Trump coins show that Trump widens the range of the possible



The news about the Trump presentation coins was a good laugh. They are twice as thick as ones by previous Presidents and instead of being nickel-silver are -- OF COURSE -- in gold, presumably gold-plated.  Trump has always liked gold.  It is his trademark color.

And the media went wild about how crass and vulgar it all is.  The man has no taste, no restaint!

And the lack of restraint is the key.  Nothing conventional or accepted restrains him.  He does what he thinks is a good thing, regardless of any convention.  He is extraordinarily independent. He has clearly had a life in which he didn't need to seek approval from others.  He gained all the acceptance he needed just by being himself.

And American society in general and the Presidency in particular had become  heavily tied up in conventional expectations about what you could and could not do.  And, unfortunately, many of those constraints have come from the Left and have been genuinely oppressive.

But Trump has burst the barriers wide open. The Leftist constraints are going at a great rate and other ways of doing things are now possible.  His coins are a graphic symbol of that. Who can doubt, for instance, that future Presidents will tweet?  They will undoubtedly do it more cautiously but they will do it.  It will even be expected now as evidence of frankness and openness.

So expect more and more shrieks from the media as Trump steadily normalizes more and more of what was once forbidden or at least heavily decried -- JR

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

Excellent Christmas day news

The US should completely withdraw from this corrupt and biased body

The U.S. will cut its 2018 contribution to the United Nations by $285 million—nearly 25 percent -- an announcement that comes days after more than 120 nations criticized the United States for its decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Ambassador Nikki Haley made the announcement Sunday, but specifically blamed the world body for its budgetary excesses without making a specific reference to last week's vote on President Donald Trump's controversial Jerusalem decision.

“The inefficiency and overspending of the United Nations are well known. We will no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked,” Haley said in a statement announcing the cut to the U.N.'s overall $5.4-billion budget. “This historic reduction in spending—in addition to many other moves toward a more efficient and accountable U.N.—is a big step in the right direction.”

Haley said there might be further budget cuts in the future. President Trump's proposed 2018 spending budget would end funding for U.N. climate change programs and would cut funding to the United Nations Children’s Fund, also known as UNICEF, by 16 percent.

Trump has long discussed cutting U.S. contributions to the U.N., and Haley hinted that the current administration could be motivated by a lack of support for its efforts around the world, specifically after the Jerusalem vote on Thursday.

"The United States is by far the single largest contributor to the U.N. and its agencies," Haley at the time. "We do this because it represents who we are. It is our American way. But we'll be honest with you. When we make generous contributions to the U.N., we also have a legitimate expectation that our goodwill is recognized and respected." 

SOURCE

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

Nikki Haley, the Trump administration's breakout star

by Jeff Jacoby

AMONG THE LOW POINTS of the Obama administration's final weeks was its refusal to veto a blatantly anti-Israel resolution in the UN Security Council.

When Nikki Haley attended her first Security Council session a few weeks later as the new ambassador under President Trump, she promptly reversed course. "I am here to emphasize," she told reporters, "that the United States is determined to stand up to the UN's anti-Israel bias."

Haley lived up to that promise on Tuesday, when she vetoed a resolution demanding that the Trump administration rescind its decision recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. She followed up her veto with formal remarks calling the resolution "an embarrassment" to the UN and scolding those who "presume to tell America where to put our embassy." On Twitter the next day, Haley laid down a marker ahead of Thursday's vote on the topic in the UN General Assembly.

"When we make a decision . . . abt where to locate OUR embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us," she tweeted. "On Thurs there'll be a vote criticizing our choice. The US will be taking names."

Reckless and counterproductive? Hardly. Haley's performance at the UN has been a joy to behold. The former South Carolina governor, who came to the job with no foreign policy experience, has turned out to be a natural — behind the scenes no less than in the spotlight.

This fall, Haley succeeded in winning unanimous Security Council approval for economic sanctions on North Korea in response to its continuing nuclear belligerence. Displaying a knack for political deal-making, she initially proposed a package of sanctions so severe that Russia and China would doubtless have vetoed them had they been put to a vote. Then she set out to negotiate a compromise — dropping demands for a total oil embargo, for example, but digging in on other restrictions. "That made it possible for both China and Russia to join the consensus," reported The Nation, a journal far from friendly to the Trump administration. "Haley got a unanimous 15-0 'yes' vote against North Korea, an outcome that sent a message of unity" to Pyongyang.

Last week she did it again, winning unanimous Security Council approval for a new layer of sanctions on North Korea.

Nearly a year into the job, America's ambassador to the UN comes across as refreshing, unabashed, principled, and savvy. She is one of the most popular officials in a historically unpopular administration. "The breakout star of Trump's Cabinet," CNN calls her.

This would be impressive under any circumstance. It's especially so in the Trump presidency, which has been very rough on the reputations and careers of numerous high-level officials. It's even more remarkable given Haley's own history with Trump. She publicly opposed his presidential bid, urged Republicans not to "follow the siren call of the angriest voices," and endorsed Marco Rubio in the South Carolina primary. After Trump won that primary, he lashed out on Twitter: "The people of South Carolina are embarrassed by Nikki Haley!" (Her unruffled response: "Bless your heart.")

Trump holds grudges, yet he made Haley a key diplomatic face of his administration. Trump hates to share the spotlight, but he has done nothing to impede Haley's celebrity. And while the president has publicly rebuked or undercut other Cabinet members, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, he hasn't done so to Haley — not even when she has expressed views and taken stands that are quite different from his.

Which she has. Haley has loudly denounced Russia's continuing aggression in Ukraine, vowing that sanctions would never be lifted until Crimea is restored to Ukrainian control. Despite Trump's open embrace of Vladimir Putin, Haley warns bluntly: "We cannot trust Russia. We should never trust Russia."

Haley vigorously castigates dictatorships for their human rights abuses, something that neither Trump nor Tillerson considers a priority. "For me," Haley stresses, "human rights are at the heart of the mission of the United Nations."

On most issues, of course, Haley supports the president, as all ambassadors do. "I don't go rogue on the President," she has said. But she has figured out how to distance herself from Trump even when defending him. During the furor over banning travelers from several Muslim nations, Haley publicly justified it as a security measure. But she immediately and more memorably added that it would be "un-American" to "ever ban anyone based on their religion."

Haley plainly outshines Tillerson, a hapless if well-meaning secretary of state who has managed to wow neither the president nor the public. Tillerson brought an admirable international business resume to the job, but he lacks the political skills that Haley acquired during her meteoric rise from total unknown — she was the bookkeeper for her mother's clothing business — to governor of South Carolina. Haley has quickly acquired the foreign-policy fluency in which she was totally deficient a year ago. It is quite plausible that Trump will ask her at some point to replace Tillerson at the State Department.

Critics treated Haley's warning that the US would be "taking names" on the UN's Jerusalem resolution as an appalling diplomatic gaffe. It wasn't. The best UN ambassadors have always known that the job entails more than behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing: It calls for the vigorous defense of moral truth as well. Like Adlai Stevenson, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Jeane Kirkpatrick, Haley has shown that she can be effective in the UN while bluntly decrying the lies and prejudices that sully it. Her first year on the job has been brilliant. Whatever Trump may have gotten wrong, his choice of Nikki Haley was a masterstroke.

SOURCE

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

Congress repeals individual mandate, first step of ending Obamacare

This will kill off Obamacare.  Insurance firms will now be able to balance their books only by hiking their already high premiums and deductibles.  That will make health insurance unaffordable for just about everyone.  Even the RINOs won't be able to defend Obamacare after that

Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning praised efforts by Congress and the Trump administration to repeal the individual mandate under the health care law:

“Thanks to President Trump and Congress, the tyranny of the individual mandate is coming to an end, which penalized individuals if they chose to opt out of purchasing health insurance. As a result more than 6 million Americans were being penalized more than $3 billion a year.

Now, starting in 2019, every American will once again have what they are entitled to by right, a choice to participate in the insurance market. No more guaranteed customers. Now companies will have to compete on price to attract individuals to their plans. This is the first step to repealing the health care law. Ending the individual mandate takes away the cornerstone of Obamacare, and is another promise kept by President Trump and Congress. Although it is disappointing that the repeal will not occur for another year, this is a giant step in the right direction for the American people.”

SOURCE

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

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

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

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

No posts today, maybe tomorrow

If you are looking for something congenial to read, you might find my list of short articles interesting. They cover a wide subject range.  The subject index is here

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR  to all those who come by here

In case anybody is wondering, my surgery went off without a hitch and I am already as right as rain again. For any curious minds,  I have put up a detailed account on my Personal Blog

I want to mention something that seems to have passed almost unnoticed in this Christmas season.  It occurred in the speech President Trump gave to coincide with the lighting of the White House Christmas tree.  He at one stage invoked "Our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ". 

In that utterance he expressed the core doctrine of evangelical Christians.  That was unprecedented as far as I can remember.  Even Reagan, an undoubted man of God, was not so emphatically Christian.  Many Americans DON'T think Jesus is their Lord and saviour so it was a bold thing for a politician to say.  It would have been a dagger aimed at the heart of Leftist anti-Christians and a warm glow in the hearts of committed Christians. 

Trump got most of the evangelical vote last time so he will probably get all of it next time but it was clearly not a good electoral calculation.  He stood to lose non-Christian voters while picking up only a few more Christians.  So why did he do it?  The speech was undoubtedly written for him by an evangelical pastor but he ad-libs readily so could easily have toned that bit down if he had wanted to.

The obvious reason is that he believed what he said.  Trump is amazing the way he speaks his mind.  He is clearly no career politician.

But I think there is a second reason. Christians have copped so  much abuse and condemnation in recent years that they deserved some support -- and Trump gave them that.  He validated their beliefs and principles.  It told them that the days of travail are easing.  And if it stabbed at the anti-Christian left, it was about time they got some heat back.  It was justice for the meek.

And the media were amazingly silent about it.  They criticized a few minor details but ignored the Christian invocation as far as I could see.  Maybe they were wary of antagonizing Christians

And how splendid that Trump finally got most of his tax reforms through. It was like herding cats but it was done. The reforms hit a lot of targets but one that I think has not been mentioned as much as it should is the drastic cut to the company tax.  The tax went from high down to middling by international standards. Tax cuts in general stimulate economic expansion but this one is particularly stimulatory.  Where the old tax was a big disincentive to overseas investment, the new tax should unleash a flood of overseas investment into the USA -- meaning lots of new jobs and government revenue. It might even enable paying off some of the Federal debt -- JR.

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

God First Means America First

Yaacov Ben Moshe

As much as I have always tried to confine my reasoning, observation and writing to secular and factual areas, I often wind up with this (mostly unexpressed) thought: “Only God can help us now.”

I have known that if I were to write it or even just say it out loud, it would sound like despair and resignation- but it is not. It is really just my belief that if our fellow Americans, inheritors of the great Judeo-Christian culture, whether Jews, Christians or secularists could find a reconnection to The Divine many of our worst problems would just evaporate. I am not talking about a specific religion or even, necessarily, a belief in “God” as such. All that is required is an appreciation of the divinity behind the miracle of creation. It is only with faith in the creator as a force for good and order, that we can hope to dispel the moral relativism and post-modern sectionalism that are daily degrading our culture. In the guise of justice and equality they are dissolving our commonality of interest and sapping our energy as a civilization.

This is still an upstart of a nation- the fastest growing, richest and most diverse country on the planet. There is more opportunity here for anybody than anywhere else in the world. In this age of globalist ennui, faltering faith, Islamic conquest, rejection of tradition and conceited intellect, we are still as Lincoln said,”  …the last best hope of earth”. All we really need, in my opinion is a general reconnection to the source of all life and goodness. For inspiration I look, as I often do to the founding documents of our country and the framers who were inspired to create them.

When the founders of the US sought to create a new kind of nation, one more immune to corruption and abuse than any other in history, they did a profoundly revolutionary thing. They sought a higher authority to overrule the “rights of kings”- an even higher authority than the doctrine of any particular church. They assessed human nature as flawed and prone to corruption. So they also sought to avoid the rule of "a man" or a secular "theory of man” (socialism, fraternalism etc…). The result was a nation governed by three independent branches of government, empowered to counter-balance (read: stymie) the natural human drive to amass power and wealth. The higher authority that superseded royal prerogative, they called “natural law” not so much derived from God as it was from their understanding that every man may have his own “personal relationship” with The Creator. It is fortunate that Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Washington were themselves men of complicated and subtle faith who were of such generous spirit that they could credit any other person of good faith with equal right to their way of worship.

Jefferson called upon "natural law”  in the Declaration of Independence not only to sever the “right" of the British King to rule the American colonies, but to found the first nation in history that would set as its charter, every individual’s “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. The founders called on the highest possible authority to construct our nation for a very important reason. They and their forebears were here on this wild continent because they had already disagreed with, fled and finally, revolted against kings and churches in “The Old World”. They knew that without God, we are just so much meat- animated by dangerous proclivities, taking up space and making trouble. Yet they were also acutely aware that with any specific and organized God there would be unavoidable and ultimately fatal conflict over the exact description of that God and its laws. Only in the sometimes infinitesimal space between the personal God and doctrine is there a hope of finding a common ground for unity and mutual respect. The already disparate collection of religious mavericks, lumberjacks, northern farmers, slave-holding planters, self-sufficient pioneers and merchant traders needed to find that common cause to be worth fighting for for the new nation to survive. Otherwise they would be unable to resist conquest or co-option by the powers of  The Old World. Without a higher binding principal they would have been left with only fear, envy and anger and their evil results. The founders provided a meaningful and successful framework by acknowledging the blessing that God’s love for the individual and his liberty could bring forth. They created a nation that mirrored that blessing or as Abraham Lincoln put it at Gettysburg: “…conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal…,”.

Lincoln was our president at the moment of the nation’s greatest peril and need. He staked everything on what he knew was right. He did so with the certain knowledge that God would bless his actions. Here is a bit more of the lines that I quoted a few words of above. It is from his address to congress about his forthcoming Emancipation Proclamation:

“We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.”

The blessing of whatever divinity you acknowledge must be used to help us blend that plain, peaceful, generous, and just way into our common existence here in America. If we can recreate that unity of spirit, we will continue to be safe, happy and secure at home and maybe even inspire some of our old allies and even, competitors to a better way. But we owe it to ourselves to do it in America First.

Epilogue:

Here is my best shot at a sales pitch for a revival of faith: Take God personally! Religious fundamentalists, agnostics and atheists are at a far higher risk of being a “glass is half empty” person. Having a belief in a loving Creator/God gives you a much better chance to be a “glass is half full kind of person”. Having a personal relationship with that loving and transcendent God is the portal to becoming a “cup runneth over” being.

SOURCE

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

The Reason the Left Gives Communism a Pass

Walter E. Williams

Before the question, how about a few statistics? The 20th century was mankind’s most brutal century. Roughly 16 million people lost their lives during World War I; about 60 million died during World War II. Wars during the 20th century cost an estimated 71 million to 116 million lives.

The number of war dead pales in comparison with the number of people who lost their lives at the hands of their own governments. The late professor Rudolph J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii documented this tragedy in his book “Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900.” Some of the statistics found in the book have been updated.

The People’s Republic of China tops the list, with 76 million lives lost at the hands of the government from 1949 to 1987. The Soviet Union follows, with 62 million lives lost from 1917 to 1987. Adolf Hitler’s Nazi German government killed 21 million people between 1933 and 1945. Then there are lesser murdering regimes, such as Nationalist China, Japan, Turkey, Vietnam, and Mexico.

According to Rummel’s research, the 20th century saw 262 million people’s lives lost at the hands of their own governments.

Hitler’s atrocities are widely recognized, publicized, and condemned. World War II’s conquering nations’ condemnation included denazification and bringing Holocaust perpetrators to trial and punishing them through lengthy sentences and execution. Similar measures were taken to punish Japan’s murderers.

But what about the greatest murderers in mankind’s history—the Soviet Union’s Josef Stalin and China’s Mao Zedong? Some leftists saw these communists as heroes.

W.E.B. Du Bois, writing in the National Guardian in 1953, said, “Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature. … The highest proof of his greatness [was that] he knew the common man, felt his problems, followed his fate.” Walter Duranty called Stalin “the greatest living statesman” and “a quiet, unobtrusive man.”

There was even leftist admiration for Hitler and fellow fascist Benito Mussolini.

When Hitler came to power in January 1933, George Bernard Shaw described him as “a very remarkable man, a very able man.” President Franklin Roosevelt called the fascist Mussolini “admirable,” and said he was “deeply impressed by what he [had] accomplished.”

In 1972, John Kenneth Galbraith visited Communist China and praised Mao and the Chinese economic system. Michel Oksenberg, President Jimmy Carter’s China expert, complained, “America [is] doomed to decay until radical, even revolutionary, change fundamentally alters the institutions and values.” He urged us to “borrow ideas and solutions” from China.

Harvard University professor John K. Fairbank believed that America could learn much from the Cultural Revolution, saying, “Americans may find in China’s collective life today an ingredient of personal moral concern for one’s neighbor that has a lesson for us all.” By the way, an estimated 2 million people died during China’s Cultural Revolution.

More recent praise for murdering tyrants came from Anita Dunn, President Barack Obama’s acting communications director in 2009, who said, “Two of my favorite political philosophers [are] Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa.”

Recall the campus demonstrations of the 1960s, in which campus radicals, often accompanied by their professors, marched around singing the praises of Mao and waving Mao’s “Little Red Book.” That may explain some of the campus mess today. Some of those campus radicals are now tenured professors and administrators at today’s universities and colleges and K-12 schoolteachers and principals indoctrinating our youth.

Now the question: Why are leftists soft on communism? The reason leftists give communists, the world’s most horrible murderers, a pass is that they sympathize with the chief goal of communism: restricting personal liberty.

In the U.S., the call is for government control over our lives through regulations and taxation. Unfortunately, it matters little whether the Democrats or Republicans have the political power. The march toward greater government control is unabated. It just happens at a quicker pace with Democrats in charge.

SOURCE

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

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

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

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

Trump Has Made Our Government More Moral

Andrew Klavan

Here is a funny thing about the human mind: when we didn't see something coming, we often can't see it came. There's a good reason for this. Wrong predictions are an indication that there is something off or unrealistic about your worldview. When your predictions are vastly incorrect, you have to choose: will I paper over my mistakes and pretend to myself I was actually right in some way, or will I admit the error and adjust the way I look at life?

People almost never adjust the way they look at life. It would mean risking their sense of their own wisdom and virtue.

This is why so many pundits both on the left and right are completely blind to what happened this year in politics.

Donald Trump — a political neophyte, a New York loudmouth who plays fast and loose with the truth, a massive egotist and a not altogether pleasant human being — has delivered conservatives one of the greatest years in living memory and has made our government more moral in the process. The left and many on the right didn't see it coming because they hate the man. And because they didn't see it coming, they won't see that it's come.

The first assertion is easily proven. After a year of Trump, the economy is in high gear, stocks are up, unemployment is down, energy production is up, business expansion is up and so on; ISIS — which took more than 23,000 square miles of territory after Obama left Iraq and refused to intervene in Syria — is now in control of a Port-o-San and a book of matches; 19 constitutionalist judges have been appointed and 40 more nominated; the biggest regulatory rollback in American history has been launched (boring but yugely important); the rule of law has been re-established at the border; we're out of the absurd and costly Paris Accord; net neutrality, the most cleverly named government power grab ever, is gone; our foreign policy is righted and revitalized; and a mainstream news media that had become little more than the information arm of the Democratic Party is in self-destructive disarray. If the tax bill passes before Christmas, it will cap an unbelievable string of conservative successes.

Now you can tie yourself in knots explaining why none of this is Trump's doing or how it's all just a big accident or the result of cynical motives or whatever. Knock yourself out, cutes. For me, I'll say this. I hated Trump. I thought he'd be a disaster or, at best, a mediocrity. I was wrong. He's done an unbelievably great job so far.

But even more important is my second assertion. Our government is more moral now. How is this possible when Trump has sex with Vladimir Putin disguised as a Russian prostitute, when he kills and eats black people in his spare time, when he hates women and goes into insane temper tantrums fueled by 48 cans of Diet Coke a day? Okay, even leaving Maggie Haberman's fantasy life aside, Trump is not always statesman-like, not always nice to people and not always strictly honest.

But Trump's outsized New York personality and the feeling it evokes in us only obscure what he has done to the government he leads. As Aristotle knew, a thing can only be good if it fulfills its purpose. What is the moral purpose of government? We know the answer because our Founders told us in no uncertain terms.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
That's right. Government does not exist to make us equal, but to treat us equally. It does not exist to make life fair, but to treat us fairly. Most importantly, it exists to secure our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Only in liberty can we treat each other ethically, because only in liberty can we make the choices that are the necessary condition for ethical life.

Trump has made our government more moral by making less of it: fewer regulations, fewer judges who will write law instead of obeying the law, fewer bureaucrats seeking to expand the power of their agencies, less money for the government to spend on itself. He has made government treat us more fairly and equally by ceasing to use the IRS and Justice Department for political ends like silencing enemies and skewing elections.

This is what moral government looks like. And if every male senator in America is grabbing the buttocks of some unsuspecting female while, at the same time, voting for more limited and less corrupt government, the senators are immoral, yes, but the government is more moral. That is why we should never let the leftist press game us with scandal hysteria, but should keep focused on voting in those who will help fulfill government's moral ends.

Trump has delivered conservatives an astoundingly successful year and made the government more moral in the process. You don't have to like him, to salute him. I salute him. Well done.

SOURCE

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

Former White House Insider Explains What Trump Did to Devastate ISIS

President Donald Trump is defeating terrorism by allowing the military to do its job and by combating extremist ideology, a former adviser to the president said Friday.

“Our troops have been unleashed,” Sebastian Gorka, former deputy assistant to President Donald Trump and counterterrorism adviser, said Friday at The Heritage Foundation.

“I had a tier one operator, meaning a top of the top special operations guy on detail from the National Security Council … come up to me in maybe week five of the administration and say, ‘Sir, you have no idea, no idea how the morale amongst our forces have skyrocketed because we are no longer micromanaged … and we are allowed to do our job, and it is clear the president trusts us,” he said.

The contrast in strategy has made all the difference, Gorka said.

“We have been told by the last administration that ISIS is a generational threat … [that] our children, our grandchildren will be fighting ISIS jihadis decades from now,” Gorka said. “Well, I guess the Trump administration has defined generations to last just a few months.”

While President Barack Obama called ISIS a “J.V. team” in a January 2014 interview in The New Yorker, Gorka said Trump and his administration did what the Obama administration said would take years.

“There is no ISIS caliphate any longer,” Gorka said. “We have liberated Mosul, we have have taken back Raqqa, the operational headquarters of ISIS, and just three weeks ago, the last ISIS stronghold in Syria has fallen as well.”

Trump has been successful, Gorka said, by evaluating threats and responding to threats strategically.

Trump “looked at the threat we faced clearly as a war, not as some problem to be managed, but as a war, and not only that, he wants to win that war, and that is exactly what we have been doing as a nation,” Gorka said.

U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis has also been key in Trump’s successes in defeating terrorism.

“We have gone under Secretary Mattis from a strategy of attrition, he has said this openly, a strategy of attrition to a strategy of annihilation,” Gorka said.

Trump has also made gains on winning the war on terrorism by acknowledging that there is an ideology behind it.

“Instead of looking at the religious ideology of groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS, the last administration was driven by very, very flawed concepts from social science, specifically social movement theory … [which] would have you believe that all violence of an organized nature is the result of physical and economic issues,” the former presidential adviser said.

An example of this approach can be seen, Gorka said, in the comment made by Obama State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf that providing terrorists with jobs is a solution to defeating ISIS.

“We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people,” Harf said in 2015.

This type of approach is not part of Trump’s strategy to end terrorism, Gorka said.

“The political correctness from Day One is gone,” Gorka said. “Why, look at the Riyadh speech … He went to the heart of the Muslim world, the area where Islam was founded, and … what did he say, he said, sort out your societies, he actually said rid your places of worship of the extremists, rid your societies of the terrorists,” Gorka said.

His approach is even being accepted by unlikely recipients, according to Gorka.

“As an Arab woman told me two weeks later, that is the speech we have been waiting for for 16 years,” Gorka said. “No brushing the issues under the carpet, [but] calling out our Muslim friends to start by cleaning out their own front doors, their own backyards.”

Combating terrorist ideology will remain a priority for Trump in the future, according to Gorka.

“Killing terrorists is great, but it is not a metric of victory, because when you have enemies who have a massive recruiting pool, you can kill a jihadi with a drone strike and 20 guys tomorrow will volunteer to replace him,” Gorka said, adding:

Just like during the Cold War, we must defeat the ideology. As St. John Paul and the great Margaret Thatcher and the great Ronald Reagan who delegitimatized the ideology of communism, we must do the same with the ideology of global jihadism.

SOURCE

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

Trump: Strong Economy Equals Strong Security

His national security strategy is a stark reversal and repudiation of Obama's failed policy

President Donald Trump released his “America First” national security strategy Monday. The 68-page document sets forth a clear and sober understanding of the genuine threats the nation faces, as well as outlining a strategy for confronting these threats. In short, it represents both a reversal and a repudiation of U.S. policy over the previous eight years. Gone are the Barack Obama-era references to the supposed imminent security threat posed by climate change. So too is Obama’s self-defeating doctrine of “leading from behind.” No more apologizing for American global power and influence. That nonsense has been replaced with a realistic view of the world and America’s roll as the world’s leader.

Trump’s policy is based on four fundamental principles: protecting the American people and homeland, promoting American economic prosperity, maintaining peace through strength, and expanding American influence across the globe. Strategically, the policy focuses on controlling America’s borders, rebuilding the military and taking the lead in both NATO and the UN. The document states:

"We must convince adversaries that we can and will defeat them — not just punish them if they attack the United States. We must ensure the ability to deter potential enemies by denial — convincing them that they cannot accomplish objectives through the use of force or other forms of aggression. We need our allies to do the same."

Trump’s national security strategy also doesn’t shy away from naming those nations that pose the greatest threat to the American way of life, namely China and Russia, as well as the “rogue regimes” of Iran and North Korea.

What may be the biggest break from Obama’s foreign policy, however, is Trump’s emphasis on establishing U.S. national security via building up the nation’s economic strength. Trump declared that “economic security is national security,” explaining, “Economic vitality, growth and prosperity at home is absolutely necessary for American power and influence abroad. Any nation that trades away its prosperity for security will end up losing both.” Obama was far more focused on social engineering in the military and redistributing the nation’s wealth to his favored constituents.

In his announcement, Trump summed up his primary national security perspective, stating, “We are calling for a great reawakening of America, a resurgence of confidence, and a rebirth of patriotism, prosperity and pride. And we are returning to the wisdom of our Founders: In America the people govern, the people rule and the people are sovereign.”

SOURCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can't put it better than Reagan did:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

“And you can see the deleterious effects.

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE

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

A Constitutional Republic or a Police State?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE

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

Trump is the modern day JFK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE

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

Some end of year observations about Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE

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

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

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

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

The Saker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE

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

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

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

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

Is your blood pressure too high?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A treasonous President leaves a treasonous legacy>/b>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 SOURCE

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

The FBI: Has it Become the Secret Police?

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

This text from Strzok is the proof:

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

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

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

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

SOURCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE

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

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

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

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