to the United States.  He took it upon himself to ensure that Trump could never be elected.  Once elected, he did everything in his power to undermine his presidency.  He became a leading member of the Mueller team to indict Trump.  He had a secret, untraceable phone with a direct link to Hillary Clinton.

We now know via text messages that Stzrok met with the Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, to discuss his "insurance policy" against Trump.  This happened.  This is direct evidence that our government colluded by overt acts to prevent Trump from being elected, and, once elected, to be unable to govern.  It is an attempt to subvert the election process and to overthrow the existing government of the US.

Stzrok may have the best intentions and may think he knows what is best for the US, but he is guilty of treason.  It is not his decision.  He also intervened in the Clinton email scandal changing the phrase "grossly negligence" to "extremely careless."  It was to ensure Clinton was not indicted, leaving Trump as the only choice.  It is believed that he took the Trump dossier to the FISA court and knowingly used this fabricated document as justification to spy on Americans and the opponent's campaign.

Trying searching Bruce Orh on Google.  The first time I did, I had to check a box indicating I was not a robot.  There were no hits in the top ten.  Bruce Ohr, the number four man in the DOJ, was recently demoted because of his collusion with the law firm and the British spy who fabricated the Trump dossier.  As it turns out, his wife, Nellie, works for the law firm and worked with the US DOJ on Russian affairs.  She was part of the team digging up dirt on Trump.  This dossier was paid for by Clinton and the DNC as opposition research, then dressed up by the FBI and the DOJ as justification to spy on Americans.  It appears the DOJ colluded with Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and the Russians to fabricate the Trump dossier.  It is likely that Orh authorized payment for further research against Trump.  Orh used his wife to dig up dirt on Trump then used the dossier to spy on members of the Trump team before and after the election.

Then we have the Mueller team.  It is constructed primarily of Clinton supporters.  The same posse that tried its best to prevent Trump from being elected is now its judge, jury, and executioner.

What we have here is the US government--namely the DOJ, FBI, and the CIA--picking winners and losers.  We have a government willing to subvert the law and the US election process to prevent someone whom it believes is detrimental to leading the US from being elected.  We have, in fact, a political campaign fabricating documents against its opponent and using the vast resources of the US government to use these documents to illegally spy on Americans and undermine a political opponent and to undermine the legitimate government of the United States.  It is ironic that the government, in fact, was the one colluding with the Russian.  It was not the Russians undermining the US election process; it was the Clintons, DNC, DOJ, FBI, and the CIA.  This is the biggest political scandal ever, bar none.   I don't even mention Sanders.

I won't go into the Uranium One deal here either, but it is another example of treason, selling out our national interest to the highest bidder for personal profit.

We are at an inflection point with the Deep State. The Deep State either wins and Trump is impeached, or the Deep State gets cleaned out.  An Inspector General is looking into the allegations.  I suspect it will find nothing, not because there is nothing there to find; it has to ensure that nothing is found.  The Mueller investigation may turn out to be the best event ever for Trump.  He may well be able to keep his promise to clean out the Deep State.  In the end, only one will be left standing.  It will either be Trump or the Deep State.  Place your bets now.  Who do I think will win?  It is one man against the vast resources of the state and mainstream media.  I think the odds of Trump winning are similar to him winning the election--highly improbable.  If Trump wins, could it spell the end of the FBI as we know it?  Its corruption knows no bounds.  It must change.

For those liberal progressives that don't care as long as Trump is booted out of office, be careful what you wish for.  What the liberal progressives can do at this point can be done against them in the future.  It is treason of the highest order.  It is a political scandal orders of magnitude above Watergate.  People of all political persuasions should be concerned.  Put your partisan politics aside and be objective.  This cannot end well.

 SOURCE

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

The FBI: Has it Become the Secret Police?

Let’s not miss the most damning dimension of the texts between Strzok and Page. If you read all of their texts it becomes clear that their complaints about candidate Trump and his supporters are nothing more than ad hominem slurs - no different, really, than Hillary’s “deplorables” remark or Obama’s dismissal of Americans who "cling to their guns and religion" in bitterness. They are an attempt to dismiss a legitimate political movement and the, human aspirations behind, it with irrelevant but pungent slander. They are not texting about policy differences, social problems or even constitutional issues. In fact, these are law officers at the highest levels, who took an oath to protect The Constitution of the United States and they are actively engaged in discussing ways of denying a legitimate political movement its constitutional right to a free and fair election. This is dangerous and disturbing and it is a

This text from Strzok is the proof:

"I want to believe the path u threw out 4 consideration in Andy's office-that there's no way he gets elected-but I'm afraid we can't take that risk.It's like an insurance policy in unlikely event u die be4 you're 40”

The very idea of these three sitting in the office of the deputy director of the most powerful law enforcement agency spinning ideas for an insurance policy against the unlikely election of True against the howling headwinds of the mainstream press and other efforts of the establishment should scare anyone interested in preserving The Constitution. There are only two possible explanations for their behavior and the sinister direction of this and other tweets. One might be that they are so sure that they know better what is best for this nation and all her people that they feel it incumbent upon them to become our unseen benefactors - manipulating the results of elections and saving us from our own stupidity. The other, which I find more likely, is that they knew that they are not the pure hearted “public servants” that they portray themselves as and that they are at personal risk if the status quo of and the established power structure are shaken up.

I think the second explanation much more likely- because of the lack of substantive reasons and complaints in their texts and because the slander they throw at Mr Trump and his supporters fairly reeks of hatred, anger and vengeance. These are the blind feelings of a threatened animal who feels attacked or perhaps the cringing of a fraud in danger of being exposed. Whatever the case, they are not the arguments of a passionate believer in something good.

How did it come to this? How did the supposed protectors of our laws and civil order come to feel entitled to despise us and contemplate (we still don’t know the extent to which they did or didn’t carry them out) plans to thwart our political wishes? It is the arrogance of Progressivism, the entrenched interest of a class of political actors who see themselves as entitled to be our leaders  and the loss of faith in any ethical, moral or constitutional standard.

SOURCE

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

Trump Undoing Obama's 'Secret List of More Than 600 Regulations,' OMB Offical Says

In an Op-Ed on Wednesday, an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) administrator declared that the Trump Administration is undoing the “needlessly ‘secret’ list of more than 600 regulations" created by President Barack Obama before leaving office.

Neomi Rao, administrator of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs also said the Trump deregulation effort is ahead of schedule, in her Wall Street Journal column detailing plans to further eliminate burdensome government red tape:

“This week, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs released a status report on agencies’ progress on regulations. In only its first 10 months, the Trump administration has far exceeded its promise to eliminate two existing regulations for each new one—an unprecedented advance against the regulatory state.

“By comparison, in his final eight months, President Obama saddled the economy with as much as $15.2 billion in regulatory costs, while hiding from the public a needlessly “secret” list of more than 600 regulations. Reversing this trend sends a clear message to families and businesses: It’s OK to plan for the future without the looming threat of red tape.

“On Thursday OIRA will publish the administration’s first Regulatory Plan and Agenda, which covers all federal agencies for fiscal year 2018. The plan calls for the administration to drive already substantial reductions in regulatory costs even further. This is a fundamental shift from the policies of the past.”

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)

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

Let's Liberate Blacks From Left-Wing Politics

Star Parker
   
A new Quinnipiac University poll shows yet another perspective on the deep racial division in our country.

According to the poll, 86 percent of blacks compared to 50 percent of whites say that President Trump does not “respect people of color as much as he respects white people.”

However, the partisan divide is even greater than the racial divide.

Ninety-one percent of Democrats compared to 12 percent of Republicans agree with the statement that President Trump is racially biased against people of color.

Bottom line: What we call a racial divide today is really a partisan divide.

Consider the remarks of Rep. John Lewis, who decided to not attend the opening of the new Civil Rights Museum in Mississippi because Trump announced he would attend. Lewis called Trump’s attendance “an affront to the veterans of the civil rights movement.”

Or the president of the NAACP who also announced he would not attend because of Trump’s attendance. NAACP President Derrick Johnson called Trump’s attendance at the museum’s opening “a distraction from us having the opportunity to honor true Americans who sacrificed so much to ensure that democracy works.”

But the “insult” to civil rights comes today from these very black leaders who claim to represent this movement.

The leaders who fought in the 1960s for civil rights fought for freedom and against stereotyping any individual because of their race. Freedom means living and thinking freely according to one’s judgment and conscience. That is, blacks may have conservative as well as liberal views.

In 2016, 8 percent of black voters, or 1.2 million people, voted for Donald Trump. But these 1.2 million blacks don’t exist in the view of today’s “civil rights” leaders.

Like the Dred Scott decision in 1857, which declared blacks inhuman and therefore not eligible to be American citizens, so-called black leaders of 2017 declare the same status for black Republicans and black conservatives.

About 15 percent of black men between ages of 18 and 54 voted for Donald Trump.

A black leadership whose primary interest is black freedom, rather than left-wing politics, would be asking why this many black Americans voted for Donald Trump.

More careful reasoning would shine light among black voters that we have a president who is an independent thinker and who has the courage to fight against an entrenched status quo. And fighting against an entrenched status quo is something African-Americans need.

As Housing and Urban Development secretary, Dr. Ben Carson is creatively finding new approaches to the largely failed government housing programs.

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz introduced an amendment to the tax bill just passed in the Senate that expands 529 college savings plans, which enables tax-free savings to pay for college, to include K-12 education. This will allow all parents to save tax-free and spend up to $10,000 per year on expenses for public school, private school, religious schools and home schooling.

This has huge implications for black parents and children. America’s most famous homeschooled American is Simone Biles, who won four gold medals in the 2016 Olympic games.

Soon the Trump administration and Congress will move on reforming our bloated and inefficient welfare programs. We are spending some $900 billion annually on anti-poverty programs that are helping to bankrupt the country and doing a very poor job improving the quality of life for the Americans these programs are designed to help. Black leaders should be anxious to participate in this vital and historic effort to do a much better job in how we assist low-income Americans.

It’s in the interest of every African-American to start thinking about freedom. This is what the civil rights movement was about. Not left-wing politics.

SOURCE

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

Whistleblower Says CFPB Falsified Documents to Fine Payday Lender

A former employee of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is calling for an investigation after accusing managers of falsifying documents to impose fines on a payday lender.

Cassandra Jackson, a former CFPB examiner in the southeast division, sent a letter last week to Attorney General Jeff Sessions also accusing managers of "widespread racism and gender discrimination."

Jackson said her superiors at the CFPB asked her to falsify documents during her investigation into a Texas-based payday lending company, Ace Cash Express.

"During the course of this examination, I was asked to change, remove, and otherwise falsify documents connected with this examination," Jackson said.

Jackson said she was asked to remove document evidence proving Ace Cash Express was complying with CFPB rules and to write a report including findings she knew to be "false and fabricated."

"I was specifically told to cite Ace Cash Express for a violation for which I had verified the company was in compliance and to state that Ace Cash Express did not provide, and that the CFPB did not receive, documents that would have satisfied the CFPB's guidelines, despite having received that information from Ace Cash Express," Jackson said.

Jackson refused to follow management's orders and said she was retaliated against for not falsifying the report. Managers then "proceeded to modify the report" and used it to "garner" a $10 million settlement with the company, even though Jackson said her report "did not find significant violations by the lender."

The CFPB took enforcement action against Ace Cash Express in July 2014. The CFPB said the company pushed "payday borrowers into a cycle of debt" and forced the company to offer $5 million in refunds and pay a $5 million fine.

Jackson said after refusing to falsify records, managers informed her she was "not performing" at grade level and subjected to disciplinary action.

"I encourage you to initiate an investigation into this matter, as well as civil rights violations at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau," Jackson said. "During my nearly five years at the Bureau, I encountered widespread racism and gender discrimination from management."

Jackson said she was ultimately forced out of the CFPB due to an "incredibly hostile work environment and the retaliation I continued to receive from management at the CFPB due to the Ace Cash Express incident."

The U.S. Consumer Coalition, a consumer advocacy group, released the whistleblower letter.

"Ms. Jackson is a dedicated public servant who believes in the mission of the CFPB," said Brian J. Wise, president of the U.S. Consumer Coalition. "Unfortunately, her claims are all too familiar to the dedicated employees serving under the direction of CFPB management."

"We join Ms. Jackson in calling on U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions to initiate an investigation into this case as well as the dozens of cases of civil rights abuses we are aware of at the CFPB," he said.

SOURCE

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

Congress must end Chain Migration and the Visa Lottery program

By Printus LeBlanc

On Monday, there was yet another terrorist attack in New York City. Luckily the incompetence of the extremist led to only five injuries, with many speculating it could have been much worse. This attack comes on the heels of another attack on Halloween day that left eight dead and 11 injured. Both attackers were brought to the country legally, thanks to an outdated immigration system. Congress knows what the problem is, why have they not fixed it?

The Department of Homeland Security has confirmed Akayed Ullah, the zealot from Monday’s attack, came to the U.S. in 2011 via an F43 “fourth preference” family immigration visa, also known as chain migration. F43 means he was in the most distant family-relationship eligibility category, i.e., the brother or sister of an adult citizen. It gets worse, the sibling that allowed Ullah to immigrate entered the U.S. via the Visa Lottery program. The Visa Lottery program is the same program that brought Sayfullo Habibullaevich Saipov to the U.S. In case you don’t remember; he is the terrorist from the Halloween day attack.

Why has Congress failed to act on chain migration and the Visa Lottery?

The latest immigration numbers show more than 60 percent of new legal arrivals to the U.S. since 1981 came here via chain migration. These are people who came here because they knew someone, not because they were a doctor, engineer, or scientist, but because they were related to someone else. At a time when Silicon Valley is screaming for higher skilled workers, does it make sense to prioritize loose family connections instead of labor market needs?

Amnesty advocates and the mainstream media will tell you there is no problem with chain migration or the Visa Lottery. It could be because they are too busy reporting on the diet coke habit of the President to notice, but if they opened their eyes, they would see a problem:

In 2002, Imran Mandhai pled guilty to conspiring to bomb a National Guard Armory and electrical power substations near Miami. Mandhai was in the country because his parents were Visa Lottery winners from Pakistan.

Syed Haris Ahmed was convicted of terrorism-related activities in the United States and abroad in 2009. Ahmed was another winner of the Visa Lottery system in Pakistan.

A few days before Sayfullo Habibullaevich Saipov’s truck attack on Halloween day in New York City, another Visa Lottery winner, Abdurasul Hasanovich Juraboev, was sentenced to 15 years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiring to provide material support to Islamic State terrorists.

In one of the more egregious examples of poor immigration management, a leader of Hamas, Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook, received a Green Card through the predecessor program to the Visa Lottery. He was finally deported for terrorist activities in 1997.

In July 2002, Egyptian national, Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet, opened fire at the El Al Airlines ticket counter at LAX airport, murdering two ticket agents and wounding three others. He came here via tourist visa in 1992, claimed political asylum, then granted Lawful Permanent Resident status after his wife won the Visa Lottery in 1997. This happened despite being arrested in Egypt for being a member of Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, a group supported by Al-Qaeda.

Another falsehood spread by amnesty radicals is the economic argument. Activists will often argue that immigration legal and illegal is a net positive for the economy. When you look at the data, the case doesn’t hold up.

Illegal immigration alone is costing the U.S. taxpayer $135 billion a year in medical care, education, and law enforcement costs. A 2012 study found that 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant used welfare. The federal government spent almost $500 billion on welfare programs in the same year the study was done. How much of that went to immigrant households?

Despite the glaring need to end chain migration and the Visa Lottery program, Congress has yet to act. The Democrat Party is happy with the status quo because they get to import people that need government assistance, and people that need government assistance are more likely to vote Democrat. Republican leadership is in love with the 2012 election autopsy report, even though Trump proved everything in the report wrong with his election.

However, thanks to the election of President Trump the idea of a common-sense immigration policy that puts the needs of Americans first is on the horizon. While the pro-amnesty crowd want the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to be made into law, President Trump is standing firm. Any deal that includes DACA must include the elimination of chain migration, the Visa Lottery, and a border wall.

In an interview with Laura Ingraham, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) seemed to be coming around to the idea also stating, “I agree with Cotton and Perdue…Chain Migration, doing something about the Diversity Visa Lottery, there are plenty of changes to the legal immigration system that should be added to any kind of a DACA fix that we do.”

McConnell was referring to the RAISE Act. Legislation introduced earlier this year by Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.) that would slash chain migration, eliminate the Visa Lottery program, and return the U.S. to a merit-based immigration system.

Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning has long been a proponent of overhauling the failing immigration system stating, “Yesterday’s horrific attempt at mass murder by a person who came from Bangladesh via chain migration underscores the importance of ending both the visa lottery system and chain migration. It is absurd that when one member of a family wins the lottery to be able to legally come to the U.S. that every extended relative is put to the front of the line for future immigration. It is in both U.S. national security and economic interests to have an immigration system that prioritizes those with needed skills and experience. Any discussion of immigration law changes must begin with ending chain migration, building the wall and securing the border before any other considerations.”

Chain Migration and the Visa Lottery program, two pieces of a broken immigration system coming together to put American lives in danger. U.S. immigration policy must be based on what is best for the U.S., not what is best for the incoming immigrant. Local, state, and federal resources are stretched too thin as it is. It makes no sense economically to import people that cannot support themselves and are going to depend on a system on the verge of collapse. President Trump won the election with a message of putting Americans first, it is time for Congress to live up to their end of the deal.

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)

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

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)

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