Friday, February 10, 2017

Leftist hate shows its face

David Horowitz

You may have seen what happened last week when conservative Milo Yiannapolous tried to give a speech at UC Berkeley...

In a portent of things to come, a mob of masked, black-garbed left wing thugs went berserk. U.S. flags were torched, university equipment was destroyed and windows smashed – over $100,000 damage in all.

Bystanders waiting to hear Milo's speech were attacked with truncheons, one of them bloodied so badly that he lay unconscious on the ground, as the campus police stood by, ordered by administrators not to interrupt the rampage.

It was a scene out of Hitler's Germany – hatred and bloodlust on the loose; hatred at war with free speech and expression; hatred looking for someone to hurt.

But this shouldn't surprise us. Hatred has always been the lifeblood of the Left. Hate has always been the Left's political homeland and its reason for being. For the Left, hatred is never having to say you're sorry.

You see, one of the biggest of the Left's Big Lies is that conservative political groups and movements are universally motivated by hatred – of blacks, Hispanics and other ethnic groups; of homosexuals, transsexuals and other gender minorities; of immigrants, Muslims and others who are "marginalized" and therefore vulnerable.

This Big Lie is an exercise in what Freud called "projection" and which psychologists define as denying abhorrent emotions in oneself by attributing them to others.

There are indeed haters on the Right, but for the most part, they are on its fringe – demented individuals or tiny groups whose political apparatus consists of little more than an obscure post office box and a toxic website.

For the Left, however, hatred is a mass movement. Left hate groups swim successfully in the American mainstream.

And because of the Left bias in our culture and media, their followers, like those at the women's marches, can posture as idealists and protectors of the downtrodden while spewing hate. For them, hatred is no fault.

Via email. See new e-book titled Left Wing Hate Groups


Just another Jew-hating Muslim

Rep. Keith Ellison (D., Minn.) said that Jews wanted to "oppress minorities all over the world" and referred to them as "slave traders," according to a former classmate interviewed by Mother Jones.

Ellison, one of the front-runners to be elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee in an election later this month, is one of the most liberal members of Congress and has been a vocal critic of the Jewish state of Israel throughout his decade in the House of Representatives.

Michael Olenick was the opinions editor at the Minnesota Daily at the time that Ellison, who then went by Keith Hakim as a student at University of Minnesota Law School, was submitting numerous op-eds defending Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

Olenick, who is Jewish, told Mother Jones that Ellison's argument at the time was that "an oppressed group could not be racist toward Jews because Jews were themselves oppressors."

"European white Jews are trying to oppress minorities all over the world," Olenick said, recalling Ellison's argument. "Keith would go on all the time about ‘Jewish slave traders.'"

Ellison began attending a mosque when he was 19 and became more politically radical, according to the Mother Jones piece.



Rogue government employees need to go

If most of us defied our bosses on social media we would be fired, yet apparently when it is the federal government being mocked by self-proclaimed rogue employees, it is an apparent act of patriotism. Liberal media are touting the prevalence of @RogueNASA and @AltEPA, Twitter pages aimed at delegitimizing the Trump administration; but these accounts are treading a thin legal line and simply acting as a liberal microphone.

The drama apparently began when the National Park Service’s official Twitter account was temporarily shut down by the Trump administration after it engaged in political tweets against Trump.

In an apparent response, Death Valley National Park, a government managed federal park, took to Twitter to seemingly comment on President Donald Trump’s proposed immigration policies on Jan. 25. The Death Valley Park Service tweeted a picture of a Japanese man sent to internment in the 1940s with a quotation advocating for looser immigration restraints.

The Death Valley Park Service’s decision to tweet immigration advocacy rather than their usual traffic updates and facts about flowers has spurred government employees from several other agencies to similar sponsorship of the cause.

The same day, accounts such as @RogueNASA, @AltUSNatParkSer, @AltEPA and @Alt_NASA started popping up, all claiming to be run by active or former employees of their respective departments in order to act in resistance to the Trump administration.

For example, on Jan. 25, @RogueNASA tweeted, “How sad is it that government employees have to create rogue Twitter accounts just to communicate FACTS to the American public?”

As these pages attempt to replicate the existence of real national park accounts, several have taken official logos and avatars from their official agency counterparts. Yet government trademark laws such as 18 U.S.C. Section 701 specifically prohibits the use of government insignia on non-government websites and pages.

That law states, “Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”

While the copyright and trademark law does provide latitude for instances of parody however; As Kalev Leetaru explained on on Jan. 25, “The accounts in question have positioned themselves less as satiric and humorous parodies of the official accounts they mimic, but rather as resistance accounts that purport to offer the true story of those organizations. In particular, the accounts have positioned themselves in their tweets as alternative authoritative resources for those interested in their respective agencies’ research, replacing the official accounts.” This led several accounts to switch to new images.

This is a desperate attempt by liberal, apparent, government employees to resist Trump’s authority and dismiss his policies on immigration, energy, and the environment.

The worst part, as Leetaru notes, is that it is unknown if these are actual government employees from any of these agencies. They could be fakes. Although since they used real agency logos, even briefly, that would still probably violate the statute.  It could be anyone hosting these “rogue” Twitter pages and, still, social media has given them a platform.

Politico writer Nancy Scola believes that the National Park employees felt particular angst surrounding Trump’s election due to his stance against EPA’s policies designed to combat climate issues. Unfortunately for these employees, Trump is president. And while they have the privilege of working for the federal government each day, thousands of Americans have been struggling due to the regulations of the Obama Administration. By whining on social media about the election, they are delegitimizing the plight of every American who lost their job because of government policies.

The presence of these rogue accounts is not only legally dubious, it demonstrates a larger problem of bureaucrats out of control — who believe they are entitled to their positions of power. This is legitimate not whistleblowing, it’s a temper tantrum.

Ironically, the whole controversy underscores the reason while millions of Americans voted for Trump to drain the swamp. Liberal government employees may believe they are creating a resistance, but in reality they are only resisting the positive change that the American people have been asking for to get the economy moving again.



Congress Moves to Cut Immigration to U.S. By Half

New bill would limit the number of refugees, lower total immigration levels

Leading senators on Tuesday unveiled landmark immigration reform legislation that would limit the number of refugees permitted into the United States each year and eventually cut total immigration to America by 50 percent, according to a preview of the legislation viewed by the Washington Free Beacon.

Sens. David Perdue (R., Ga.) and Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) revealed the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment Act, or RAISE Act, which aims to boost wages for Americans by slicing immigration levels and recalibrating the system to accommodate those seeking employment in the American workforce.

The legislation seeks to build upon President Donald Trump’s immigration vision and his recent executive order placing a temporary hold on immigration for individuals coming from several countries designated as primary terrorism hotspots.

The bill would cap the number of permanent refugees permitted in the United States to 50,000 per year, which the lawmakers say is in line with average numbers during the past 13 years.

Within its first year of implementation, the immigration plan would reduce the number of individuals granted legal status by 41 percent and then steadily rise to a 50 percent reduction by its tenth year, according to a statistic provided by the senators and based on models established by Princeton and Harvard professors.

Overall immigration would be lowered to 637,960 within the first year of implementation and to 539,958 by year 10, according to these models. This would account for a 50 percent reduction over 2015 levels, which topped out at 1,051,031, according to information provided by the lawmakers.

“We are taking action to fix some of the shortcomings in our legal immigration system,” Perdue said in a statement to the Free Beacon. “Returning to our historically normal levels of legal immigration will help improve the quality of American jobs and wages.”

The goal of the legislation is to shift the immigration system in the favor of skilled workers. The net benefit of this recalibration would be to the advantage of all American workers with lower-skilled jobs, the lawmakers maintain.

Employment-based visas would become the main priority under the new plan.

Deference would be given to family households seeking to immigrate to the United States, according to the legislation, which would favor the spouses and minor-aged children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.

Immigration priority would no longer be given to the extended family and adult family members of U.S. residents under the bill. This means that adult parents and siblings of current citizens would no longer receive preferential treatment.

The bill additionally would eliminate the contested visa lottery system, which allowed individuals from any country around the world an equal shot at obtaining a U.S. visa in an expedited manner.

The 50,000 visa slots allocated under the program would be eliminated and folded back into the larger immigration system, according to the bill. The lawmakers maintain that the lottery system is outdated and beset by fraud.

The legislation also would move to create a temporary visa program for elderly parents or those in need of caretaking. This would allow citizens to more easily bring a parent into the country.

Under the new legislation, an elderly parent eligible for a U.S. visa would not be permitted to work or access any public benefits.



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)


Thursday, February 09, 2017

A Toast to California’s Secession

Robert Ringer has a "modest proposal"

There’s been a lot of talk recently about California seceding from the union. It’s akin to Hollywood celebs vowing to move out of the country if a Republican wins the White House. Meaning that it’s all bluster. Those who extol the virtues of the People’s Republic of California love to make hollow threats, but they possess neither the courage nor the financial resources to back them up.

If California were ever on its own, within six months of its “independence” it would be unable to function at even a survival level. Though it boasts the sixth largest economy in the world (larger than that of both Brazil and France!), there’s no economy big enough to keep a Marxist country afloat. This has been demonstrated time and again in such failed nations as Cuba, the Soviet Union, Mozambique, and every other country that has experimented with socialism/communism in any of its hideous forms.

The majority of California’s adult population consists of adult-children whose brains have never developed beyond adolescence. They cling to a stunted Woodstock mentality that makes them incapable of rational thought, which, if not addressed professionally, has the potential to be fatal. They live in an Oz-like land of constant frustration, which causes them to resort to tantrums and violence as the combined solution to every perceived problem.

The bottom line to all this is that a majority of Californians are not able to function as self-sustaining adults in the real world, so they irrationally dedicate themselves to the impossible task of trying to remake our imperfect world into a perfect world they create in their soiled minds.

Such an immature and na├»ve mental state can have dire consequences not only for the individual who is saddled with it, but for rational people of goodwill who live in the same societal space as they do. It’s dangerous to everyone, because those who are part of the Radical Left, in particular, employ lies, slander, and violence day-in-and-day-out in an attempt to achieve their impossible goal of creating the perfect world they envision in their minds.

I lived in Southern California for about 20 years, and I loved it for about ten of those years. It was a period when seemingly everything that happened was wonderful — meeting and marrying the most beautiful, kindest, most caring woman in the world, enjoying my four children as they progressed through grade school, middle school, and high school, rising from oblivion to the pinnacle of the book-publishing world by writing and self-publishing two New York Times #1 bestsellers, and much, much more.

But as we rolled into the eighties, the glitzy lifestyle of Los Angeles began to lose its appeal for me. Being surrounded by millions of Hollywood types and, worse, wannabe Hollywood types, became a painful daily task. I grew tired of seeing people with no visible means of support driving Rolls-Royces and living in rented mansions.

Above all, the left-wing political craziness and political correctness began to wear me down. I got tired of debating low-information people — and, worse, no-information people — and increasingly found myself withdrawing from the outside world.

I slowly faced up to the reality that people in Southern California had a collective mental disorder that caused them to talk and act in ways that was completely foreign to how the rest of the nation thought or behaved.

I remember many years ago Paul Newman saying that “Los Angeles is like a beautiful lady dying of cancer.” Notwithstanding his liberal credentials, Newman nailed it. For sheer luxury and beauty, it’s hard to beat Beverly Hills, Holmby Hills, and Bel Air, but, with just a few exceptions, most of the rest of Los Angeles is a sewer.

I became convinced, and today am certain, that California cannot be saved. It long ago passed the tipping point, and is now a giant left-wing cauldron boiling over with hatred, intolerance, and violence. It’s gigantic GDP can’t save it, because when GDP in California increases, it always brings with it an increase in welfare benefits. The Sacramento beast has an insatiable appetite for vote-buying entitlements, regulations, and illegal schemes.

That said, given that the national debt can never repaid — and, in fact, is going to increase dramatically in the coming years — I favor killing two birds with one stone and settling our debt with our largest creditor, China, by giving it title to the state of California outright — lock, stock, and illegal immigrants. Then, let Sacramento figure out how to deal with its new Asian rulers who don’t take kindly to liberal ideas like sanctuary cities, rioting, and welfare fraud.

As I’ve written about before, it’s inevitable that the United States will ultimately break into several nations, but right now just getting the People’s Republic of California out of our lives and out of our pocketbooks would be a real boost to the average American’s morale.

So, with that delicious thought in mind, I invite you to join me in a toast to California’s secession — voluntarily or forced, I’m not particular.



An Oxymoron: 'The Left's Tea Party'

With the all of the protesting and rioting across the country since Donald Trump’s election, some in the mainstream media suggest that this is evidence of a leftist grassroots political movement akin to a “progressive tea party.” While there is little question these protests and riots attract a lot of media attention, is this really an organized grassroots cohesive movement? Not exactly.

There is a profound and fundamental difference between the Tea Party movement and the current leftist “resistance” temper tantrum. The Tea Party is truly a grassroots movement born out of serious individual concerns over the ballooning national debt, government regulations and the need to lower taxes — the very ideas of Liberty that lit the fires of the American Revolution. It is a melting pot of traditional socially minded conservatives and libertarians — both concerned about the loss of individual liberty and the growing creep of socialism. It was the passage of ObamaCare that saw the Tea Party come into its own as a truly potent political force that helped lead to GOP majorities in both the House and Senate. These Republicans took office with the goal of being reformers, not revolutionaries.

Leftist malcontents currently protesting and rioting aren’t interested in connecting with traditional American values, though they like to throw around terms like “un-American.” Quite the contrary; they see traditional American values as simply codes for racism, bigotry and sexism. To this leftist grievance class everything is about “equality” or the lack thereof — an inequity of outcome, not opportunity. In reality, what the Left is after is neo-Marxism. When they talk of a grassroots movement, they are speaking of the rise of a new proletariat. They seek a complete re-ordering of society around their leftist concepts of “social justice.” In reality, these protesters are hoping to birth a red revolution, not a reformation.

It’s individual freedom versus collectivism. American history has shown time and again that Americans prefer individual Liberty with its Rule of Law over and against collectivist tyranny and its rule of men. It seems to us there is no comparison between these movements, only contrast.



Navy’s Depleted Aircraft Will Take Years to Rebuild After Obama-Era Defense Cuts

Nearly two-thirds of Navy strike fighters unable to fly

The Navy's aircraft arsenal is so depleted it would take several years to rebuild the fleet even if the Trump administration allotted the funding needed to repair inoperable aircraft, according to a policy expert and former Air Force pilot.

John Venable, a senior research fellow for defense policy at the Heritage Foundation, cited a report released Monday that found two-thirds of the Navy's strike fighter jets are unable to fly due to maintenance problems exacerbated by several years of military budget cuts.

Thirty-five percent of grounded fighter planes are waiting for parts, while 27 percent are undergoing major depot work, according to the report published by Defense News. A full 62 percent of F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet strike fighters are out of service, a concerning figure because of the essential role the planes fill in the fleet's combat power.

In all, more than half of the Navy's planes are grounded, including some 1,700 combat transport aircraft, patrol aircraft, planes, and helicopters.

"The throughput right now is so far behind and has such a backlog that it'll take them several years to refit, refurbish, and repair the F-18s that are in unserviceable condition," Venable told the Washington Free Beacon. "They can't catch up even if the Trump administration gave them all the money they need."

Naval and Air Force pilots have been unable to train adequately due to a shortage of operable aircraft in both services, impacting readiness levels and depriving the military of pilots who are unable to log needed flight hours.

With five months left in fiscal year 2017 and a readiness deficit across all four military branches, Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) has advocated an emergency $26 billion supplemental spending bill that would direct some of the funds to readiness training for pilots.

Cotton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Monday the funding has become necessary after eight years of defense cuts under former President Barack Obama.

"Trying to cut our defense spending to get a peace dividend as we did in the 1990s or to pay off domestic constituencies as Obama did is a self-defeating effort," Cotton said during a panel at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.

"Your enemies get wind of what's going on, their aggression becomes vulgar, and you have to pay more to rebuild the capabilities and capacity that you lost just to get back to where you were,” he continued.

Cotton said Congress needs to increase the defense budget by at least 15 percent in fiscal year 2018 to recoup the military’s losses.



Fake news about Trump nominee

People will believe silly things when it fits their ideological preconceptions. Even when they have been debunked and are contradicted by first-hand information and news reports.

A handful of mostly left-leaning publications repeated a British tabloid’s wild claim that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch started a “fascism forever club” in high school. This bizarre smear of Gorsuch was debunked by Snopes.  It was also debunked by teachers at his school, as liberal-leaning America magazine noted. And it was also debunked by a lawyer in National Review.

Neil Gorsuch is a well-respected judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he has been a judge for more than 10 years, without a hint of scandal. He was unanimously confirmed to the Tenth Circuit by a bipartisan vote, even as other, controversial judges faced filibusters. Nothing in Gorsuch’s judicial opinions or writings is in any way radical, nor does he have a history of saying radical things. Even lawyers like Radley Balko who detest President Trump think that Gorsuch is a well-qualified, judicious, and reasonable man who should be confirmed.

So there was no reason to believe this bizarre claim even before Snopes debunked it. But when I emailed two publications that repeated this bizarre claim, asking them to correct the error, one took a day to fix it, and the other one has yet to do so. Neither of the writers I emailed responded to my email. Even the publication that did fix its error dragged its feet for a day, then made the correction only after a law professor who writes blog posts for the Washington Post told them he planned to write about their false claim.

When a claim is debunked, and was implausible to begin with, those who made the claim should immediately correct what they have written – not drag their feet, or ignore emails pointing out the error. Internet rumors based on false claims like this tend to take on a life of their own. Gorsuch’s reputation is already damaged, since countless people have read these false articles or tweets linking to them.



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)


Wednesday, February 08, 2017

Fake news from the NYT

During the recent election campaign, a false story about Hillary Clinton and a NY pizza joint made news.  The Left instantly called it "fake news" and were enraged at the very idea of false stories  being treated as news.  But misleading "news" from Leftist sources has long been common, with both outright misreporting and a relentless tendency to report only one side of a story. So it behooves us all to use the current interest in fake news to point out that fake news is an overwhelmingly Leftist phenomenon.  A recent example is below

On February 2, 2017, the New York Times published on its front page above-the-fold a hit-piece under the headline, “A Sinister Perception of Islam Now Steers the White House.”  The principal targets of this unflattering article were President Trump, his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and his “chief strategist,” Stephen Bannon.  But at the article’s end were five paragraphs and a picture with a caption that amounted to the journalistic equivalent of a drive-by-shooting aimed at Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney.

Specifically, Times reporter Matthew Rosenberg distorted and falsely reported comments made by Frank Gaffney in the course of two recorded interviews conducted in December 2016.  His article and an accompanying photo’s caption respectively asserted that Mr. Gaffney regarded “Islam” and “Muslims” as “termites [that] hollow out the structure of the civil society and other institutions for the purpose of creating conditions under which the jihad will succeed.”

Actually, as transcripts of the two conversations spanning roughly 2.5 hours make clear, Mr. Gaffney was characterizing the modus operandi of the Muslim Brotherhood, not “Muslims” or “Islam.”  The misrepresentation serves the interest of the Brotherhood – which has long been determined to silence him and the Center for Security Policy – but not the interests of the New York Times’ readers or the paper’s responsibility to report the facts.

As a public service and in the interest of holding the so-called “nation’s newspaper of record” accountable, the Center today released the full transcripts of the two interview conversations between Messrs. Gaffney and Rosenberg, together with the transcript of a phone call and an exchange of emails between the two after the publication of the article on February 2nd.  Together, they constitute a case study of mainstream media malfeasance that, deliberately or not, has the practical effect of helping America’s foes.



It's the Seattle judge who is ignoring the law

Challenges to Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily banning travel for people coming from seven nations have little legal support, irrespective of the recent actions by U.S. District Court Judge James Robart to block the order. The Justice Department has ably defended Trump’s EO, providing solid and substantive arguments based upon sound legal precedent — Trump’s actions were well within both constitutional parameters and the common practice of prior presidents. But honestly, that is not what all the fuss is about.

In reality, two battles are being waged. One is in the courts and the other is in that ever-shifting realm known as public opinion. The Leftmedia has long fought for control of the latter by appealing to people’s emotions rather than by presenting a rational argument. But the courts are supposed to be above this changing whim of public sentiment; in fact, they were designed to be as best as possible impervious to it, since it is the role of the courts to seek justice in an impartial manner.

Trump, unlike prior Republican presidents, is more than willing to jump into the fray. That’s good given how poorly the mainstream media has treated him and Republicans for years.



The Case for Judge Neil Gorsuch

It is with some justice that Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called Neil Gorsuch, the president’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, outside the “legal mainstream.” Given the murkiness of that water, however, this is not a bad thing. According to Independent Institute Research Fellow William J. Watkins, Jr., author of Crossroads for Libertyand Reclaiming the American Revolution, it is precisely because Judge Gorsuch does not subscribe to the ruling legal orthodoxy that sitting him on the Court is a simple, open-and-shut case.

A judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Neil Gorsuch holds a judicial philosophy that is distinctly (and oddly) in the minority: He strives to interpret provisions of the U.S. Constitution according to their original public meaning. This is anathema to many in the legal mainstream. Influential legal thinker Ronald Dworkin, for example, implores judges to make their decisions by striking some sort of “balance” among competing core principles. In practice, this approach opens the floodgates to subjectivity. Judges who, in Watkins’s words, “employ a creative interpretation of the law that eschews original intent” end up making laws and crafting social policy—in other words, imposing their own values. It is the rightful job of the judiciary, however, to interpret laws and the Constitution objectively, not to treat them like a de facto Rorschach inkblot on which they can impose their own meaning.

“As a man outside the legal mainstream, Neil Gorsuch is a needed addition to a Supreme Court that is too often engrossed with its power and authority,” Watkins writes. “Confirmation will be a fight, but this herculean battle will be well worth the effort.”



Rogue Federal Bureaucrats Threaten Trump’s Agenda

Recent scandals in the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Internal Revenue Service demonstrated that it’s almost impossible to fire federal employees, many of whom reportedly intend to go rogue by not implementing President Donald Trump’s agenda.

“It’s hard to argue we have an accountable government when someone can’t be fired for years at a time,” @bgwilterdink says.

Conservatives are hopeful the time has come for civil service reform that would rein in this permanent class of government workers who have voiced outright hostility to the new administration. Some have even called it the “fourth branch of government” or “alt-government.”

“This is a situation where people voted and elected a president who is lawfully trying to complete those tasks [he promised in the campaign], while unelected bureaucrats are willing to overturn the will of the people,” Ben Wilterdink, director of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) Task Force on Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development, told The Daily Signal.

Among federal employees, about 95 percent of political contributions went to Democrat Hillary Clinton during the presidential race, according to an analysis by The Hill.

Some of those federal workers are now in consultation with departed Obama administration officials to determine how they can push back against the Trump administration’s agenda, The Washington Post reported last week.

At the State Department, for example, nearly 1,000 government workers signed a letter protesting Trump’s executive order on refugees. A few days later, Trump had to fire acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she announced she wouldn’t defend the administration’s refugee policy.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said State Department employees who oppose the policy “should either get with the program, or they can go.”

“If a federal employee doesn’t like the ideological foundation or likely outcomes of a presidential directive, it doesn’t mean that the directive is not legal. It means that the views of the federal employee are in conflict with the views of the president who runs the federal government,” said Neil Siefring, vice president of Hilltop Advocacy and a former Republican House staffer, in a column for The Daily Caller.

“In that instance,” Siefring added, “the solution should not be to resist the actions of the president in their professional capacity as a career civil servant in the workplace. The solution is for that federal employee to honorably resign, not actively or passively hamper the White House.”

What if an employee won’t resign? Addressing the problem with the federal workforce won’t be easy, according to experts interviewed by The Daily Signal.

“You can fire federal employees, it’s just that nobody wants to put up with the process,” Don Devine, former director of the Office of Personnel Management during the Reagan administration, told The Daily Signal.

Multiple appeals can be made through the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and the National Labor Relations Board.

“It’s almost impossible to discipline employees because it can be appealed to through the merit system, the labor relations systems, or through the EEOC,” Devine said. “We don’t have a civil service system; we have a dual civil service-labor relations system.”

During the Obama administration, two of its biggest scandals involved the IRS and Department of Veterans Affairs. In 2013, a Treasury Department inspector general report determined the IRS had been targeting conservative groups. In 2014, a VA inspector general’s report revealed falsified appointments in which some veterans died while waiting for care.

Years later, conservatives remain frustrated that federal workers weren’t held accountable.

“I will take your IRS employees and raise you the EPA, where story after story, a worker was viewing porn on work time and couldn’t be fired because the process is fraught with appeals,” Wilterdink said. “It’s hard to argue we have an accountable government when someone can’t be fired for years at a time.”

Earlier this year, the U.S. House revived the Holman Rule, named after a Democrat congressman who introduced it in 1876. It would allow lawmakers to cut the pay of individual federal workers or a government program.

There are other proposals for holding federal workers accountable. House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, introduced a bill in January to hold seriously tax delinquent people ineligible for federal civilian employment, federal contracts, or government grants. This bill was proposed in response to IRS data that found more than 100,000 federal civilian employees owed more than $1 billion in unpaid taxes at the end of fiscal year 2015.

Adding to the challenge is the process commonly known as burrowing. Frequently, political appointees from one administration convert to a career position that comes with civil service protections, allowing them to continue implementing policy—or resisting the new administration’s approach.

The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 was passed to stop raw political party appointments from securing federal government jobs, or a spoils system. The law introduced the merit system into hiring practices and made numerous civil service positions untouchable after they were filled.

However, burrowing has caused a de facto spoils system, Wilterdink said, because, “the pendulum has swung so far to protecting federal employees” that it allows administrations to keep their people in office long term.

Significant reform doesn’t mean recreating a spoils system, according to Robert Moffit, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation who was an assistant Office of Personnel Management director during the Reagan administration. Moffit said a balanced approach would be more desirable.

“You need to have strong managers in each agency to make sure the president’s agenda is properly executed,” Moffit told The Daily Signal. “You must also have a bright line between career and non-career staff so there is no politicization of the merit system.”

Moffit also supports legislation to allow the president to order the firing of career officials who either “broke the law or severely undermined the public’s trust.”

“Even President [Barack] Obama referred to what IRS officials did as outrageous and nothing happened,” Moffit said. “The VA matter is still unresolved. The people responsible for those waiting lists aren’t accountable and people died.”



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)


Tuesday, February 07, 2017

A major foreign policy triumph:  Trump brings improved relationships with problem countries

Hillary talked about a "reset" but it took Trump to deliver one.  The various leaders appear to see Trump as a strong man where Obama was just a spineless nagger. They respect strength

Suddenly, leaders who have previously expressed nothing but contempt for the US are showcasing a desire to engage rather than intimidate or retract, and establish common ground with President Donald Trump.

The New York Times suggests some of the world’s most brutal autocrats could be welcoming the rise of Mr Trump as a chance to avoid being held accountable for their authoritarian tendencies and poor human rights records.

Others, it says, may wish to forge new alliances and a new geopolitical order, which could effectively restructure the world as we know it.

“Many appear to see a Trump presidency as an opportunity to engage with a like-minded leader who has stated nationalist aims,” the article states. “Others may hope for respite from criticism over their human rights records or authoritarian tendencies.”

Mr Trump already has a history of praising harsh dictators — both dead and alive.

In 2015, he said the Middle East would “100 per cent” have been better today if Libyan dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein were still in power.

Later that year, he said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is “getting an A in terms of leadership”, comparing his leadership favourably with that of Barack Obama.

He even once retweeted a Mussolini quote.

Evidently some of the world’s more hostile global figures see this as a positive thing.

They seem more keen to collaborate with the US leader and get on his good side — even those who were contemptuous of him when he was considered unlikely to win.

Writing in The Guardian, historian Timothy Garton Ash said Mr Trump’s election win signifies he now joins “a score of other nationalist leaders around the globe”, saying “the nationalists are giving one another the Trumpian thumbs-up across the seas”.

So who are these non-western leaders taking an interest in Mr Trump?


The seemingly-cozy relationship between Mr Trump and Vladimir Putin has been well-documented over the past two years.

Throughout the election, the pair frequently exchanged compliments and expressed visions of a mutually-agreeable future, bonding over their shared interests in their own countries and power.

Mr Putin first praised the US President publicly back in 2015, describing him as “talented” and the “absolute leader” in the GOP race for the White House.

Mr Trump has in turn described the Russian autocrat saying: “He’s running his country and at least he’s a leader, you know, unlike what we have in this country. I think our country does plenty of killing also.”

After the election, Mr Putin expressed an interest in a form of Russia-US alliance, saying he hopes him and Mr Trump can “work together to lift Russian — US relations out of the current crisis”.

On November 14, the pair had a phone call. According to a Kremlin press release, during the call they “expressed support for active joint efforts to normalise relations and pursue constructive co-operation on the broadest possible range of issues”.

According to the Times, Mr Putin may see this relationship as a way to further Russian aims and build a new geopolitical order.


North Korea’s regime has declared itself a sworn enemy of America, and its leader Kim Jong-un has made numerous nuclear threats over the years.

Despite threatening the isolated country and describing its leader as a “maniac”, Mr Trump has expressed an interest in meeting Mr Kim.

He even once praised the swift way the dictator took power after his father’s death, saying he deserves “credit” for that.

“You’ve got to give him credit. How many young guys — he was like 26 or 25 when his father died — take over these tough generals, and all of a sudden ... he goes in, he takes over, and he’s the boss,” Mr Trump said. “It’s incredible. He wiped out the uncle, he wiped out this one, that one. I mean this guy doesn’t play games. And we can’t play games with him.”

Now, Mr Kim is apparently experiencing a change of heart towards his country’s relations with the US. According to The Yong Ho, the most senior North Korean diplomat to defect in almost two decades, Mr Kim wishes to have a civil conversation with the US President and potentially work together.

That said that after his initial surprise that Mr Trump won, Mr Kim now sees it as “a good opportunity for him to open a kind of compromise with the new American administration”.

Not even Chinese President Xi Jinping or Russian President Putin have met with Mr Kim, and the US does not officially recognise North Korea as a state.

Mr Trump has been urged to make North Korean human rights a key part of his policy going forward, but his plan here remains unknown.


Rodrigo Duterte — also known as The Punisher — cast the future of traditionally strong US-Philippines relations into doubt when he came to power.

He was openly critical of the Obama administration, described the former US leader as “a son of a wh*re” and publicly allied himself with China and Russia on the South China Sea.

He publicly announced his “separation” from the US last year, saying a three-way alliance with China and Russia is “the only way”.

But since Mr Trump came to power, Mr Duterte seems to have taken a positive step back towards the US.

He acknowledged he called Mr Trump following his election win, and sang him glowing praises.  “I said, ‘Mr. President, this is President Duterte. May I be privileged to congratulate you?’”

At the birthday party of Philippine National Police chief Ronald deal Rosa, Mr Duterte said of Mr Trump: “He is a billionaire. His wife is very beautiful. I envy him. “If you’re a billionaire, you speak like that, you became a president, and you have a beautiful wife, then you’re like in heaven already. That’s his edge over me.”

He’s praised Mr Trump’s tough stance, saying: “Look at his inaugural speech. He will stop drugs. We’re no different,” he said, implying the US had its own problem with illegal drugs. “He’s also tough. He will also kill you.”


President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is the controversial leader of Turkey. He arrested and fired more than 100,000 opponents to his leadership and jailed 40,000 more following a military coup midway through last year. He’s also jailed more journalists than any other leader over the past year.

When Mr Trump first proposed his Muslim ban during his presidential campaign, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan responded with outrage.

He demanded Mr Trump’s name be removed from Trump Towers Istanbul, blasting the then-candidate for having “no tolerance for Muslims in America”.

“They put that brand on his building and it must be swiftly taken down,” he said, according to the website of Turkey’s state broadcaster.

But Mr Erdogan, once a fierce critic of the Republican billionaire, appears to have changed his tune since November.

Earlier this month, he said he believes Turkey’s dialogue with the United States will gain pace under Mr Trump’s presidency and they will reach a consensus on regional issues. “I believe we will accelerate dialogue when Mr Trump takes office. I believe we will reach a consensus with Mr Trump, particularly on regional issues, and make rapid headway,” he told Turkish ambassadors gathered in Ankara.

While he did describe Mr Trump’s recent travel ban confirmation as “disturbing”, he just said Turkish authorities are “watching” his statements.

Oh, and the name of Trump Towers in Istanbul remains unchanged.


The Kazakhstan leader’s human rights record has been described as abysmal.

According to Human Rights Watch, the central Asian country “heavily restricts freedom of assembly, speech, and religion, and torture remains a serious problem”.

The human rights organisation describes Mr Nazarbayev’s rule as “heavy-handed”, criticising highly-restricted media freedoms, the pressing issue of torture and a poor record on civil and workers’ rights.

Despite this, Mr Nazarbayev claimed Mr Trump called him in December to say he’d accomplished a “miracle” over his 25 years of governance. “U.S. president-elect brought congratulations to the Head of State on the 25th anniversary of Kazakhstan’s Independence,” the Kazakh presidential press office’s readout said.

“D. Trump stressed that under the leadership of Nursultan Nazarbayev our country over the years of Independence had achieved fantastic success that can be called a ‘miracle.’”

The Trump administration did not acknowledge the term “miracle”, simply saying the pair had “addressed the importance of strengthening regional partnerships”.

The Times suggested Mr Trump’s presidency could provide a respite from criticism for governments like Mr Nazarbayev’s.

But that also depends on how long the cosiness lasts, and whether these warm relationships are sustainable or not is yet to be seen.



Selectivity is normal


Trump Puts Sanctuary Cities on Notice

As we’ve noted already this week, President Donald Trump has taken the issue of immigration head on. First it was the border wall. Then came Trump’s executive order on interior enforcement, which includes pulling funding from so-called sanctuary cities. According to The Washington Times, the order “calls on Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly and the new attorney general to cut off all federal funding they control under existing federal laws.” Anything further will require congressional action. Trump also ordered DHS to create a “name and shame” list of sanctuary cities, including publicizing the names of aliens who’ve been released and the crimes they’ve committed.

“Cities” is an understatement. California, Colorado, Connecticut and New Mexico do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities, as is the case with cities and counties in 25 other states and DC. Yes, that’s right, the seat of the federal government is a “sanctuary city.” Leftists in these jurisdictions like to frame their actions as simply not cooperating — as in police not checking immigration status when making arrests or traffic stops. But it’s far more insidious. These cities often actively resist when federal authorities come looking for specific illegal aliens.

The horrific results are clear, as illustrated by the widely reported murder of Kate Steinle by a five-time-deported illegal alien felon two years ago in San Francisco. But that’s just one case. The Obama administration released thousands upon thousands of illegal alien criminals. Over a two-year period, more than 66,000 illegal alien criminals were set free — and there were 166,000 convictions among them, including 11,000 rapes and 395 homicides. Thousands of them were rearrested after committing further crimes.

Yet leftists insist they’re the compassionate ones.

It’s important to note that Trump isn’t making law here. Everything he’s called for is already the law — the wall, deportation, all of it. Enforce the law and you solve most of the problem. He’s off to a good start.



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)


Monday, February 06, 2017

Leftist aggression escalating

An unhinged liberal movement is growing more violent, and now pro-life lawmakers are being placed under police protection after terrorist threats:

State Rep. Tony Tinderholt, R-Arlington, has been placed under the protection of the Texas Department of Public Safety after receiving death threats following his filing of a bill to criminalize abortion in Texas.

“Representative Tinderholt and his family have received multiple death threats leading to his family being placed under DPS protection on multiple occasions,” Micah Cavanaugh, Tinderholt’s chief of staff, said in a statement Monday. “Specifics to the threats cannot be discussed due to an ongoing investigation, and we do not intend to speak on behalf of law enforcement.”

Tinderholt’s bill, the Abolition of Abortion Act, would criminalize abortion in Texas to the extent that both abortion providers and women who receive an abortion could be charged with murder.

If there ever were a case to demonstrate how pro-abortion liberals value their own personal “choice” over another person’s life, it’s this one.



Trump Refugee Order Balances Security and Compassion

James Carafano

Read any commentary on the just signed executive order on visa and refugee vetting from several countries in the Middle East and odds are the assessment will tell you more about the writer’s politics than be an analysis of the order.

I confess: I have a perspective as well. Mine comes from working on the presidential team on both foreign policy and homeland security from after the Republican convention up to the inauguration. I can’t share the detailed workings of the team. But what I can share, having worked on the issues, is what I believe guided the work.

And it all started with making America safe.

Not campaign promises, anger at any religion, or prejudice of any kind impacted our thinking on the transition team. What we were worried about were future threats.

As the space for the Islamic State, or ISIS, gets squeezed in the Middle East, the remains of the tens of thousands of foreign fighters will have to flow somewhere. Every nation, not just the U.S., believes they are most likely to flow to the countries cited in the order. That fact, and only that fact, is why those countries are included on the list. Indeed, when it comes to visa vetting, that’s why the European Union has restrictions that are comparable to the United States.

The reason why we all worry is because, from those countries, foreign fighters could well try to flow to the West, principally by using visas or posing as refugees. When they get to the West, they could carry out terrorist acts. We know that because they already have—specifically in Western Europe.

They haven’t come to the U.S.—yet. Right now, our primary threat is Islamist-related terror plots that are organized by terrorists who are already here.

What this administration is doing is making sure we are ready for the next wave of terrorism as well—the outflow of terrorists from the countries of conflict where the foreign fighters are likely to go first.

There are already cries that the precautions are unfair—creating hardships. Fair enough, but terrorists attacks (like those at the Bataclan in France by the followers of ISIS) create unbearable hardships as well—and the government has the responsibility to find the right balance between security and compassion for its citizens as well as consider how U.S. actions impact others around the world.

One area where the order tries to get that balance right is to ensure future refugee processing prioritizes addressing the plight of religious minorities. That is particularly crucial in the Middle East where the remnants of the region’s Christian communities are under severe threat.

Worldwide persecutions against Christian minorities have been rising for four straight years. It’s particularly problematic in the Middle East. The administration is making an extra effort to address that crisis.

While critics will continue to demonize the administration’s policies because they don’t fit their politics, Americans who crave a foreign policy that prioritizes American interests, puts a compassionate face on statecraft that reflects our values, and acts responsibly will find much to respect in the order.



Fake news as media wilfully lie about Social Security gun ban

The U.S. House of Representatives Thursday repealed a discriminatory Social Security rule denounced by mental health experts and the anti-gun American Civil Liberties Union.

If you didn’t know that, it’s because liberal media outlets reported it with headlines like this:

BREAKING: US House of Representatives has voted to roll back background checks for gun ownership

The reaction was instantaneous, and intentional. Social media was flooded with rabid leftists hurling death threats at Republican lawmakers — accusing them of abolishing background checks at gun shows.

It was a complete lie.

There was no change whatsoever to background check requirements.

The rule in question automatically listed Social Security and Veterans Administration beneficiaries as banned gun owners if they had named someone else to handle their finances.

Under this Obama administration proposal, bureaucrats within the SSA and VA would automatically deem someone as “mentally incompetent” if they had a fiduciary handling their benefits and they would be entered into the National Instant Check System as prohibited persons.

According to Federal law, those deemed “mentally incompetent” are prohibited from purchasing, owning or possessing firearms.

The rule would strip 4.2 million Americans of their right to keep and bears arms, just among those on the Social Security list.

Millions of Americans would be denied their constitutional rights, without a medical examination or due process of law.

It brought the immediate denunciation of mental health experts, who are among the most anti-gun of any profession. They slammed the Obama administration for falsely concluding that problems performing math or balancing a checkbook made one “mentally incompetent” or a threat to others.

It also brought challenges from the ACLU, another reliably anti-gun group.

“All individuals have the right to be judged on the basis of their individual capabilities, not the characteristics and capabilities that are sometimes attributed (often mistakenly) to any group or class to which they belong. A disability should not constitute grounds for the automatic per se denial of any right or privilege, including gun ownership,” the ACLU wrote in an announcement endorsing the congressional bill.

None of that mattered to the mainstream media, who used the vote as another opportunity to spread Fake News intended to escalate threats against the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers.



Be Careful What You Wish For (especially if it is Hitler)

By Scott Adams (Dilbert author)

As a trained persuader, I’m seeing a dangerous situation forming that I assume is invisible to most of you. The setup is that during the presidential campaign Trump’s critics accused him of being Hitler(ish) and they were sure other citizens would see it too, thus preventing this alleged monster from taking office.

They were wrong. The alleged monster took office.

Now you have literally millions of citizens in the United States who were either right about Trump being the next Hitler, and we will see that behavior emerge from him soon, or they are complete morons. That’s a trigger for cognitive dissonance. The science says these frightened folks will start interpreting all they see as Hitler behavior no matter how ridiculous it might seem to the objective observer. And sure enough, we are seeing that.

To be fair, Trump made it easy this week with his temporary immigration ban. If you assume Trump is Hitler, that fits with your hypothesis. But of course it also fits the hypothesis that he’s just doing his job. We’re all seeing what we expect to see.

But lately I get the feeling that Trump’s critics have evolved from expecting Trump to be Hitler to preferring it. Obviously they don’t prefer it in a conscious way. But the alternative to Trump becoming Hitler is that they have to live out the rest of their lives as confirmed morons. No one wants to be a confirmed moron. And certainly not after announcing their Trump opinions in public and demonstrating in the streets. It would be a total embarrassment for the anti-Trumpers to learn that Trump is just trying to do a good job for America. It’s a threat to their egos. A big one.

And this gets me to my point. When millions of Americans want the same thing, and they want it badly, the odds of it happening go way up. You can call it the power of positive thinking. It is also the principle behind affirmations. When humans focus on a desired future, events start to conspire to make it happen.

I’m not talking about any new-age magic. I’m talking about ordinary people doing ordinary things to turn Trump into an actual Hitler. For example, if protesters start getting violent, you could expect forceful reactions eventually. And that makes Trump look more like Hitler. I can think of dozens of ways the protesters could cause the thing they are trying to prevent. In other words, they can wish it into reality even though it is the very thing they are protesting.

In the 3rd dimension of persuasion, the protesters need to be proven right, and they will do whatever it takes to make that happen. So you might see the protesters inadvertently create the police state they fear.

If you are looking for the tells that this dangerous situation is developing, notice how excited/happy the Trump critics seem to be – while angry at the same time – that Trump’s immigration ban fits their belief system. If you see people who are simply afraid of Trump, they are probably harmless. But the people who are excited about any Hitler-analogy-behavior by Trump might be leading the country to a police state without knowing it.

So watch for that.



Time tells


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)


Sunday, February 05, 2017

British politician defends Trump in the European parliament

Farage and Trump get on well and have similar views. So it is amusing to hear Trump heavily promoted and defended in a British private school accent. And Farage is as blunt as Trump.  At one point in his speech, he refers to the chairman of the European parliament as "Mussolini". For the EU politicians, it must have felt like having Trump himself in their midst and roaring at them.  Europeans, particularly the French, have long been perturbed by "les anglo-saxons" and their tendency to support one-another -- so this will entrench paranoia among EU denizens even further

British politician Nigel Farage, who represents South East England in the European Parliament, dropped a truth bomb on the EU Commission on Wednesday.

While many unelected European bureaucrats have spent the last week criticizing President Donald Trump’s immigration ban, the fact of the matter is they’ve done absolutely nothing to prevent radical Islamic terrorism in Europe.

Watch Farage call out the hypocrites below:



The Hard Left Doesn't Fear the Law. They've Decided They Are the Law.

Berkeley 2017: `We Will Control the Streets. This Is War.'

We didn't expect the hard Left to learn anything useful from the 2016 election. Instead, they have chosen to double down:

The Hard Left doesn't fear the law. They've decided they are the law.

Let's be clear: a significant number of Americans, both on and off America's college campuses, do not believe in other people's right to give speeches with perspectives and ideas they oppose. The boss noticed how frequently the term "un-American" is thrown around these days in the debates about immigration law. Physically attacking people because they have different beliefs is about as un-American as it gets.

Kiara Robles braved the crowd wearing a red "Make Bitcoin Great Again" hat in the style of President Trump's red hats, which made her and our crew a target. The video in the player above shows the graphic exchange between a protester and Robles, who was pepper sprayed. "I'm looking to make a statement by just being here and I think the protesters are doing the same. Props to the ones who are doing it non-violently, but I think that's a very rare thing indeed."

She later told ABC7 News she was alright.

She was not the only person attacked at the protest Wednesday.

"I hope I don't have a broken nose over this," said Joe Scherer, an observer. "The first amendment is fundamental to our Constitution."

By 9 p.m. protesters had taken to the streets of Berkeley carrying protest signs. Some marched while others threw rocks at buildings. A Chase location and a Wells Fargo location were vandalized. Broken glass could be seen flying into the streets from Sky7.

Officials held a news conference while the protests were happening saying it wasn't a proud moment for the city.

The violence and vandalism spread far beyond the school's campus.

U.C. Berkeley police and university officials issued warnings to the students not to exit their dorms. A shelter-in-place was ordered as well.

When you are willing to pepper-spray right in front of the television cameras, you're not just attacking that person; you're trying to intimidate everyone else who sees that image, too. It's a signal to everyone else - if the angry hard-Left mob thinks you're against them, they won't wait to read the fine print on your red cap. They will inflict pain on you and not even bother to ask questions later.

Meanwhile, across the bay in San Francisco:

The San Francisco police department is suspending ties with the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. The announcement comes amid growing concerns of spying on Muslim Americans by the new Trump Administration.

While you're at it, why not paint a bull's-eye on the TransAmerica building?



A very Leftist contrast


Blue-collar Democrats are delighted they chose Trump

President Trump’s shock-and-awe assault on Washington has rattled Republican leaders, foreign policy heavyweights warn that he risks alienating US allies and the tycoons of Silicon Valley have condemned his restrictions on immigration.

However, his first fortnight in the White House has pleased one important group: the voters who put him there.

“He’s been outstanding,” said Fred Wiseman, 51, a factory worker in Macomb County, Michigan, a working-class sprawl of modest suburban homes, strip malls and car assembly plants that, it can be argued, pushed Mr Trump to the presidency.

“I feel safer,” Sally Armstrong, 37, a waitress, said. “Give him this,” Ron Syme, 52, an architect, said: “He’s done what he promised.”



The Truth About the 'Botched' Yemen Raid<>/b>

There are accusations being fomented by the Leftmedia that claim President Donald Trump’s first counterterrorism order resulted in a disastrous yet preventable episode in Yemen — the consequence, we’re now being told, of sheer negligence. Tragically, the operation took the life of SEAL Team Six’s Chief Petty Officer William “Ryan” Owens and other innocent bystanders. But the situation all came to a head when Reuters reported that “U.S. military officials [said] Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.” This appears to be a blatant attempt to smear Trump’s reputation and further portray him as unsuited for the role of commander in chief.

First, The New York Times says, “Barack Obama’s national security aides had reviewed the plans for a risky attack on a small, heavily guarded brick home of a senior Qaeda collaborator in a mountainous village in a remote part of central Yemen. But Mr. Obama did not act because the Pentagon wanted to launch the attack on a moonless night and the next one would come after his term had ended.” In other words, the attack was planned before Trump even entered the Oval Office. So it wasn’t some hastily concocted operation.

Second, veteran David French. who has actual experience in combat, warns against buying the Leftmedia’s narrative. He writes, “Absent truly extraordinary circumstances not outlined in the report, these officials seem to be relying on reporters' ignorance and willingness to believe anything about Trump … to deflect criticism of a dangerous operation that turned out to be even more dangerous than anticipated. That happens in war. It happened all the time when I was in Iraq.”

“People who haven’t been exposed to war with jihadists tend to think of firefights as precise affairs,” French continues. “Instead, they’re extraordinarily destructive, and the battle is waged against an enemy who intentionally and flagrantly violates the laws of war.” In conclusion: “None of this sounds unusual. … [I]t’s an impressive feat of arms to assault an alert enemy in a prepared defensive position, defeat that enemy, and leave with valuable intelligence. So, no, don’t believe claims that Trump botched the raid in Yemen. He didn’t plan the operation, and we don’t want him planning operations. We want presidents to rely on professionals. But those same professionals will tell you that war is terrible by its very nature, and no president can guarantee victory without cost.”

By the way, the media outlets peddling these dubious reports are the same outlets that did everything they could to avoid covering Benghazi. Which truly was a preventable disaster.



DHS Experiences the Trump Effect

With all the Democrats' and Leftmedia’s hysterics over Donald Trump’s executive orders on immigration, travel restrictions and reforming of visa vetting, combined with an over-the-top freakout of many Hollywood elites calling for resistance to Trump, one can hardly be faulted for wondering if there are any out there who are happy with Trump beyond those “deplorables” who voted for him, sizable though they may be.

Well, there is at least one government agency where members are reporting quite a boost in morale after Trump’s recent executive orders — the Department of Homeland Security. Over the last eight years, Border Patrol agents have felt like they were fighting a losing battle. Under Barack Obama’s “catch and release” directive, up to 80% of those illegals caught trying to enter were let go. Agents said that they felt handcuffed, unable to do their jobs. But now, says Shawn Moran, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, “When Trump was elected, there was an increase in optimism among the agents, but nothing like what we’ve seen in the past few days.”

The DHS, once considered one of the worst places to work within the federal government according to staff surveys, has seen a sizable shift in morale. One Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, after hearing new DHS Secretary John Kelly’s public remarks to reporters on enforcing laws to protect Americans, said that it “re-energized a lot of us because for so long we’ve been vilified for doing our jobs, and here was someone finally standing up for us.”

As Trump said when he spoke last week at DHS headquarters, “Agents haven’t been allowed to do their jobs. That’s going to change.” And indeed, it looks like those at DHS are happy he’s been true to his word



Now We Know: Those 'Spontaneous' Anti-Trump Airport Protests Weren't Spontaneous At All

There was always something fishy about the outbreak of "spontaneous" protests at airports around the country in the immediate wake of President Trump's executive order pausing visas and refugees from terror-prone countries.

But these protests weren't spontaneous at all. They were, in fact, the result of months of careful planning by hard-core left-wing activist groups.

Suebsaeng notes that "professional organizers had been waiting and planning for this type of mass, direct action — ready-made to go viral on social media — even since, well Nov. 9." These professional organizers, he says have been "anticipating and mapping out their battle plans for Trump's orders on deportations, bans, and detention."

Since Trump had made clear that he planned — on day one, in fact — to issue a temporary ban on visas and refugees from terror prone countries, all these groups had to do was wait until he made good on that pledge to spring into action.

Making the protests appear spontaneous gave them a sense of urgency and legitimacy they otherwise wouldn't have had.



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)