Blind rage when new Nashville bus line blocked at State level

I am putting up below a small part of a long rant in the Boston  Globe about a proposed dedicated bus road in Nashville.  The Democrat-run city had obtained a substantial Federal contribution to the cost with the rest to come from the city and the State.  The GOP-led State Legislature kyboshed the idea and the Globe is incensed.

I am putting this up because the entire rant is emblematic of Leftist thinking.  No attempt is made to understand or even find out WHY the GOPers blocked the project.  The GOPers apparently just acted to be malicious.  That the money might have been better spent elsewhere is not considered.  Bus lanes can work sometimes but often represent a lot of spending for little return.  They can also interfere with other traffic, causing wasteful bottlenecks

Because they don't listen, Leftists just see conservative  opposition to their schemes as totally unreasonable blockages and therefore explicable only as the actions bad men with evil motives.  They are always surprised to hear that someone might see a downside to their often hare-brained schemes.  We are just supposed to be starry-eyed at their brilliance.

The only evil motive they could come up with on this occasion was that some people in the richer end of town saw the project as likely to bring into their suburbs people from the poor end of town.  But no evidence is presented to say that that was likely nor is it shown that such objections were a factor in the decision.  They don't even show that the objectors were GOP supporters.  Many rich people these days -- Jews in particular -- vote Democrat, rightly seeing the Democrats as determined to get control of everyone -- including the "riff-raff".

America pays a high price for having one half of politics unwilling to listen to both sides of a question.  It engenders rage and hate


Karl Dean, a Democrat in his second term as this city’s mayor, had a few minutes to tell President Obama about his dream: building a “trackless trolley” line that would connect Nashville’s gentrifying east side with its ritzy west. He had spent years submitting applications for a $75 million grant, and he made sure the president knew about it.

Two months after that January 2014 meeting in Nashville, the dream seemed to be coming true. The White House announced that money for Dean’s project was in the president’s budget.

Unbeknownst to Dean, however, an extraordinary coalition was at work behind the scenes to take away the money before the check could be written. The local leader of a group created by the conservative Koch brothers helped write a bill that was introduced in the Tennessee Legislature by a sympathetic Republican lawmaker and that was designed to kill the project.

“I’m not used to having the state come in and try to crush us,” Dean said in an interview last month, on his last full day in office.

The tale of the trackless trolley is, on one level, a prosaic account of a fast-growing city struggling to pay for much-needed mass transit. But as the story unfolded, it became clear that there was something much deeper going on: a bare-knuckle city-versus-state fight at a time when the partisan divide between big cities — mostly run by Democrats — and state capitals, where the GOP largely holds sway, has reached a historic extreme. It showed how national politics, and secretly financed outside groups, can influence even local battles.

The 7-mile high-speed bus line, lyrically dubbed the “Amp,” was supposed bring together the disparate sides of Music City. Instead, it tore Nashville apart.

Zeroing in on this sort of local battle has become a key to success for groups such as Americans for Prosperity, the Koch-backed organization that counts its Tennessee chapter among its most effective.

What is clear is that the political ground is more fertile than ever for national groups to enter local fights. And it was exactly this divide that opponents of the Amp sought to exploit, pitting City Hall against the Capitol, two buildings sitting three blocks apart in downtown Nashville.

A system of Boston-style trolleys was deemed too costly, so Dean pitched the idea of a high-speed bus network on dedicated lanes, which some refer to as trackless trolleys, with the city’s east-west corridor as the first route.

The line would start in East Nashville, which is 39 percent African-American, and has more than its share of public housing, with half its families earning less than $38,000. It has lately become a gradually gentrifying haven for artists, musicians, hipsters, and working-class residents who make the city hum, in more ways than one.

The route would cross the Cumberland River and run along Broadway, past neon-bathed honky-tonks with their cacophony of country bands, near the historic Ryman Auditorium, and alongside the arena where the Country Music Awards are held. It would pass Lee Beaman’s auto dealerships and continue on West End Avenue past Vanderbilt before ending near a hospital complex.

That would bring it deep into West Nashville, where nearly one-third of families have an income more than $200,000, and 92 percent are white, according to census records. Just beyond the western terminus is Belle Meade, one of the nation’s wealthiest neighborhoods, where residents cross creeks to enter a park-like setting of rolling hills, emerald lawns, Tara-style mansions and French-influenced chateaus.

But some in the West End, in luxe neighborhoods such as Woodland, feared an influx. One resident, Edie Wenczl, elegantly dressed and wearing a string of pearls, stood during a 2012 public meeting on the Amp to declare her opposition.

“We don’t want the riff-raff of East Nashville in our neighborhood,” said Wenczl, who lives in what she calls a “precious” enclave of stately homes near the route’s western terminus, and explained in an interview that part of her concern was traffic on her street.

Rick Williams, the owner of Nashville Limousine Service for 15 years, also was aghast. He couldn’t believe it when he heard that taxpayer money would be used for the Amp.

“Is it my job to use tax money contributed by everybody to help a certain segment out, to say, you don’t want a car and responsibility of owning a car, or car insurance, is it my job to make transportation easier for you?” Williams said. He became chairman of a group he called “Stop Amp.”

SOURCE

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

Nearly 1,000 People Move From Blue States to Red States Every Day

The so-called “progressives” love to talk about how their policies will create a worker’s paradise, but then why is it that day after day, month after month, year after year, people are fleeing liberal blue states for conservative red states?

The new Census data on where we live and where we moved to in 2014 shows that the top seven states with the biggest percentage increase in in-migration from other states are in order: North Dakota, Nevada, South Carolina, Colorado, Florida, Arizona, and Texas. All of these states are red, except Colorado, which is purple.

Meanwhile, the leading exodus states of the continental states in percentage terms were Alaska, New York, Illinois, Connecticut, New Mexico, New Jersey, and Kansas. All of these states are blue, except Alaska and Kansas.

The latest Rich States, Poor States document (which I co-author), published by ALEC, the state legislative organization, finds that nearly 1,000 people each day on net are leaving blue states and entering red states. This migration is changing the economic center of gravity in America—moving it relentlessly to the South and West.

Travis Brown, the author of the indispensable book “How Money Walks,” shows that two of the leading factors behind this movement of human capital are 1) whether a state has a right to work law (half of the states do) and 2) how high the top income tax rate is in the state. Nine states have no income tax today, and they are creating twice the pace of jobs as are high-income tax states.

Data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) show a similar trend. Each year the IRS issues a migration data report that examines how many tax filers (and dependents) in the year changed their residency and how much income was transported from one state to another. The numbers for the most recent year (tax filing year 2013) are gigantic and put the lie to the claim that interstate migration is too small to matter in terms of the wealth and economic opportunity in one state versus another.

In 2013, Florida gained $8.2 billion in adjusted gross income from out-of-staters. Texas gained $5.9 billion—in one year. Five of the seven states with the biggest gains in income have no income tax at all: Florida, Texas, Arizona, Washington, and Nevada. New York was again the big loser, with another 112,236 tax filers leaving and taking $5.2 billion with them. (So much for those TV ads trying to lure businesses into America’s 2nd highest taxed state with temporary tax breaks.) Illinois lost nearly 67,000 tax filers and $3.7 billion of income it can no longer tax.

I’ve never met a Democrat who could come up with even a semi-plausible explanation for why families and businesses are hightailing it out of blue states. They are leaving states with high minimum wages, pro-union work rules, high taxes on the rich, generous welfare benefits, expansive regulations to “help” workers, green energy policies, etc. People are voting with their feet against these liberal policies.

When I debated Paul Krugman this summer, I confronted him with this reality. His lame explanation for the steady migration from liberal North to conservative South was that “air conditioning” has made the South more livable. Americans are evidently moving because of the weather.

There are two glaring problems with this theory: California and North Dakota. In the last decade ending in 2013, 1.4 million more Americans left California than moved into the once-Golden State. It’s a good bet these California refugees didn’t leave for more sunshine or better weather.

And if warm weather is what is attracting people to the South—and surely there is some truth to that—why did the coldest state outside Alaska, North Dakota, have the biggest population gain in percentage terms in the most recent year? The answer is that workers went to get jobs created by the Bakken Shale oil and gas boom. By the way, California is one of the oil- and gas-richest states in the nation, but its “green” politicians are regulating that industry out of businesses. So much for caring about working-class Americans.

The latest Census and IRS data merely confirm what Americans can see every day with their own two eyes. Red states are a magnet. There’s a downside to this for sure. Conservatives have a legitimate gripe that as blue-staters come into their prosperous red states, they try to turn them blue. That’s happened in New Hampshire, where Massachusetts transplants vote for the left-wing policies they just fled.

But the underlying trend is unmistakable: Liberal blue states are economic dinosaurs. Will they change their ways before they go the way of Detroit and become extinct

SOURCE

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

The NYT defines what a ‘Modern Man’ is

The New York Times is not just the Paper of Record. It is, among so very many other things, the adjudicator of acceptable opinion, the arbiter of style, and the guide for the perplexed. It was thus with humble gratitude that males, all of whom are prostrate betas before the Times’ grand alpha, received the article that appeared last week in the Men’s Style/Self-Help section: “27 Ways to Be a Modern Man.” How would we know, if the New York Times didn’t tell us?

Brian Lombardi, the Times’ appointed oracle on what makes a Modern Man, is as gnomic and enigmatic as any of his Delphic predecessors. He tells us, for example, that “the modern man listens to Wu-Tang at least once a week.” My best guess as to what this could possibly mean is that it is a reference to the Wu-Tang Clan, which, I am informed, is “an American hip hop group from New York City, originally composed of East Coast rappers RZA, GZA, Method Man, Raekwon, Ghostface Killah, Inspectah Deck, U-God, Masta Killa, Cappadonna, and the late Ol’ Dirty Bastard.”

That’s right: “the late Ol’ Dirty Bastard.” There are plenty of us still alive, but never mind. Brian Lombardi’s epigrammatic utterances include no explanation of why modern man must consult Wu-Tang weekly. There is no why. One does not question the oracle.

But then, there is this: "The modern man lies on the side of the bed closer to the door. If an intruder gets in, he will try to fight him off, so that his wife has a chance to get away."

Very well, but also: "The modern man has no use for a gun. He doesn’t own one, and he never will".

If Modern Man must never own a gun, that’s his choice. But he “has no use” for one? What if the intruder who storms his bedroom is too strong for Modern Man to fight off unarmed? What if the intruder has a knife — or is even so much of an Antiquated Man as to have a gun?

What can Modern Man do then? Reach for the melon baller that Lombardi advises he use to make sure  “the cantaloupe, watermelon and honeydew he serves” are “uniformly shaped”?

A clue as to how all this sage advice hangs together comes in the oracle’s penultimate utterance: "The modern man cries. He cries often".

Perhaps the Modern Man is so given to such displays because the intruder was indeed armed, and Modern Man wasn’t, and Modern Man’s wife had no chance to get away.

SOURCE

There is a  new  lot of postings by Chris Brand just up -- on his usual vastly "incorrect" themes of race, genes, IQ etc.

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

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated) and Coral reef compendium. (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 A WESTERN HEART.

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or  here -- for when blogspot is "down" or failing to  update.  Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

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

Russia Declares ‘Holy War’ on Islamic State

by RAYMOND IBRAHIM

According to Vsevolod Chaplin, head of the [Russian] Church's Public Affairs Department, "The fight with terrorism is a holy battle and today our country is perhaps the most active force in the world fighting it.  The Russian Federation has made a responsible decision on the use of armed forces to defend the People of Syria from the sorrows caused by the arbitrariness of terrorists. Christians are suffering in the region with the kidnapping of clerics and the destruction of churches. Muslims are suffering no less".

This is not a pretext to justify intervention in Syria.  For years, Russia's Orthodox leaders have been voicing their concern for persecuted Christians.  Back in February 2012, the Russian church described to Vladimir Putin the horrific treatment Christians are experiencing around the world, especially under Islam:

"The head of External Church Relations, Metropolitan Illarion, said that every five minutes one Christian was dying for his or her faith in some part of the world, specifying that he was talking about such countries as Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan and India.  The cleric asked Putin to make the protection of Christians one of the foreign policy directions in future.

"This is how it will be, have no doubt," Putin answered.

Compare and contrast Putin's terse response with U.S. President Obama, who denies the connection between Islamic teachings and violence; whose policies habitually empower Christian-persecuting Islamists; who prevents Christian representatives from testifying against their tormentors; and who even throws escaped Christian refugees back to the lions, while accepting tens of thousands of Muslim migrants.

Russian Patriarch Kirill once even wrote an impassioned letter to Obama, imploring him to stop empowering the murderers of Christians.  That the patriarch said "I am deeply convinced that the countries which belong to the Christian civilization bear a special responsibility for the fate of Christians in the Middle East" must have only ensured that the letter ended up in the Oval Office's trash can.  After all, didn't Obama make clear that America is "no longer a Christian nation"?

Of course, Russian concerns for Christian minorities will be cynically dismissed by the usual brood of talking heads on both sides.  While such dismissals once resonated with Americans, they are becoming less persuasive to those paying attention, as explained in "Putin's Crusade-Is Russia the Last Defender of the Christian Faith?"

For those of us who grew up in America being told that the godless communist atheists in Russia were our enemies, the idea that America might give up on God and Christianity while Russia embraces religion might once have been difficult to accept.  But by 2015, the everyday signs in America show a growing contempt for Christianity, under the first president whose very claims of being a Christian are questionable.

The exact opposite trend is happening for Russia and its leaders-a return to Christian roots.

Indeed, growing numbers of Americans who have no special love for Russia or Orthodoxy-from billionaire capitalist Donald Trump to evangelical Christians-are being won over by Putin's frank talk and actions.

How can they not?  After one of his speeches praising the West's Christian heritage-a thing few American politicians dare do-Putin concluded with something that must surely resonate with millions of traditional Americans: "We must protect Russia from that which has destroyed American society"-a reference to the anti-Christian liberalism and licentiousness that has run amok in the West.

Even the Rev. Franklin Graham's response to Russia's military intervention in Syria seems uncharacteristically positive, coming as it is from the head of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, which for decades spoke against the godless Soviets:

"What Russia is doing may save the lives of Christians in the Middle East....  You understand that the Syrian government ... have protected Christians, they have protected minorities from the Islamists."

Should U.S supported jihadis ("rebels") succeed in toppling the government of Syria, Graham correctly predicts that there will be "a bloodbath of Christians":

"There would be tens of thousands of Christians murdered and slaughtered and on top of that, you would have hundreds of thousands of more refugees pouring into Europe. So Russia right now, I see their presence as helping to save the lives of Christians."

Incidentally, it's an established fact that the "good rebels"-or "moderates"-are persecuting Christians no less than the Islamic State.

When asked why the Obama administration is so callous towards the plight of persecuted Christians, Graham, somewhat echoing Putin, said the American president was more invested in promoting the homosexual agenda than he is in protecting Christians:

"I'm not here to bash the gays and lesbians and they certainly have rights and I understand all of that, but this administration has been more focused on that agenda than anything else. As a result, the Middle East is burning and you have more refugees moving today since World War II. It could have been prevented."

In reality, it's not Russian claims of waging a holy war to save Christians from the sword of jihad that deserves to be cynically dismissed, but rather every claim the Obama administration makes to justify its support for the opposition in Syria (most of which is not even Syrian).

There are no "moderate rebels," only committed jihadis eager to install Islamic law, which is the antithesis of everything the West once held precious.  If the "evil dictator" Assad kills people in the context of war, the "rebels" torture, maim, enslave, rape, behead, and crucify people solely because they are Christian. How does that make them preferable to Assad?

Moreover, based on established precedent-look to Iraq and Libya, the other countries U.S. leadership helped "liberate"-the outcome of ousting the secular strongman of Syria will be more atrocities, more Christian persecution, more rapes and enslavement, and more bombed churches and destroyed antiquities, despite John Kerry's absurd assurances of a "pluralistic" Syria once Assad is gone.  It will also mean more terrorism for the West.

Once again, then, the U.S. finds itself on the side of Islamic terrorists, who always reserve their best for America.  The Saudis-the head of the Jihadi Snake which U.S. presidents are wont to kiss and bow to-are already screaming bloody murder and calling for an increased jihad in Syria in response to Russia's holy war.

Will Obama and the MSM comply, including through an increased propaganda campaign?  Top Islamic clerics like Yusuf al-Qaradawi-who once slipped on live television by calling on the Obama administration to wage "jihad for Allah" against Assad-seem to think so.  Already the U.S. "welcomes" the new cruel joke that Saudi Arabia, one of the absolute worst human rights violators, will head a U.N. human rights panel.

At day's end and all Realpolitik aside, there is no denying reality: what the United States and its Western allies have wrought in the Middle East-culminating with the rise of a bloodthirsty caliphate and the worst atrocities of the 21st century-is as unholy as Russia's resolve to fight it is holy.

SOURCE

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

7 Times Obama Ignored the Law to Impose His Executive Will

President Obama—the imperial President, the “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone” president who can’t wait to show us his “year of action”—once vowed to do exactly the opposite.

"The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America"

That was candidate Obama back in 2008. This comment somehow slipped under the radar for the past few years and resurfaced this week.

Proving the absurdity of this campaign promise, Heritage’s legal experts have put together a list of seven illegal actions the Obama administration has taken in the president’s unilateral drive for executive power.

If it seems like there should be more than seven, you’re on to something. It’s more complicated than you think to tell what’s illegal or unconstitutional when it comes to presidential power. Heritage’s Elizabeth Slattery and Andrew Kloster explain:

While it might not be possible to define in all instances precisely when an action crosses the line and falls outside the scope of the President’s statutory or constitutional authority, what follows is a list of unilateral actions taken by the Obama Administration that we think do cross that line.

1. Delaying Obamacare’s employer mandate

The administration announced that Obamacare won’t be implemented as it was passed, so employers with 50 or more employees don’t have to provide the mandated health coverage for at least another year (and longer if they play their cards right). Slattery and Kloster observe that “The law does not authorize the president to push back the employer mandate’s effective date.”

2. Giving Congress and their staffs special taxpayer-funded subsidies for Obamacare

It was uncomfortable for members of Congress when they realized that, through Obamacare, they had kicked themselves and their staffs out of the taxpayer-funded subsidies they were enjoying for health coverage. But the administration said no problem and gave them new subsidies. In this case, “the administration opted to stretch the law to save Obamacare—at the taxpayers’ expense.”

3. Trying to fulfill the “If you like your plan, you can keep it” promise—after it was broken

When Americans started getting cancellation notices from their insurance companies because Obamacare’s new rules were kicking in, the president’s broken promise was exposed. He tried to fix things by telling insurance companies to go back to old plans that don’t comply with Obamacare—just for one year. Slattery and Kloster note that “The letter announcing this non-enforcement has no basis in law.”

4. Preventing layoff notices from going out just days before the 2012 election

There’s a law that says large employers have to give employees 60 days’ notice before mass layoffs. And layoffs were looming due to federal budget cuts in 2012. But the Obama administration told employers to go against the law and not issue those notices—which would have hit mailboxes just days before the presidential election. The administration “also offered to reimburse those employers at the taxpayers’ expense if challenged for failure to give that notice.”

5. Gutting the work requirement from welfare reform

The welfare reform that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996 required that welfare recipients in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program work or prepare for work to receive the aid. The Obama administration essentially took out that requirement by offering waivers to states, even though the law expressly states that waivers of the work requirement are not allowed. “Despite [the law’s] unambiguous language, the Obama administration continues to flout the law with its ‘revisionist’ interpretation,” write Slattery and Kloster.

6. Stonewalling an application for storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain

This was another case where the administration simply refused to do what was required by law. An application was submitted for nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain, but “Despite the legal requirement, the Obama administration refused to consider the application.”

7. Making “recess” appointments that were not really recess appointments

Slattery and Kloster explain that “In January 2012, President Obama made four ‘recess’ appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, claiming that, since the Senate was conducting only periodic pro forma sessions, it was not available to confirm those appointees.” The catch: The Senate wasn’t in recess at the time. Courts have since struck down the appointments, but the illegitimate appointees already moved forward some harmful policies.

More: Slattery and Kloster list even more actions that, while they might not be illegal, are definitely abuses of executive power. That list includes imposing new immigration law by executive fiat and refusing to enforce more than one federal law.

SOURCE

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

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated) and Coral reef compendium. (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 A WESTERN HEART.

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or  here -- for when blogspot is "down" or failing to  update.  Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

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

Actor dressed as Hitler on the streets of Germany tells how people were pleased to see him

In a country being swamped by aggressive and hate-filled Muslims that the German government is just accepting, Hitler comes to be seen as the reasonable leader they now lack. It is not impossible for a moderate Western government to keep out incompatible minorities.  Australia has done it  -- see below.  But most Western governments are not moderate.  They bow down to head-in-the-sand Leftist thinking. They are extremists in their attitudes to differences between people -- they act as if there are no differences at all.  No wonder Hitler seems a reasonable man in that context.  Extremism begets extremism -- JR

An actor dressed as Hitler on the streets of Germany was begged to bring back labour camps, kissed and made to feel like 'a pop star' - casting an uncomfortable light on growing support for right-wing extremism in the country.

Oliver Masucci plays the Nazi leader in 'He's Back' ('Er ist wieder da'), a biting social satire by author Timur Vermes which was released in German cinemas this week.

However, it is not his performance, but the reactions of people on the street to 'Hitler' which have got the country talking as it prepares to welcome hundreds of thousands of refugees this year alone.

The film imagines what it would be like if Hitler was transported to the 21st century, and is interspersed with documentary footage which captures people's real reactions to seeing the 'dictator' on the streets

'He's Back' is based on Vermes' 'what-if' best-seller of the same name, published three years ago. In it, Hitler is baffled to find himself in a multicultural Germany led by a woman, Chancellor Angela Merkel.

He discovers TV chefs, Wikipedia and the fact that Poland still exists before he ends up a small-screen star, in a social commentary on society, mass media and celebrity hype.

But the film goes a step further than the novel, and intersperses the action with real life documentary footage - including footage of people welcoming back the despotic mass murderer with open arms.

In real life, Masucci - walking through the streets with a Hitler moustache and uniform - got rousing receptions from ordinary people, many of whom pose for 'selfies' with him.

The reaction horrified the actor, who revealed to the Guardian how he was made to feel like a 'pop star' when he arrived at the Brandenburg Gate.  'People clustered around me,' he said. 'One told me she loved me, and asked me to hug her. One, to my relief, started hitting me.'

Older people began pouring their hearts out to him, often voicing extremist views.  'Yes, bring back labour camps,' one person says to the 'dictator' in the film.

Masucci, best known as a stage actor, also told German daily newspaper Bild about his mixed feelings while shooting the unscripted scenes with people on the street.

'During shooting, I realised: I didn't really have to perform - people felt a need to talk, they wanted to pour their hearts out to a fatherly Hitler who was listening to them,' he said. 'I found it disturbing how quickly I could win people over. I mean, they were talking to Hitler.'

In the film, his character chillingly notes 'a smouldering anger among the people, like in the 1930s,' with visible satisfaction.

Masucci's Hitler also meets members of the populist-nationalist Alternative for Germany party and the neo-Nazi NPD, while the final scenes show news footage of far-right mobs and a rally by the PEGIDA movement, short for 'Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident'.

The release of the movie has touched off broad debate in a country where guilt over World War II and the Holocaust continues to influence political debate.

'A fake Hitler, a small moustache clearly helped people lose their inhibitions and... allowed insights into Germany's dark side,' found the daily Berliner Morgenpost, which added:  'The far-right ideology smoulders to this day and has found new forums... in the form of the Alternative for Germany and the PEGIDA movement.'

At the public premiere Thursday, a Berlin audience roared with laughter during the funnier moments, but quietened during some of the real-life footage.  One viewer, who gave her name as Angela, said: 'It was all a bit too forced. The film is playing too hard on the fear about Nazi ideology, and they only picked out the worst sequences.'

Another viewer, Tobias, was more disturbed.  'This is real,' he said. 'We need to debate this. It shows how easily people can be manipulated. This is the right moment, because the danger is here now.'

SOURCE

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

Australia is not much different from the USA but has become completely successful in keeping out illegal immigrants

All it needs is some real conservatives in power

AUSTRALIA’S tough border protection regime has stopped more than 650 “potentially ­illegal immigrants” arriving by boat in less than two years.

Federal Immigration Minister Peter Dutton revealed the figure yesterday as he warned that people smugglers were using Australia’s change of leadership from Tony Abbott to Malcolm Turnbull as an opportunity to drum up business.

Mr Dutton said the Turnbull Government remained committed to the existing policy and would “stare down” the threat posed by people smugglers.

“I want to reiterate today — in the strongest possible terms — that the resolve of the Prime Minister and myself, the whole Government, is to make sure that we don’t allow deaths at sea to recommence,” Mr Dutton said.

Operation Sovereign Borders commander Major-General Andrew Bottrell said it was now more than 430 days since the last successful people smuggling venture to Australia and nearly two years since the last known death at sea.

He said the most recent attempt was in August but the passengers and crew on that vessel were “safely returned” to their country of departure.

Mr Dutton, who visited the Christmas Island detention centre this week, said there had been a “transformation” in the make-up of the detainee population.

He said of the 285 people being held on Christmas ­Island, 125 were there as a result of visa cancellations, 57 were overstayers and just 96 were now “illegal maritime arrivals”. The largest nationality group was Iranians — 21 per cent of those detained.

Forty New Zealanders [Maori?] with criminal convictions are being detained on the island and face deportation. Several are appealing against their visa cancellations.

He added the Government was also in discussions with a number of countries about resettling those seeking asylum on Manus Island, but would not speculate on a possible deal with the Philippines.

“I think we’re best to discuss those issues in private with those partners,” he said.

SOURCE

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

ObamaCare Program Shorts Insurance Companies Billions

ObamaCare’s risk corridors were a lot more risky than what the federal government let insurance providers believe. In order to accomplish the goal of increasing the number of Americans covered with health insurance, the federal government created risk corridors, assuring insurance companies that they could sign up people usually too old, sick or poor for the level of insurance they were buying. ObamaCare would reimburse those losses, the government promised.

Last year, insurance companies asked to be reimbursed for $2.9 billion. On Thursday, the Department of Health and Human Services said it would only pay out $362 million.

Oops. Who will pay the ultimate price? It’s not the government, and nor will it be the insurance companies. CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans Marilyn Tavenner said, “Stable, affordable coverage for consumers depends on adequate funding of the risk corridor program. It’s essential that Congress and CMS act to ensure the program works as designed and consumers are protected.”

Add this to the list of problems that both sides of the aisle want to fix with Obama’s signature legislation. Better yet, scrap it and start over.

SOURCE

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

Another blow to the antioxidant religion

"Settled science" bites the dust again

Compounds hailed for their cancer-fighting abilities could in fact increase the risk of the disease, experts have warned.  Antioxidants could double the rate at which the most dangerous form of skin cancer - melanoma - spread, they said.

The findings come in the wake of other recent studies, which showed antioxidants hasten the progression of lung cancer.

Professor Martin Bergö, from the Sahlgrenska Academy, warned those people with cancer, or an elevated risk of developing the disease, should avoid nutritional supplements that contain antioxidants.

In January 2014, a study at the academy, part of the University of Gothenburg, demonstrated that the compounds aggravated the progression of lung cancer.  Mice that were given antioxidants developed additional, and more aggressive tumours.  Furthermore, experiments on human lung cancer cells confirmed the findings.

Given the well-established evidence that free radicals can cause cancer, the research community had simply assumed antioxidants, which destroy them, would provide protection against the disease.

They are found in many nutritional supplements, and are widely marketed as a means of preventing cancer.

However, follow-up studies at the academy have now found that antioxidants double the rate of metastasis - spread - in malignant melanoma.

Professor Bergö said: 'As opposed to the lung cancer studies, the primary melanoma tumour was not affected.  'But the antioxidant boosted the ability of the tumour cells to metastasize, an even more serious problem because metastasis is the cause of death in the case of melanoma.

More HERE

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

For decades, governments steered millions away from whole milk. Another backflip coming up?

"Settled science" bites the dust again

U.S. dietary guidelines have long recommended that people steer clear of whole milk, and for decades, Americans have obeyed. Whole milk sales shrunk. It was banned from school lunch programs. Purchases of low-fat dairy climbed.

“Replace whole milk and full-fat milk products with fat-free or low-fat choices,” says the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the federal government's influential advice book, citing the role of dairy fat in heart disease.

Whether this massive shift in eating habits has made anyone healthier is an open question among scientists, however. In fact, research published in recent years indicates that the opposite might be true: millions might have been better off had they stuck with whole milk.

Scientists who tallied diet and health records for several thousand patients over ten years found, for example, that contrary to the government advice, people who consumed more milk fat had lower incidence of heart disease.

By warning people against full-fat dairy foods, the United States is “losing a huge opportunity for the prevention of disease,” said Marcia Otto, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Texas and the lead author of large studies published in 2012 and 2013, which were funded by government and academic institutions, not the industry. “What we have learned over the last decade is that certain foods that are high in fat seem to be beneficial.”

In 2013, New Zealand researchers led by Jocelyne R. Benatar collected the results of nine randomized controlled trials on dairy products. In tallying the tests on 702 subjects, researchers could detect no significant connection between consuming more dairy fat and levels of “bad” cholesterol. (Four of the nine studies included in the tally were funded by the industry. Those results were consistent with those of the trials funded by government entities.)

The same year, Otto and Mozaffarian, then both at the Harvard School of Public Health, conducted another study on the effects of milk. Their study sought to address a key weakness in the previous research.

One of the flaws of nutrition studies is that they rely on people to accurately recall what they’ve eaten over the course of a year. Those recollections are vulnerable to inaccuracy, especially for dairy fats which can be found in small amounts in many different foods. This inaccuracy may be one of the reasons studies have yielded contrary results on the link between milk and heart disease.

To improve estimates, Otto and Mozaffarian used a blood sample for each of more than 2,800 U.S. adults. Using the blood sample, they could detect how much dairy fats each had consumed. And over the eight-year follow up period, those who had consumed the most dairy fat were far less likely to develop heart disease compared to those who had consumed the least.

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) and Coral reef compendium. (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 A WESTERN HEART.

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or  here -- for when blogspot is "down" or failing to  update.  Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

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

Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households in the USA

The video and transcript are now available for the Center for Immigration Studies panel discussion on two recent reports about immigrant welfare use. The first report found that 51 percent of households headed by immigrants, both legal and illegal, use welfare, compared to 30 percent of households headed by the native-born. The second looked at legal status, finding that 49 percent of legal immigrant households and 62 percent of illegal immigrant households access welfare.

Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a leading authority on welfare, spoke of the link between education level and welfare. Even though most immigrant households include someone who works, immigrants are disproportionately low-skilled, so they cannot pay enough in taxes to pay for government benefits they receive. Low skill immigrants receive "4 to 5 dollars of benefits for every dollar paid," Rector said.

View the video HERE.  View the transcript HERE

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

The Right Does Have Answers on Guns, Mr. President

By Dennis Prager

On the assumption that there are good and bad people on both the right and the left and that everyone is horrified by mass shootings, how is one to explain the great divide between right and left on the gun issue as it relates to these mass murders?

Why does the left focus on more gun control laws, and why doesn't the right?

One reason is quintessentially American. Most Americans believe that it is their right - and even their duty - to own guns for self-protection. Unique among major democratic and industrialized nations, Americans have traditionally believed in relying on the state as little as possible. The right carries on this tradition, while the left believes in relying on the state as much possible - including, just to name a few areas, education, health care and personal protection.

A second reason for the left-right divide is that the left is uncomfortable with blaming people for bad actions. The right, on the other hand, is far more inclined to blame people for their bad actions.

Thus, liberals generally blame racism and poverty for violent crimes committed by poor blacks and Hispanics, while conservatives blame the criminals. Likewise, during the Cold War the left regarded nuclear weapons as the enemy while conservatives saw Communist regimes that possessed nuclear weapons as the enemy. It was the arms, not the values of those in possession of the arms, that troubled the left.

The third reason for the left-right divide on guns is that the two sides ask different questions when formulating social policies. The right tends to ask, "Does it do good?" The left is more likely to ask, "Does it feel good?"

Attitudes toward the minimum wage provide an excellent example.

As I noted in a recent column, in 1987, The New York Times editorialized against any minimum wage. The title of the editorial said it all: "The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00."

"There's a virtual consensus among economists," wrote the Times editorial, "that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed. Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market."

In 1987 the Times editorialized against having any minimum wage because it asked the question: "Does it do good?"

Twenty-seven years later, the same editorial page wrote the opposite of what it had written in 1987, and called for a major increase in the minimum wage.

Why? Did the laws of economics change? Of course not.

What changed was the question the Times asked. Having moved further and further left, the Times editorial page was now preoccupied not with what does good, but with what feels good. And it feels good to raise poor people's minimum wage.

So, too, on gun control. Immediately after the killings in Oregon, President Obama expressed great anger over Congress's unwillingness to pass more gun laws. But neither he nor other left-wing gun control advocates tell us what law or laws - short of universal confiscation of guns (which is as possible as universal deportation of immigrants here illegally) - would have stopped any of the mass shootings that recently occurred.

To liberals it feels good to declare a college a "gun-free zone." Does it do good? Of course not. It does the opposite. It informs would-be murderers that no one will shoot them.

On gun violence, the left doesn't ask, "What does good?" It asks, "What feels good?" It feels good to call for more gun laws. It enables liberals to feel good about themselves; it makes the right look bad; and it increases government control over the citizenry. A liberal trifecta.

Are federal background checks a good idea? The idea sounds perfectly reasonable. But if they wouldn't have prevented any of the recent mass shootings, they would have been no help.

So, then, short of universal confiscation, which is both practically and constitutionally impossible, what will do good? What will reduce gun violence?

One thing that would make incomparably more difference than more gun laws is more fathers, especially in the great majority of shooting murders - those that are not part of a mass shooting. Why aren't liberals as passionate about policies that ensure that millions more men father their children as they are about gun laws? Because such thinking is anathema to the left. The left works diligently to keep single mothers dependent on the state (and therefore on the Democratic Party). And emphasizing a lack of fathers means human behavior is more to blame than guns.

Another is to cultivate participation in organized religion. Young men who attend church weekly commit far fewer murders than those who do not. But this too is anathema to the left. The secular left never offers religion as a solution to social problems. To do so, like emphasizing fathers, would shift the blame from guns to the criminal users of guns.

I would ask every journalist who cares about truth to ask every politician who argues for more guns laws, and every anti-gun activist, just two questions:

"Which do you believe would do more to decrease gun violence in America - more gun laws or more fathers?" "More gun laws or more church attendance?"

Barack Obama says, "Our gun supply leads to more deaths. The GOP has no plausible alternative theory."

The GOP does. But as usual, few Republicans say what it is. And no liberal wants to hear it.

SOURCE

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

Why Government Has Grown

by HERBERT LONDON.  I have been reading Herb for about 40 years so I am pleased to see that he is still fighting the good fight at age 76

Former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tip O'Neill, once said "all politics is local." It was a sample statement that in time became axiomatic. One politician after another echoed the refrain. In fact, I cannot recall any public refutations.

For a time logic suggested that this assertion is correct. In my judgment, however, that time has passed; if anything, politics is national.

The relationship between the government and the individual is complicated in large part because of mediating institutions - these private agencies of family, schools, churches, associations. These institutions in the aggregate are individually served to moderate a heavy and intrusive hand of federal authority. Alexis de Tocqueville, writing about America in the 1840's described these institutions as part of the national character and national resiliency.

The difficulty with this characterization is that these moderating structures are in disarray. Each is failing at its role eroding the barrier between government and the individual.

Family status is confused by the high rate of divorce, illegitimacy and polyamory. The bonds that held family together are challenged by progressive notions of sexual union. What a family is, how it is defined, is subject to a variety of interpretations; one thing is clear - the family as a unit, together through a bond is rapidly disappearing.

Empirical evidence is mounting that the schools do not do their job. Students graduate from high school unprepared for a job or higher education. Most significantly, the principles on which this civilization is based are not transmitted. Young people may love the freedom America allows but they know very little about "first principles" or why our form of liberty must be defended. Unanchored to my traditional belief, these citizens are subject to propagandizing and even the incremental loss of liberty.

Churches were once religious centers urging a belief in God. Some still perform this role. But many are social and political centers promoting social justice narrowly construed as political lobbying. Sermons often deal with national issues rather than biblical propositions. The result is that churches have lost their legitimacy as moral arbiters. They may represent some segment of the population, but cannot claim the role of transcendent interpreters of faith or morals.

Associations were once the bulwark of civil authority and pride. They did good deeds; they were the backbone of towns; they represented civic duty and a desire to help those in need. Now, however, their numbers are dwindling. Those in attendance tend to be gray around the temples. Downtown associations are becoming uptown clubs.

Facing conditions of the kind described here it is hardly surprising that federal government influence is growing. Citizens are adrift searching for meaning in lives that cannot find comfort in traditional institutions.

The nanny state organized by President Obama and his advisors is a national outgrowth of mediating institutions in trouble. If there is a way out of this morass, it is through restoration. Rebuilding schools as learning centers; families as units of cohesion; churches as moral centers and associations as the backbone of civic authority. It can be done, but it does mean weaning the citizenry from the test of national assistance. After decades of feeding at the public troth, habits of mind have been inscribed. As I see it, the time has come to uninscribe them. And it is suitable to do it as soon as possible.

SOURCE

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

Obama Putin vows to protect Christians worldwide



As part of his manifesto for the upcoming Russian presidential elections, candidate Vladimir Putin has promised to add the protection of Christian communities across the globe to the duties of his foreign office.

Following the meeting with Patriarch Kirill, The Patriarch was accused of using his power to meddle in political affairs, yet defended himself saying "We would like to talk to [Putin] as the prime minister, but first of all as with a candidate for the presidential post in our country who, of course, has more chance than anybody else to turn this candidacy into the real post"

The head of External Church Relations, Metropolitan Illarion, said that every five minutes one Christian was dying for his or her faith in some part of the world, specifying that he was talking about such countries as Iraq, Pakistan and India. The cleric asked Putin to make the protection of Christians one of the foreign policy priorities in the future.

Putin answered: "This is how it will be, have no doubt."

SOURCE

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

Baltimore: A City Broken After (Black) Mismanagement


Stephanie Rawlings-Blake is a presentable black but a fool nonetheless

Politically, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake made a mistake after the incident in Baltimore that left Freddie Gray mortally injured in the back of a police van. During the protests and criticisms of the city's police force, she sided with the mob looking for its brand of "justice" instead of her police force attempting to uphold Rule of Law.

It yielded bitter fruit. Police officers strapped on their guns every morning demoralized. City residents viewed the police with disrespect. And criminals are flexing newfound confidence.

As a result, crime has spiked in the city. During September, the number of non-fatal shootings were double that of 2014. Homicides climbed 39%.

This is where it gets ironic: Hot Air's Jazz Shaw notes that the U.S. Council of Mayors held a meeting in the city at the beginning of October to discuss, in the words of the Baltimore Sun, "economic development, community policing and the spike in homicides many cities saw over the summer."

Baltimore is hardly the poster child for solutions to these problems, as Rawlings-Blake announced that she would not seek another term as mayor. Another leftist village burns.

SOURCE

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

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated) and Coral reef compendium. (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 A WESTERN HEART.

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or  here -- for when blogspot is "down" or failing to  update.  Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

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

The black jellyfish in the White house

Last Friday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power compressed seven-plus years of the Obama administration’s staggering stupidity, clueless arrogance and frightening adolescence into a single tweet. “We call on #Russia to immediately cease attacks on Syrian oppo & civilians & to focus on ISIL,” it stated.

Does anything epitomize this administration better than a clueless tweet from a clueless twit? Most of the reaction to it is best described as astonished bemusement. “Did you consider beginning with ‘We REALLY REALLY REALLY express our SUPER-DUPER DEEP concern…’? That would’ve been good,” offered Freedom Post. “Just out of idle curiosity, any ideas beyond hash tags and stern communiques?” wondered Michael Frost. “Ooh, Samantha, if there’s anything the Russians respond to it’s sternly-worded tweets. What’s next? A folk song?” cracked Al Copersino.

“In the first two hours after Power sent the tweet, 100% of the responses were either critical, mocking, or both,” the Independent Journal informed us. This would be the same Samantha Power who, along with Secretary of State John Kerry, were pulled out of the United Nations General Assembly meeting by President Obama for a video conference just in time to avoid listening to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech.

What didn’t Obama want them to hear? “I’ve long said that gravest danger facing our world is the coupling of militant Islam with nuclear weapons, and I’m gravely concerned that the nuclear deal with Iran will prove to be the marriage certificate of that unholy union,” Netanyahu stated.  “One of history’s most important yet least learned lessons is this: the best intentions don’t prevent the worst outcomes.”

Netanyahu also saved a few choice words for the conglomeration of dictators, thugs and weak-kneed Western leaders who epitomize the increasingly fraudulent entity we called the United Nations. “Seventy years after the murder of six-million Jews, Iran’s rulers promised to destroy my country, murder my people, and the response from this body, the response from nearly every one of the governments represented here, has been absolutely nothing. Utter silence. Deafening silence,” Netanyahu stated.  

“Politicians in the region close to Tehran as well as analysts who have been closely following its role in Syria say a decision has been made, in close coordination with the Russians and the Assad regime, to increase the number of fighters on the ground through Iran’s network of local and foreign proxies,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

Close coordination? Where are the same Democrat and media hacks who pontificated about “snap back” sanctions? No doubt we can expect them to defend that assertion with all the gusto demonstrated by cockroaches that scurry back into the dark corners of a kitchen when the light is turned on. That’s what happens when the pontificators are revealed as the utter frauds they truly are — and always were.

It’s a fraud that begins right at the top of the political food chain. “President Obama, addressing Russian intervention in Syria at a White House press conference, said Tuesday Iran and Syria President Bashar Assad represented Russia’s entire coalition ‘and the rest of the world makes up ours,’” Fox News reports.

Obama dug himself an even deeper hole. “This is not a contest between the U.S. and Russia,” he insisted. “We’re not going to make Syria a proxy war between Russia and the United States. Our battle is with ISIL."

News flash, Mr. Obama. Vladimir Putin has already made this a de facto proxy war on behalf of both Iran and Assad. Moreover, your so-called coalition won’t lift a finger to stop him. Why would they? As Henry Kissinger cynically observed almost 40 years ago, "It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.” No one has epitomized that reality more than the current occupant in the White House.

And no one is more dangerous. For the first time in seven years, the most arrogant president in American history is facing an opponent he and the Orwellian Ministry of Truth our media has become cannot cow into silence, intimidate with false charges of racism, or belittle with anything resembling a shred of credibility.

Thus when Obama opines that “Mr. Putin’s action’s have only been successful in so far as they have bolstered his poll ratings inside of Russia” and that this foray into Syria “is not a smart strategic move on Russia’s part,” it doesn’t take much of an imagination to believe such admonitions are little more than a source of a amusement for the former KGB thug.

Thus one is left to wonder how the same adolescent-like petulance that engendered Obama making sure Kerry and Power were not in attendance for Netanyahu’s speech will manifest itself with regard to the man who has taken a wrecking ball to the president’s carefully cultivated image.

An internationally belittled narcissist with a long track record of dismissing critical wisdom from his military advisors is the stuff of genuine nightmares.

Two recent political cartoons emphasize our current dilemma. The first is a reference to yet another administration scandal, the revelation that intel reports were manipulated to create a public narrative that all was going well in the fight against ISIS. Two diplomats are standing next to Obama seated at a desk, while the president is reading an intel report with a smiley face on the cover. “If your Turkish allies were bombing your Kurdish allies and your Russian allies were bombing your Syrian allies, you’d doctor the intelligence too,” one of the diplomats states.

The second cartoon is far more devastating. Two men with the words “Russia” and “China” printed on their respective backs are shown sharing a knock-knock joke. “Want to hear a joke?” asks the Russian. “Yes,” the Chinese character replies. And so it goes: “Knock! knock!" "Who’s there?” “President Obama” “Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.” “I love that one,” the Russian says. “Me too,” says the Chinese character.

“The Pentagon said Friday that an American-trained rebel commander in Syria had surrendered trucks and ammunition this week to forces affiliated with an offshoot of Al Qaeda,” the New York Times reported Sept. 26, further noting that this debacle follows an admission by Centcom head Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III to a Senate committee 10 days earlier that “only four or five Syrians trained by the American military to confront the Islamic State remained in the fight — an acknowledgment that a $500 million program to raise an army of Syrian fighters had gone nowhere. General Austin also said that the United States would not reach its goal of training 5,000 Syrian fighters anytime soon,” the paper added.

On the other hand, it appears the Obama administration did perpetrate a devastating attack over the weekend. Unfortunately it was on a hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz, killing 22 and wounding 37 others. Why was the attack perpetrated? “The military has been playing an increasingly active role in Afghanistan amid a Taliban resurgence, particularly in the northern province of Kunduz,” reports the Times.

Taliban resurgence? “The bottom line is, it’s time to turn the page on more than a decade in which so much of our foreign policy was focused on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Obama told us in May of 2014. “When I took office, we had nearly 180,000 troops in harm’s way. By the end of this year, we will have less than 10,000. In addition to bringing our troops home, this new chapter in American foreign policy will allow us to redirect some of the resources saved by ending these wars to respond more nimbly to the changing threat of terrorism, while addressing a broader set of priorities around the globe.”

“I think Americans have learned that it’s harder to end wars than it is to begin them,” Obama added.

No again, Mr. President. Americans have learned that winning wars is utterly anathema to a president and his party whose retreat from the world stage is a complete disgrace — topped only by their determination to pave the way for Iran’s entry into the nuclear club. And make no mistake: It was Obama and Democrats who convinced Americans they could embrace the luxury of war-weariness, utterly irrespective of events on the ground. If that luxury precipitates a spate of domestic jihadist violence Americans will pay a terrible price to re-learn a simple lesson:

Just because you don’t want war with Islamo-facists doesn’t mean they don’t want war with you. And the reality that so many Americans are apparently convinced after only 14 years that 9/11 was a “one off” is astounding.

“What did he know and when did he know it?" asks New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin. "The immortal question about Richard Nixon and Water­gate should be posed to Barack Obama about Syria. What and when did he know about Vladimir Putin’s axis-of-evil coalition? The significance is not limited to Syria. The question goes to the heart of the Iran nuclear deal, especially the timing of the congressional votes.”

Goodwin illuminates the implications. “By eliminating most sanctions and freeing Iranian assets, the nuke deal provides money and protection for the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism to attack our allies. And Iran’s liberation gave Putin the Muslim ground troops he needs,” Goodwin further notes it was the deal with Iran that put Putin’s Syrian plan into action.

There are two ways to go through life. You can either exert a measure of control over the vicissitudes of this existence, or be carried along on a current of self-inflicted helplessness. When an individual chooses the latter option, the results may be tragic. When the last remaining outpost of freedom on the planet chooses the same option, they may be cataclysmic.

SOURCE

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

Jobs Report Reveals More Americans Out of Work

The labor force participation rate is at a 40 year low

The jobs report, released the first Friday of every month by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is one of the most closely watched indicators of how the economy is doing. The report collects a wide variety of statistics on employment and labor utilization, in an attempt to paint an overall picture of the American labor market. Over the few months, the Obama administration has been pleased with the numbers, with the official unemployment rate ticking down consistently, albeit at a glacial pace.

Last Friday’s report, by contrast, offered no good news. In fact, there was nothing even spinnable into kinda-sorta good news. The economy is stagnant, and the numbers reflect that. The official unemployment rate, which represents Americans looking for jobs but unable to find them, remained unchanged, which may not seem like bad news on the surface, but when placed in context it becomes clear how troubling this actually is.

The really important number we need to look at is the labor force participation rate. This determines how many people are considered “workers.” When people drop out of the labor force,they are no longer considered unemployed, even though they don’t have jobs. This means that we can see a situation where the official unemployment rate is dropping, but the actual number of jobless Americans is rising, since they are merely giving up on trying to find a job.

For this reason, the unemployment rate always has to be evaluated together with the labor force participation rate; it’s the only way to get a true sense of what is going on in the labor market. On Friday, the labor force participation rate dropped to 62.4 percent, which is the lowest it has been since October of 1977.

With an unchanged unemployment rate, but dropping labor force participation, joblessness is worsening in the U.S. After seven years of stimulus and quantitative easing, the labor market is still down in the dumps. It’s time to admit that Obamanomics isn’t working and start implementing some pro-growth reforms to get people working again. ObamaCare, the minimum wage, regulations on small business, licensing requirements, and high taxes are all conspiring to prevent people from working.Removing some or all of these barriers to the labor market would jumpstart the economy and get people back into the labor force.

Only by producing more can we create more wealth, and with the highest proportion of Americans in forty years sitting on the sidelines, the economy will continue to stagnate.

SOURCE

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

Actor James Woods: 'I Was Right That Obama Would Ignore Christian Hate Crime Element of Oregon Massacre'

On October 5 actor James Woods sent out a tweet criticizing President Obama over the president's reaction - or what Woods sees as a non-reaction - to the recent mass shooting in Oregon.

On October 1 Christopher Harper-Mercer, 26, killed nine people and took his own life at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. Witnesses have reported that Harper-Mercer specifically targeted Christians for death.

Woods's tweet reads: "Three days ago I predicted that President Obama would ignore the Christian hate crime element of the Oregon massacre. I am sad to be right."
   
On October 2 Woods predicted that if the Oregon gunman had killed people for their Christian beliefs then the media and President Obama would avoid the topic.

In the wake of the massacre President Obama has called for a discussion on gun control. He is also planning to meet with the families of the victims.

SOURCE

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

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated) and Coral reef compendium. (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 A WESTERN HEART.

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or  here -- for when blogspot is "down" or failing to  update.  Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

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

For German Jews, Maybe It Really Is 1936 All Over Again

An entirely predictable result of Frau Merkel's foolishness

This can’t be good:

    “I had five years of civil war in Syria, but the journey here was more dangerous,” said Hadiya Suleiman, a 45-year-old mother of five from Deir ez-Zur in eastern Syria, where ISIS killed her 18-year-old son. “Here, I feel for the first time like a human being. We thank our mother, ‘Mama Merkel.’”

    But many Jews are watching the wave of migrants flocking to Germany with some measure of alarm, concerned with what a massive influx of Arabs could mean for Germany’s Jews and the country’s relationship with Israel. “This is not yet France, this is not yet London,” said one Israeli who has lived in Berlin for about 10 years and asked not to be identified. “Yet,” he added pointedly. “There are so many people here and the state is not able to help them,” Monika Chmielewska-Pape told JTA last week. “The situation is very hard for refugees here. If we don’t help them, the people stay on the street.”

    But Chmielewska-Pape said she is not typical of Germany’s Jews. Most, she said, are anxious about the migrants, fearful of the consequences of a massive influx of Arabs into Germany. Chmielewska-Pape said her own decision to help the migrants did not come easily, and she keeps her Jewish identity to herself — including from the left-wing Germans who volunteer alongside her and whom Chmielewska-Pape said are not sympathetic toward Israel or the Jews. The irony of refugees fleeing through Europe to the relative safe haven of Germany is not lost on anyone here. Seventy-five years ago Jews were the refugees, trying to flee a genocidal German chancellor whose name became synonymous with evil. Few countries were willing to accept Jewish refugees; most were turned back and perished at the hands of Hitler’s Nazis.

If you can’t tell the difference between the plight of the Jews under the National Socialist German Workers’ Party,and the invasion of Christendom by “migrants” from the Islamic ummah, you have a major cognitive dysfunction.

    But many Jews here believe that Germany’s atonement for its past is coming at Jewish expense. They’re worried that the influx of hundreds of thousands of Muslims will turn Germany into a place hostile to Jewish concerns and to Israel – and that along with the migrants there are terrorist infiltrators who will try to realize their dreams of jihad on German soil.

Meanwhile, the main reason the childless Ossi, Merkel, is importing Arabs is the elephant in the room: German women simply refuse to have children:

    History isn’t the only reason Merkel is welcoming the migrants. With negative population growth, Germany needs more people to help sustain its economy, the strongest in Europe. At its current birth rate of 1.38 children per woman, the lowest in the world, Germany’s population will shrink by some 20 percent over the next 45 years. An influx of immigrants could offset the shrinking workforce.

This won’t end well.

SOURCE

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

All mass shooters are white males, right?

All you hear from the leftist media and liberals is how all mass shooters are white males. The corrupt media is even trying to make Chris Harper-Mercer out to be a ‘white-supremacist’ despite the fact he is as black as Obama. So is true, aside from Oregon that all mass shootings are done by white-male? Eh, not really. The media and the left has selective memories when it comes to mass shootings in America.

Virginia Tech shooting seems like so long ago. Despite happening 2007 the left has memory loss at who the perpetrator was. His name was Seung-Hui Cho and he isn’t exactly a white male. Last I checked, Seung-Hui Cho is South Korean. Maybe the left is confused because of the South in Korea. Maybe they think it’s some white guy from the American south instead.

Five years before the Virginia Tech shootings we had Beltway Sniper attacks. One of the attackers was named John Allen Muhammad. Not exactly an American sounding name. John Allen Muhammad was a black Muslim.

Then we have Christopher Dorner. The name may sound white, but he was blacker than Obama. Dorner killed killed four people on a racist rampage back in 2013 in California. I know, two years ago is hard to remember for liberals. It’s like, that was two years ago dude!

Shall I go on? Ok.. I will..

Anyone remember Nidal Malik Hasan? A Muslim terrorist who killed 13 people in a mass shooting at Fort Hood in 2009. This is where Obama tries to protect his Muslim buddies, and refuses to declare the case an act of terrorism. Instead, Nidal Malik Hasan’s rampage killing 13 people is called ‘workplace violence.’ Regardless of what you call it, it’s a mass shooting, not done by whitey.

Aaron Alexis – a black ‘man’ killed 12 people in a mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard. Aaron Alexis was cited on at least eight occasions for misconduct during his time in the Navy. I guess back in 2013, he decided to try to get revenge on all those evil white people in the Washington Navy Yard shooting.

And finally we have Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez. Memory loss is no excuse for this Muslim terrorist as he killed six (including himself) on a jihad rampage for Allah. Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez targeted military installations, not a mosque or some little halal cafe in Chattanooga. [He opened fire at two military facilities in Chattanooga, Tennessee, killing four Marines and wounding three other people before he was killed] Not exactly Mr. White either.

I could go back further, but the fact leftists don’t remember (or chose not to) these mass shootings might confuse them. In non of these mass shooting cases would more gun control have worked, same as those done by the white boys.

There’s no racial pattern to mass shootings either. They aren’t all done by whites, blacks, Muslims or Asians. No matter how hard the media tries blame one race over another, they just fall flat on their face. It’s another reason why no one trusts them anymore.

SOURCE

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

Is an unseen enemy taking its toll against ISIS?

Indications are there is and, as such, it is having a devastating impact upon ISIS. In fact, it may well be wreaking much more havoc among ISIS than are U.S. air strikes against the terrorist group. ISIS finds itself fighting an enemy it is hard-pressed to defeat. That enemy is AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

Before addressing the medical issue ISIS now faces, an historical perspective is needed to explain how ISIS got into this deadly situation.

Some 1400 years ago, the Prophet Muhammad began preaching his religion to uneducated Bedouins. For people struggling to survive in a harsh environment and lacking much spiritual motivation, selling them on Islam was, initially at least, challenging for Muhammad. That changed as the Prophet sought to appeal to man's basic instincts.

What better way to gain followers from among the uneducated than to convince them a god exists whom, if they become believers, will sanction sinful acts they undertake against non-believers, allowing them to gain wealth-not by their own toil-but by taking it from others. And, to further sweeten the pot, Muhammad threw in for the victors the sexual benefit of being able to claim the wives of vanquished non-believers as sex slaves.

Muhammad proclaimed such acts-normally considered sinful-were not sinful as believers were simply fulfilling Islam's mandate non-believers convert or die. By playing to their lust and greed, Mohammad brought in followers by the thousands. With their actions no longer limited by a moral compass, their barbarity towards sanctioned victims proved limitless.

Nowhere has this perception of Islam's sanctioned brutality been more obvious than with ISIS which is committed to imposing its brand of Islam upon the entire world. We have borne witness to their limitless brutality-whether it is beheading sanctioned victims, burning them alive or detonating explosive devices attached to newborns as a demonstration to their followers of such bomb's effectiveness.

Prophet Muhammad recognized early on in his marketing endeavors with Islam "sex sells." It was an important recognition for getting prospective recruits to think less with what was above their neck and more with what was below it.

He also knew he had to package it in a way that would motivate followers' willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice for Islam on the battlefield. He had to free his fighters of the marital love bonds that might otherwise tie them down and make them less willing to die for Islam. He had to promise them something that would make this life pale in comparison to what awaited them in the next.

Muhammad accomplished this as part of a three-step process.

First, in his teachings he made clear the role of Muslim women was secondary to that of Muslim men-who were free to take more than one wife. The wife's role would always be subservient to the husband's. He was her master and she had to obey.  Her obedience included a duty never to deny him his sexual desires. If she did, he had the right to rape or otherwise discipline her.

Muhammad's focus here was to meet his warriors' sexual needs while weakening the normally strong loving bond formed in a one husband-one wife marital relationship. He sought to achieve this by de-valuing a women's worth in this life and, to reduce a single wife's loving influence, by allowing husbands to have several.

Second, Muhammad realized his male followers were in need of sexual gratification "on the road." Spreading Islam meant traveling far and wide to do so. Taking the warrior away from the home meant providing for his sexual desires away from it as well. Thus, Muhammad taught that Allah sanctioned taking captive as sex slaves infidel women. Such women were simply chattel acquired as the spoils of war.

Third, having de-valued the role of women and addressed the warrior's sexual needs both at and away from home, Muhammad now sought to instill in his fighters the ultimate motivation to make them fearless. While the material rewards a victorious Muslim warrior gained were extensive, Muhammad revealed an even greater reward awaited he who dies in battle trying to attain those material rewards.

Muhammad promised the reward of an afterlife that was a sexual Paradise. As he, and many subsequent Islamic scholars have attested, 72 non-menstruating, non-urinating, non-defecating, full-breasted, beautiful, young, non-child bearing, "eternal" (recycled) virgins await them there. These virgins will sing a man's praises for all eternity and never be dissatisfied with him.

Thus, Muhammad painted a picture for his followers of a present life blessed with the material rewards gained from battlefield victories and an afterlife of eternal sexual pleasures should one die trying to be victorious. For those who bought into it, there was nothing to lose.

These beliefs have been handed down to the followers of Islam for 70 generations. These same sexual rewards promised in both this life and the next have become an important recruiting tool for ISIS today.

But AIDS is an enemy that did not exist in Muhammad's day. It is an enemy that mostly uneducated ISIS followers, engaging in numerous sexual acts with an unlimited stable of victims, were eventually bound to confront.

Reputable sources such as the Daily Mail and Catholic.org have reported ISIS now suffers from a full-blown epidemic of AIDS-a disease linked to promiscuous sex with an infected partner, the sharing of infected drug needles and gay sex. As the latter two are forbidden by Islam, it is interesting the disease is as prevalent as it is. The above sources report the problem may well have begun when an Indonesian ISIS member who knew he had AIDS gave blood to his fellow fighters-for which he was later executed. But, once the disease took root, all three sources above (despite these taboos under Islam) may well have contributed to it spreading like wildfire within such a rape culture.

When a captive slave is raped by one AIDS carrier who then sells her to another fighter, the disease infects all within the rape chain. Efforts are being made to equip hospitals within ISIS territory with the capability to treat AIDS/SDT patients. One such facility is said to exist in Almayadeen City, Iraq. But clearly, the non-existence of an adequate medical infrastructure to provide skilled treatment is unavailable. As a consequence, those suffering the most are the rape victims who became conduits for spreading these diseases. Such victims are either left to suffer without medical attention or are put to death as they have lost their value to ISIS.

Involuntary homosexual activity marks yet another dark side of ISIS. One ISIS prince, "Abu Ala'," reportedly issued a fatwa allowing him to marry and sodomize male recruits but disallowing any man the reciprocity to so sodomize him.

As an August 27, 2015 Kurdish television documentary details, ISIS engages in the practice of raping all new male recruits in a ceremony described as "marriage"-with the act videotaped to later blackmail them should they prove reluctant to participate in ISIS operations. The documentary is based on the testimony of numerous ISIS members captured by the Kurds and includes some of the ISIS rape tapes.

One such recruit, Ahmed Hussain, described on camera how he was abducted, drugged, tortured, and gang-raped-forced into marriage fifteen times. He said afterward, "they washed my head and put cologne on me. They told me no one could join ISIL without being married."

It is most fitting that ISIS-a group whose appeal has been built upon its rape culture-now appears to be paying the price for doing so. An unseen enemy is making their passage to the afterlife an excruciatingly painful one.

As far as seeking an ISIS cure, while tragic for the innocent victims affected, AIDS may prove to be just what the doctor ordered.

SOURCE

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

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated) and Coral reef compendium. (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 A WESTERN HEART.

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or  here -- for when blogspot is "down" or failing to  update.  Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

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

Justice and the Obama Justice Department

This is a long article but the subject is a big and important one -- JR

If you think about it, it makes sense that in America—the only nation in the world to define itself not by blood or land, but by a law, the Constitution—the government agency charged with enforcing that law, and enforcing the laws passed under it, would be called the Department of Justice. As such, the work of the Justice Department is highly important. It plays a fundamental role in our nation’s life, because its work has to do in one way or another with how honest, how fair, and how safe our country is.

That being said, I’m regretful to have to add that in a country where honesty, fairness, and safety are so strongly influenced by one department of government, over the past six years—largely because of that department’s work—our country has grown less honest, less fair, and less safe than it ought to be. Let me give you some examples.

Recently we hear a great deal about the prosecution of “evildoing” corporations, but not so much about the prosecution of individuals who are the alleged evildoers. Why is that? To be specific, a lot of what we hear with respect to corporations is not about prosecutions at all—it’s about “deferred-prosecution agreements” or “non-prosecution agreements,” agreements that extract enormous financial penalties. Indeed, the current Justice Department takes pride in setting record after record in terms of collecting these penalties.

Other attorneys general, myself included, made such agreements. But the penalties that have been extracted over the past six years are unprecedented. They involve numbers in the billions, and are of a scale that makes it appear that the Justice Department is acting as a profit center for the government.

Justice Department investigations begin by looking into claims, for example, of unlawful payments to foreign officials or of unsafe motor vehicles. Corporations often face disastrous collateral consequences simply from having charges brought against them, which is why they are often willing to admit to conduct that the government cannot prove, to pay enormous fines, and to accept the oversight of monitors. In return, the government agrees that no charges will be filed so long as the corporations remain on good behavior for some specified period of time. Charges are rarely brought against individuals, on the other hand, because individuals can be put in jail. When faced with this, people usually fight back—and when they fight back, they frequently win.

This process generates cynicism about the American justice system, as individuals go uncharged, billion-dollar penalties are assessed, and the ones who pay are not wrongdoers, but corporate shareholders and employees.

* * *

The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division is the one we think of as having the main responsibility for protecting fairness. Yet its recent record has indicated other priorities. Recently its Voting Section went out of its way to review a decision to change the system of municipal elections in Kinston, North Carolina, from partisan to non-partisan. That change had been approved by the voters of Kinston, which is a majority black town. Indeed, it had been approved by an overwhelming two-to-one vote.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department may intervene when voting rules are changed in any state where there’s historically been discrimination. But because black citizens were in the majority in Kinston, there should have been no occasion to intervene. The DOJ justified its intervention by saying that blacks were not always a majority of voters, even though they were a majority of the citizens; it argued further that the removing of party labels might deprive black voters of an identifying label necessary for them to vote for black candidates—i.e., the label “Democrat.” In other words, the Justice Department was arguing that the black voters of Kinston needed the paternalism of the Justice Department to protect them from themselves.

Fairness and safety are sometimes related to one another. During the 2008 election, two members of the New Black Panther Party showed up at a polling place in Philadelphia dressed in black battle fatigues, one of them brandishing a nightstick and the other yelling at white voters that they would soon be ruled by a black man. The scene was described in an affidavit by a poll watcher—a veteran civil rights activist who had often supported Democratic candidates—as something he had never seen or heard of in his 40 years of political involvement.

In the waning days of the Bush administration, the DOJ’s Voting Section filed a lawsuit and won a default judgment. But in the spring of 2009, after the Obama administration took over, those handling the case were directed to drop it. The only penalty left in place was a limited injunction that barred the person with the nightstick from repeating that conduct for a period of time in Philadelphia. And when the Office of Professional Responsibility looked into the matter, their finding criticized the bringing of the case more than the dropping of it.

Contrast that response with the DOJ’s treatment of a 79-year-old protestor outside an abortion clinic who was sued by the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section for praying outside the clinic and urging entrants to reconsider abortion. When that protestor was pepper sprayed by an abortion supporter for exercising his First Amendment rights, the Criminal Section did nothing.

Consider as well the 2012 case of Trayvon Martin, a young man who was shot in an encounter with a neighborhood watch member. Notwithstanding that the shooter was not a member of any police department, and that he was acquitted of criminal responsibility in the incident—nevertheless, in the wake of the case the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division zeroed in on the police department of Sanford, Florida, where the incident occurred, suggesting discriminatory policing. A similar pattern—whereby a confrontation between a police officer and an African-American is followed by a Justice Department proceeding against the jurisdiction, regardless of the legal outcome or the equities of the incident—has been followed in cities such as Baltimore, New York, and Ferguson, Missouri.

State and local jurisdictions do not have the resources or the political will to fight the federal government. As a result, more than 20 cities are now operating under consent decrees secured by the Justice Department, with court-appointed monitors imposing restrictive standards on police officers who now think twice before they stop suspects or make arrests. The results are predictable. Shootings are on the rise in New York, as are quality-of-life crimes that create a sense of public disorder and social deterioration. Seattle is also a good example: a federal lawsuit and a court-appointed monitor followed on the heels of a publicized incident, and now homicides are up 25 percent, car theft is up 44 percent, and aggravated assault is up 14 percent.

One lesson to draw from all this is that personnel is policy. If you examine the resumés of people hired into the DOJ beginning in 2009, you will find that the governing credential of new hires was a history of support for left-leaning causes or membership in leftist organizations. By the time of the 2012 election, it was considered unremarkable for DOJ lawyers to display political posters on their office walls, and even outside their offices—something inimical to the spirit and mission of the Department of Justice.

* * *

When it comes to defending against terrorism, one would think that the role of the Justice Department would be relatively limited compared to that of the military and of our intelligence gathering agencies. But for six years the DOJ has played an outsized and unhelpful role. This results, in part, from a policy set by the current administration of viewing terrorism as it was viewed before 9/11—as a crime to be prosecuted rather than an act of war to be combatted.

This administration is also unwilling to draw any connection between radical Islam and terrorism. Just in the last few days, it has been reported that officials are trying to determine a motive for the conduct of Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, who is accused of killing five U.S. servicemen in Chattanooga. He had travelled to Jordan and posted admiring statements about ISIS on his web page, and yet officials are puzzling over why he acted as he did. The DOJ refuses to use the word terrorism in relation to this investigation.

A man named Ali Muhammad Brown is charged with three counts of murder in Seattle, allegedly motivated by his desire to avenge attacks on Muslims by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has also been prosecuted in the state courts of New Jersey on state terrorism charges—the first time such charges have ever been filed in New Jersey’s history. The charges there are based on a fourth murder that he committed—the murder of a teenager named Brendan Tevlin that had the same motivation as the Seattle murders. The maximum for this crime under the New Jersey statute is life imprisonment, whereas the federal statute carries the death penalty. But the Justice Department has declined to bring this prosecution. It’s utterly beyond understanding why the DOJ would yield to a state charge with a lesser penalty—unless, of course, one realizes that it would simply prefer not to discuss the matter.

This aversion goes further, and it has further effect. In 2009, Khalid Sheik Muhammad and others were to be tried before a military commission at Guantanamo for their roles in the 9/11 attacks. The defendants had announced their intention to plead guilty and proceed to martyrdom. Notwithstanding that these detainees were in the custody of the military and the Department of Defense, the Attorney General, with the President’s cooperation, suspended the trials and announced in 2010 that he would bring those defendants to Manhattan, near where the World Trade Center attack had occurred, to stand trial in a civilian court.

This plan caused a bipartisan furor. Congress went so far as to pass a statute barring the use of any federal funds to bring detainees from Guantanamo to the U.S. As a result, the plan was cancelled in 2011. But by that time the military commission had been aborted and the prosecution had to be recommenced from scratch. In addition, Khalid Sheik Muhammad and his friends got the message that the new administration’s heart wasn’t in it. They took to resisting every step in the process, which is still in the pre-trial stage.

Also in 2009, the Attorney General, following up on his stated belief that the CIA had violated the torture statute in the interrogation of captured terrorists, publicly disclosed what had been classified memos describing the CIA’s interrogation program—a program that had not been in use since 2003. He presumably released those memos in the belief that disclosure would bring on a firestorm of criticism. The effect was to disclose to potential terrorists what was in the program so they could train to resist it, just as they train using the publicly available Army Field Manual in order to resist interrogations described in it. When the hoped-for firestorm failed to develop, the Attorney General announced that even though prior investigations of CIA conduct by career DOJ prosecutors had concluded that there was not enough evidence to justify criminal prosecution, he was going to re-open those cases. He did so without bothering to read the detailed memos by those previous prosecutors explaining why no criminal charges were warranted. You can imagine the effect on the morale of the CIA.

The re-opened investigations yielded no criminal charges, and the result was announced two years later as part of a news dump on a Friday afternoon. We currently have no interrogation program in place beyond the Army Field Manual, and in any case current policy seems to favor prosecution over capturing terrorists abroad for interrogation. This is due in part to the efforts of the DOJ, and our ability to gather intelligence is correspondingly limited.

Defenders of current policy trumpet electronic intelligence. But electronic intelligence comes in bits and pieces, and it’s very difficult to know which bits and pieces are relevant and which are simply noise. As former CIA Director Michael Hayden once put it, it’s kind of like trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle when you have thousands of pieces, you don’t know which ones are part of the puzzle, and you haven’t been able to look at the picture on the box. Human intelligence, by contrast, comes in narrative form—which is to say you get to look at the picture.

The Obama administration also supported the recent restriction that was put on bulk intelligence gathering by the CIA, in the mistaken belief that such a policy compromised Americans’ privacy. In point of fact, the only information gathered was the calling number, the called number, the length of the call, and its date. That information was saved, and when we got a suspicious telephone number—for example, the number of the Chattanooga terrorist—we could take it and figure out which numbers had called that number and which numbers had been called by it. As a result of the recent restriction, we are not going to have that information anymore. It is going to be kept by the carriers, if they agree to keep it.

Are there any bright spots in the Justice Department? The National Security Division, which handles oversight of electronic intelligence on applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, is the newest division in the department. Formed in 2006, it is staffed by people who are dedicated to protecting the country, and it continues to function very well insofar as the legislation that is now in place allows it to function. Otherwise, there is very little good to report.

* * *

How did we get to where we are today? Even before the 2008 election, the warning signs were there. The man who was to become U.S. Attorney General told an audience during the election campaign that the Bush administration had permitted abuses in fighting terrorism. He said there would have to be “a reckoning.” During his subsequent tenure, in a moment of unguarded candor, he described himself as the President’s “wingman.” From the standpoint of the Justice Department, I can’t overstate the demoralizing significance of an attorney general saying something like that. If I had ever described myself, during my tenure, as President Bush’s wingman, I would have expected to come back to find the Justice Department building empty and a pile of resignations on my desk. Even Attorney General Robert Kennedy, President Kennedy’s brother, to my knowledge never described himself in such terms. Yes, the attorney general is a member of the administration—but his principal responsibility is to provide neutral advice on what the law requires, not to fly in political formation.

The problems in the DOJ won’t be solved simply by electing a less ideological president in 2016. Many of the political appointees of the past seven years will resign and take up career positions within the department, and once such people receive civil service status, it is virtually impossible to fire them. In other words, the next attorney general will be confronted with a department that’s prepared to resist policy changes. This will require great patience and dedication by the new political appointees in their efforts to return the department to its true mandate—not doing justice according to your own lights, or even according to the lights of the president who appoints you, but defending law and having enough faith in law to believe that the result, more often than not, will be justice.

SOURCE

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

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated) and Coral reef compendium. (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 A WESTERN HEART.

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or  here -- for when blogspot is "down" or failing to  update.  Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

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