Foreign Policy Wins of 2017

Foreign Policy Wins of 2017
Paul Mirengoff, Powerline

2017 was a very good year for the U.S. economy and for domestic policy in general. But what about foreign policy?

CNN’s Peter Bergen points to three foreign policy wins by President Trump. First on Bergen’s list is the enforcement of the “red line” against the use of chemical weapons in Syria:

On April 4, 2016 [note: this happened in 2017], the Syrian regime used sarin, a nerve gas, against civilian targets in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun, killing more than 80 people. . .Two days after the sarin attack, American warships launched 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian military airfield, the first direct military action that the United States has taken against Assad’s regime. 

Assad hasn’t used chemical weapons against his own people since Trump ordered those cruise missile strikes in April. The enforcement of the important international prohibition against the use of nerve gas is certainly an achievement for the Trump administration.

It stands in marked contrast to President Obama’s humiliating failure to enforce his own “red line” against Assad.

Second on Bergen’s list (it should be first if we’re ranking by importance) is the defeat of ISIS. Bergen correctly gives some of the credit to Obama, who (after a long delay) initiated policies that eventually would have led to victory over ISIS. However, says Bergen, the Trump national security team helped to hasten the defeat of ISIS in two ways.

First, Trump decided to equip the anti-ISIS Syrian Democratic Forces — a largely Kurdish militia — with mortars, anti-tank weapons, armored cars and machine guns. Those forces captured ISIS’s de facto Syrian capital, Raqqa, in October. 

Second, Trump allowed American ground commanders greater latitude to carry out operations in war zones such as Iraq and Syria without consulting higher up the chain of command. Pentagon brass had long chafed at what they considered to be the micromanagement of military operations by the Obama White House.

Bergen says the demise of ISIS brings a measure of stability to Iraq and reduces the scope of the terrorist threat that the group poses. He is right.

Trump has also improved our policy in Afghanistan. This is the third item on Bergen’s list:

In late August Trump announced a plan to bring some modicum of stability to Afghanistan, where the Taliban have asserted more control in the past year or so. In addition to sending a mini-surge of several thousand more troops to the country, Trump made it clear that the US commitment to Afghanistan is long term and “conditions-based.” Trump did not impose any timetable for withdrawing US forces from the country, which was the counterproductive approach that the Obama administration had taken. 

The Afghan government has welcomed this long-term American commitment to Afghanistan.

I see this as a “win” only if Trump’s plan actually improves the situation. However, I agree with Bergen that, at a minimum, Trump’s plan “reduces the possibility that the country could slip back into an anarchic state conducive to groups such as ISIS securing a large presence in the country.” That seemed to be where things were headed under President Obama.

Bergen sees two foreign policy losses for Trump: the rejection of the TPP and the decision to move our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. But whether these are really losses depends on what happens (or doesn’t happen) as a result of the decisions and what one thinks of such consequences.

By contrast, the military defeat of ISIS and Syria’s cessation of the use of chemical weapons are undisputed facts and indisputably good developments. Moreover, the defeat of ISIS is obviously a big deal, while the response to Assad’s chemical attacks will help restore our credibility.

However, Year One of Trump’s foreign policy was dominated not by wins but by “incompletes” e.g., on North Korea, Russia, and post-ISIS Levant. That’s normal for a first year. By this time next year, we’ll know a lot more.

MCCABE REMEMBERS TO FORGET

McCabe REMEMBERS TO FORGET: MCCARTHY’S TAKE

Scott Johnson, Powerline

I’ve been saying for a while that the Trump/Steele Dossier is the Rosetta Stone to the “collusion” hysteria and related “fake news” with which we have been inundated since the 2016 election, all leading to the special counsel investigation engineered by former FBI Director James Comey to remove Trump from office. As I implied in “McCabe remembers to forget,” the dossier is rather obviously the key to the surveillance of the Trump campaign conducted by the Obama administration. Contrary to the New Critical stylings of the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake, the dossier represents the “insurance policy” to which G-Man Peter Strzok referred in his text message to FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

In his weekly NRO column Andrew McCarthy turns directly to the question of the use to which the FBI put the dossier. Near the top of his column he cuts to the chase, as he puts it: “Because of their confidence in Steele, because they were predisposed to believe his scandalous claims about Donald Trump, they made grossly inadequate efforts to verify his claims. Contrary to what I hoped would be the case, I’ve come to believe Steele’s claims were used to obtain FISA surveillance authority for an investigation of Trump.”

Of the many commenters on the issues raised by the dossier, Andrew McCarthy is the one who knows what he is talking about. Attend to his review of the case so far in “Was the Steele dossier the FBI’s ‘insurance policy’?” His column more than repays its length with understanding of the momentous questions at issue here.

Quotable quote: “[W]hile there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded in Russia’s cyberespionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign — and to fuel a pre-election media narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift sanctions if he were elected president.”

Christmas Lessons from California

Christmas Lessons from California

Victor Davis Hanson, National Review

Nature this year is predictably not cooperating with California.  

Rarely has such a naturally rich and scenic region become so mismanaged by so many creative and well-intentioned people. 

In California, Yuletide rush hours are apparently the perfect time for state workers to shut down major freeways to make long-overdue repairs to the ancient pavement. Last week, I saw thousands of cars stuck in a road-construction zone that was juxtaposed with a huge concrete (but only quarter-built) high-speed-rail overpass nearby. 

The multibillion-dollar high-speed-rail project, stalled and way over budget, eventually may be completed in a decade or two. But for now, California needs good old-fashioned roads that don’t disrupt holiday shopping — before it starts futuristic projects it cannot fully fund. 

California’s steep new gasoline tax — one of the highest in the nation — has not even fully kicked in, and yet the cash-strapped state is already complaining that the anticipated additional revenue will be too little.

Now, some officials also want to consider taxing motorists for each mile they drive on the state’s antediluvian roads. 

Nature this year is predictably not cooperating with California. 

In most areas of the Sierra Nevada, the state’s chief source of stored water, there is not a drop of snow on the ground. The High Sierra so far this year looks more like Death Valley than Alpine Switzerland. 

The last two months of California weather were among the driest autumn months on record. Unless 2018 is a miraculously wet year, California will find itself on the cusp of another existential drought. 

Yet California politicians are currently obsessed with the usual race/class/gender agendas, as Sacramento broadcasts that California is a sanctuary state exempt from federal immigration laws. 

Periodically, Governor Jerry Brown, in prophetic Old Testament style, offers rebukes of President Donald Trump, as Brown tours the globe as commander in chief of California.

But meanwhile, in the real (dry) world, did Brown’s state prepare for such a disaster during either its recent four-year dry spell or its near-record wet year in 2016?

Hardly. 

Over some 50 consecutive months of drought, California did not start work on a single major reservoir — though many had long ago been planned and designed. 

Instead, given the lack of water-storage capacity, and due to environmental diversions, tens of millions of acre-feet of precious runoff water last year were simply let out to the ocean. 

This year, the state may want all of that water back. 

Silicon Valley is the state’s signature cash cow, emblematic of progressive-cool culture and tech savvy. 

Yet many streets around high-tech corporate campuses are lined with parked Winnebagos that serve as worker housing compounds. In nearby Redwood City, World War II–era cottages have become virtual hostels. Trailers, tiny garages, and converted patios serve as quasi-apartments. 

California may offer the world a smartphone app for every need, but it cannot ensure affordable shelter for those who help to create the world’s social-media outlets and smartphones. How can so smart be so stupid?

Flights over California’s coastal corridor this autumn offered a scene out of Dante’s Inferno. Fires seemed to engulf entire populated hillsides from Los Angeles and Santa Barbara to Santa Rosa. 

The fires were testament to the fact that a vast majority of blue-state California lives on a thin strip of ecologically sensitive land near the Pacific Ocean. 

The coastal corridor cannot sustain the 30 million or so residents who cluster there without massive water transfers, excellent freeways, and daily rail and truck importation of food, fuel, and construction materials. 

Hidden behind tony homes are tent cities and the open fires of homeless people who camp out in ravines. 

The hillsides are overgrown with drought-stricken scrub and half-dead trees, in part due to restrictions on grazing, brush removal, and logging. They prove to be veritable kindling that fuels raging fires. Coastal California is hilly, difficult to build on, and prone to devastating earthquakes. It is semi-arid, without much of an aquifer. The life-giving watershed of the Sierra Nevada is more than 200 miles away. 

In other words, some of the people most eager to offer green sermons to others live in one of the most artificial and ecologically fragile environments on the planet.

What are the lessons for the nation from these random glimpses of 21st-century California? 

Fix premodern problems before dreaming about postmodern solutions. Loudly virtue-signaling about addressing misdemeanors does not excuse quietly ignoring felonies. 

Learn how an entire culture is fed, housed, and fueled before faulting those who address such needs. Adopt a little humility in admitting that most of the state is an artificial construct of affluent millions living in a delicate ecosystem where nature never intended them to cluster — impossible without constant multibillion-dollar investments in water, agriculture, housing, and transportation. 

Remember that voting progressively in the abstract does not automatically translate into living progressively in the concrete.

How Obama Appeased Iran by Turning a Blind Eye to Hezbollah’s Crimes

Ah, Chicago, gotta love it!

How Obama Appeased Iran by Turning a Blind Eye to Hezbollah’s Crimes

David French, National Review

A new report shows that in its efforts to reach a nuclear deal with Tehran, the administration went so far as to stop the DEA from cracking down on Hezbollah drug-running. 

Over the weekend Politico’s Josh Meyer published a blockbuster report that can’t be allowed to disappear into the void of the holiday season. In painstaking detail, it documents claims that the Obama administration crippled Drug Enforcement Administration operations against Hezbollah as part of its effort to reach a nuclear deal with the Iranian regime. 

Why would the DEA, of all agencies, target an international terrorist organization? It turns out that Hezbollah had become a major player in international cocaine trafficking and was using proceeds from its drug-running and arms-dealing to finance — among other things — the purchase of explosively formed penetrators (EFP’s), the deadliest IEDs used against American soldiers in Iraq. 

Hezbollah had transformed itself into an “international crime syndicate that some investigators believed was collecting $1 billion a year.” The DEA’s “Project Cassandra” was designed to disrupt this syndicate. And just as the operation began reaching into the highest echelons of one of the world’s worst terrorist organizations, the Obama administration started to shut it down: 

The Justice Department declined requests by Project Cassandra and other authorities to file criminal charges against major players such as Hezbollah’s high-profile envoy to Iran, a Lebanese bank that allegedly laundered billions in alleged drug profits, and a central player in a U.S.-based cell of the Iranian paramilitary Quds force. And the State Department rejected requests to lure high-value targets to countries where they could be arrested. 

Twitter has Begun the Process of 'Purging' Accounts 00:00 01:02 Powered by Some former Obama administration officials justified these actions on the basis that the DEA may have interfered with more important anti-terror operations conducted by other intelligence organizations. As one former official put it, the administration couldn’t let the CIA, the DEA, or any other agency “rule the roost.” But other sources confirmed that the administration in fact hindered the DEA for the sake of the Iran deal. For example, former Obama Treasury Department official Katherine Bauer testified to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs that “under the Obama administration . . . these [Hezbollah-related] investigations were tamped down for fear of rocking the boat with Iran and jeopardizing the nuclear deal.” 

The consequences were deadly. In the most personally painful part of the Politico piece, Meyer details Hezbollah’s role in funding EFPs that “were ripping M1 Abrams tanks in half.” I remember the power of these weapons quite well. A smaller version of an EFP was used to kill men that I knew in Iraq. The mere threat of EFPs at one point shut down all ground supply routes into our base near the Iranian border. It’s a strange feeling indeed to ride down Iraqi roads knowing that there’s a weapon out there that would render all the armor surrounding you virtually irrelevant. EFPs killed hundreds of American soldiers, and they were supplied by the Iranian government and its Hezbollah allies. 

But never mind. The Iran deal had to get done. The deal, at least in the Obama administration’s fantasyland, wasn’t just a nuclear deal. It was a step toward hopefully normalizing relations with Iran, bringing the Islamic Republic back into the community of nations. It was a legacy play, and it depended on a complete misunderstanding of the nature of our enemy. 

When Obama pulled back, our enemies surged. When he gave them an inch, they took a mile. You see, the Obama administration was in many ways captive to the “legitimate grievances” theory of jihad. This theory, outlined most famously in Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech, holds that jihad’s appeal is rooted at least in part in identifiable American and western abuses of the Islamic world. It was the root of the Obama administration’s deluded efforts to initiate a “new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world.” The administration would act to address credible Islamic grievances, and that action would and should trigger a good-faith response that would bring us closer to peace. 

It all seems so quaint now. When Obama pulled back, our enemies surged. When he gave them an inch, they took a mile. There was no good-faith response, only the gleeful exploitation of newfound strategic advantage. When Obama finally re-engaged, American force was able to stop our enemies’ advance. But by then, the damage was done, and we’re still learning the extent of it today. We already knew that Obama gave Iran piles of cash, prisoners, an immense economic stimulus, and access to international arms markets in exchange for signing the nuclear deal. We now know — thanks to Politico — that the administration’s mercies extended even to Iran’s vicious terrorist allies. 

And for what? Obama’s defenders cling to the hope that Iran’s nuclear program has been delayed (a hope that relies a great deal on trusting Iran, which has never proven wise in the past), but in the meantime we’ve merely strengthened our enemy. We’ve addressed those “legitimate grievances,” and Iran has taken our gifts and our goodwill and thrown them right back in our face. Iran and Hezbollah — with Russia’s help — have nearly completed their genocidal reconquest of Syria’s most populated regions. In Iraq, an Iranian general played a key role in the seizure of Kirkuk from our Kurdish allies. Iran hasn’t retreated one inch from its anti-Americanism or its commitment to international jihad. It’s even sending aid (including senior commandos) to the Taliban in Afghanistan. 

Three years ago, I wrote an extended piece arguing that Obama was idealistic about our enemies. He didn’t understand the depth of their hate. He fell for ridiculous academic theories about American culpability in the rise of jihadist violence. Little did we know how far the ideological rot went. Obama administration mistakes empowered the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, relieving the pressure on the violent, extremist forces it pays for. These mistakes must be known. They must be remembered. And they must never, ever be repeated. America’s jihadist enemies cannot be appeased. 

GOP Senators Unanimous in Support for TAX Bill

GOP Senators Unanimous in Support for TAX Bill

Paul Mirengoff, Powerline

So reports Jibran Khan at NRO’s Corner. Senators Rubio and Scott have fallen into line, having secured an increase in the child tax credit refund. No surprise there.

But here’s a surprise, at least to me. Senator Corker says he will vote for the bill, notwithstanding his concern that it will increase the deficit. He opposed the version initially passed by the Senate due to that concern. 

Corker called the new version “imperfect,” but explained that it presents a “once in a lifetime opportunity to make U.S. businesses domestically more productive and internationally more competitive.” He added that he believes the bill, in conjunction with regulatory changes that are underway and, hopefully, pro-growth trade and immigration policies, will help offset problems on the deficit side and “drive additional foreign direct investment in Tennessee.” Thus, he concludes that, on balance, the nation is better off with the bill than without it.

The reference to pro-growth trade and immigration policies is a shot at the president, but Trump shouldn’t mind. Assuming that no one changes his or her mind, the GOP has the votes to pass the bill even if both Sen. McCain and Sen. Cochran are unable to vote due to medical issues.

Al's Joke Book...

Al's Joke Book...

You can't make this stuff up... this is a real book by one of the true idiots.

 Even among his Capital buds, he's seen as a useful idiot and from those that have to work under him as an intolerable, rude and caustic bore.

I can't help but feel that the book cover was a billboard for Saturday Night Live... some Stuart Smiley take-off. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from friends and foe at seeing this book?

Two things I will always remember about Stuart... 

(well, not counting his groping)

First, when he was heading up John Kerry's kickoff Central Park campaign for President he started a rousing five minute chant of, "F__k George Bush, F__k George Bush, F__k George Bush..."  Great way to start.

Second, in Al's first US Senate election in Minnesota he was losing by a couple hundred votes... at the extreme last minute, a car was found in a snow-covered parking lot with 400 votes all for Al in the trunk... amazing, huh?

Now, can we bury the memory of this horrible human being?

FBI STONEWALLS CORRUPTION PROBE
John Hinderaker, Powerline

The Obama administration corrupted everything it touched, including the FBI. A scandal is brewing, and the FBI, predictably, is responding with the Obama playbook: it is stonewalling. Byron York has the story:

House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes has issued an angry demand to the FBI and Department of Justice to explain why they kept the committee in the dark over the reason Special Counsel Robert Mueller kicked a key supervising FBI agent off the Trump-Russia investigation.

Stories in both the Washington Post and New York Times on Saturday reported that Peter Strzok, who played a key role in the original FBI investigation into the Trump-Russia matter, and then a key role in Mueller’s investigation, and who earlier had played an equally critical role in the FBI’s Hillary Clinton email investigation, was reassigned out of the Mueller office because of anti-Trump texts he exchanged with a top FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was having an extramarital affair.

I think everyone understands that Mueller’s investigation is a politically-motivated farce, but confirmation of the fact would no doubt embarrass the Democrats. Hence the FBI’s effort to hush up the Strzok scandal.

The Post reported that Strzok and Page exchanged text messages that “expressed anti-Trump sentiments and other comments that appeared to favor Clinton.”

Word of the messages and the affair were news to Nunes, even though the committee had issued a subpoena that covered information about Strzok’s demotion more than three months ago.

Anyone who expects the FBI to respond honestly to Congressional subpoenas hasn’t been paying attention.

“By hiding from Congress, and from the American people, documented political bias by a key FBI head investigator for both the Russia collusion probe and the Clinton email investigation, the FBI and DOJ engaged in a willful attempt to thwart Congress’ constitutional oversight responsibility,” Nunes said in a statement Saturday afternoon. “This is part of a months-long pattern by the DOJ and FBI of stonewalling and obstructing this committee’s oversight work, particularly oversight of their use of the Steele dossier. At this point, these agencies should be investigating themselves.”

The FBI, thoroughly politicized under the leadership of Robert Mueller and James Comey, has lost the confidence of the American people. I have recommended that President Trump appoint a special prosecutor to look into the conduct of Mueller and Comey, among others, in the Uranium One matter. The Strzok scandal suggests that the inquiry should be framed more broadly.

One thing I don’t understand, however. Why doesn’t President Trump simply appoint a strong conservative with an undoubted commitment to the rule of law–like, say, Jeff Sessions–Attorney General? If we had someone like Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, he could simply order the FBI to respond completely and promptly to Congressional subpoenas, and fire anyone who fails to follow that directive.

How to Become a Millionaire with $20?

How to Become a Millionaire with $20?

Col Mike Walker, USMC ret

All,

How to Become a Millionaire with $20?

The answer is easy: Go to Venezuela where $1 = 84,000 "fuerte" bolivars.

Thus $20 = 1,680,000 fuerte bolivars.

By the way...

(1) "Fuerte" means "strong," if you can believe that.

(2) Shortly after socialist Hugo Chavez took power in 2003, the exchange rate was about $1 = 1.6 fuerte bolivars.

SOCIALISM SUCKS!

The Folly of Youth

The Folly of Youth

Mike Walker, Col USMC-ret

All,

Just reflecting on the excesses of youth as it applies to me. Consider these three facts:

(1) James Taylor wrote a classic but disparaging hit in 1972 titled "Old Man." He was 24 then and 67 now. How the worm turns.

(2) Even better, Peter Townsend of The Who wrote "My Generation" where he famously shouted: "I hope I die before I grow old." It was released in 1965 when Townsend was barely 20. 

He is now 72. Is the new verse: "I hope to live to be very very old"?

(3) Those sentiments were reflected in the famous line, "Do not trust anyone over 30" uttered by Jack Weinberg in 1964 who was ... 

wait for it...

a key leader of the FREE SPEECH MOVEMENT at UC Berkeley. He is now 77.

So who do we trust now?

Go figure!

Mike

THE PROPHET OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

An appendum is added by Mike Walker at the end....

THE PROPHET OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

John Hindracker, Powerline

In the late 1960s, Yale Law School adopted a quota system for African-American applicants. Putting aside its normal criteria for admission, Yale decided that future law school classes would be 10% black, regardless of qualifications. Other law schools and academic institutions did the same thing at around the same time.

On June 9, 1969, California appellate judge Macklin Fleming, a Yale Law graduate, wrote a letter to Dean Louis Pollak questioning the wisdom of the new quota system. Reading the letter nearly 50 years later, one can only marvel at how prescient Judge Fleming was. I recommend the whole thing. Here are some excerpts:

From your remarks and those of Dean Poor, I understand that 43 black students have been admitted to next fall’s class, of whom 5 qualified under the regular standards and 38 did not. … You also said that the future policy of the Law School will be to admit 10 per cent of each entering class without regard to qualification under regular standards.
***
With the adoption of its new admission policy the Law School has taken a long step toward the practice of apartheid and the maintenance of two law schools under one roof. Already there has been established in the Law School building a Black Law Students Union lounge with furniture and law books provided by the school. And I learned from Dean Poor that the 12 black students in the present first year class who were admitted under relaxed standards have not done well academically. Dean Poor attributed this deficiency to the pre-occupation of these students with racial activities. I think it equally logical to attribute their preoccupation with racial activities to their lack of qualification to compete on even terms in the study of law.
***
The immediate damage to the standards of Yale Law School needs no elaboration. But beyond this, it seems to me the admission policy adopted by the Law School faculty will serve to perpetuate the very ideas and prejudices it is designed to combat. If in a given class the great majority of the black students are at the bottom of the class, this factor is bound to instill, unconsciously at least, some sense of intellectual superiority among the white students and some sense of intellectual inferiority among the black students.

Judge Fleming foresaw with remarkable clarity how affirmative action would give rise to the political activism we see today:

No one can be expected to accept an inferior status willingly. The black students, unable to compete on even terms in the study of law, inevitably will seek other means to achieve recognition and self-expression. This is likely to take two forms. First, agitation to change the environment from one in which they are unable to compete to one in which they can. Demands will be made for elimination of competition, reduction in standards of performance, adoption of courses of study which do not require intensive legal analysis, and recognition for academic credit of sociological activities which have only an indirect relationship to legal training. 

Second, it seems probable that this group will seek personal satisfaction and public recognition by aggressive conduct, which, although ostensibly directed at external injustices and problems, will in fact be primarily motivated by the psychological needs of the members of the group to overcome feelings of inferiority caused by lack of success in their studies. Since the common denominator of the group of students with lower qualifications is one of race this aggressive expression will undoubtedly take the form of racial demands–the employment of faculty on the basis of race, a marking system based on race, the establishment of a black curriculum and a black law journal, an increase in black financial aid, and a rule against expulsion of black students who fail to satisfy minimum academic standards.

Judge Fleming went on to articulate and rebut the various rationales for race discrimination in admissions. This paragraph is a relic of a better time:

The American creed, one that Yale has proudly espoused, holds that an American should be judged as an individual and not as a member of a group. To me it seems axiomatic that a system which ignores this creed and introduces the factor of race in the selection of students for a professional school is inherently malignant, no matter how high-minded the purpose nor how benign the motives of those making the selection.

Fleming also pointed out that discrimination in favor of one group necessarily means discrimination against others:

A quota policy particularly discriminates against minority groups which have achieved disproportionate representation in a particular field. Such a policy discriminated severely against Jewish applicants for admission to medical schools in the 1930’s. That policy was undoubtedly justified by its supporters as one designed to preserve a proportion of gentile students in medical schools equivalent to their proportion in the general population. Currently, the orientals in California, roughly 1 per cent of the population, comprise in some instances 30 per cent of the enrollment in certain engineering and technical schools. Were a quota system to be introduced in those schools in order to favor black and Mexican-American applicants, the first losers would be applicants from the presently disproportionately represented oriental group.

Which is, of course, a phenomenon that we see everywhere today.

Judge Fleming died in 2010, which means that he lived long enough to see his predictions vindicated. But to be right is not necessarily to be heeded. Just ask Cassandra.

Dean Pollak replied cordially to Judge Fleming’s letter. You can read his response, which defends race discrimination in law school admissions, at the link. Pollak’s letter strikes me as less than candid. I was struck by this passage:

[T]he considerations which have led the faculty to enlarge its readiness to accept academically under-prepared applicants of high promise are not confined to blacks or other disadvantaged racial minorities; these same considerations, the committee has observed, argue for greater solicitude with respect to, e.g., white applicants from Appalachia or the rural south. The point is one which will, I am confident, not be lost sight of….

This prediction, unlike Judge Fleming’s, did not prove to be prescient.

Bruce,

During graduate studies at Harvard there was a major report that showed that affirmative action by universities were having problems.

(1) underprepared minority students were failing at higher rates, i.e. there was not a significant increase in either number of students graduating.

(2) the net effect was an increase in the number of Black students who graduated from top universities but no a net increase in the total number graduates.

What was needed was to increase the number of qualified Black students graduating from high school.

The conclusion was that that college/university-level affirmative action was NOT the solution.The solution was to improve the K-12 education for Black students.

Mike

The Evil that is Antifa

The Evil that is Antifa

Mike Walker, Col USMC (ret)

Four points to consider:

1. Antifa is a radical and violent Marxist-Leninist group. 

The name comes from the period between the two world wars when the two most evil political ideologies in human history vied to enslave and murder millions of innocents.

In Germany, where the name originates, it was a deadly battle between nationalist socialism/fascism and communism. The fate of the German nation had devolved into a vile struggle between Hitler’s nationalist socialist (nazi) storm troopers and the communist party’s anti-fascist action [Antifaschistische Aktion or Antifa].

2. We remember the horrors of nationalist socialism -- that is good, but the evils of Marxism-Leninism have been ignored -- that is wrong. 

Let us set the record straight:

Hitler’s fascists killed millions. Stalin’s communists killed millions. They share the guilt for starting the Second World War that led to the destruction of vast swaths of the Europe and the deaths of millions more. Determining which radical socialist dictator gets what share of that bloodbath is a hopelessly dismal study into unimaginable atrocity.

Suffice it to say that Marxism-Leninism and nationalist socialism/fascism have insatiable blood appetites.

Perhaps as a greater shock to the senses, Mao’s Marxist-Leninist state killed more innocents than both Hitler and Stalin combined.

And finally, let us add that when the communists took power in East Germany after the nazis, the fascist gestapo headquarters in Berlin – with its execution rooms and torture chambers – was taken over by the communist secret police.

Similarly, at the SS concentration camp at Buchenwald (renamed “special camp no. 2"), the communists replaced the nazis and thousand more died at that death center.

3. That is the legacy of Antifa: Unflinching support for Marxist-Leninist driven slaughter of almost countless innocent men, women and children of nearly every race, religion and ethnicity on the planet.

4. Supporting or turning a blind eye to the evil that is Antifa is beyond being disgusting or immoral or unethical. It is, at its root, an act of depravity and cruelty and an obscenity to humanity.

EXPLAINING THE LIBERAL CESSPOOL

EXPLAINING THE LIBERAL CESSPOOL
Steven Hayward, Powerline

Why is it, Glenn Reynolds likes to ask, that liberal-run cities and institutions all seem to be hotbeds of sexism and racism? To adapt this slightly, maybe there’s a reason the left is so obsessed with sexual harassment and racism, because it is practiced so much in their communities and institutions.

These thoughts come to mind in looking over the peculiar Cosmopolitan magazine (yes, Power Line’s research staff reads Cosmo so that you don’t have to) interview with actress Amber Tamblyn, in which she makes the startling claim that the Harvey Weinstein scandal would likely never have come to light if Hillary Clinton had won the election.

Let that claim sit there and sink in for a moment.

Here’s how Tamblyn actually puts the argument:

Honestly, I trace everything back to the election of Donald Trump. I think that without him being elected, if it had been Hillary Clinton, this would’ve never happened to Harvey Weinstein. I feel like the election of Donald Trump was a singular pointed message at women telling us that our lives don’t matter, and that our safety doesn’t matter, and that our physical health doesn’t matter, our reproductive rights don’t matter, that our gender just doesn’t matter, and that we are somehow owned by the country. I think within that one move, it was a giant gesture, and Donald Trump symbolizes, for most women—not all of them—he symbolizes and epitomizes everything that is deeply wrong with masculinity and with the objectification of women. And so within that single vote, it sort of was like a switch was flipped on and every woman just went, I’m done. It’s as simple as that: I’m done.

Tamblyn is trying to give the matter a left-wing spin, suggesting that Trump’s infamous Access Hollywood tape and its aftermath was a tipping point that launched p—y hats and a thousand wymyn’s marches.

But slow down a moment: why would Weinstein—and the culture of sexual harassment apparently widespread in Democrat-run institutions (like the California state legislature, according to the New York Times this morning)—have remained unchallenged if Hillary was in the White House? Probably for the same reason that Bill Clinton got a pass for his relentless behavior 20 years ago: power is the most important thing to liberals. And if the dignity and safety of a few women have to be sacrificed, well, broken omelets and all that. After all, as we now know, everyone knew about Weinstein. But did nothing about it. And according to Tamblyn, still wouldn’t today if their person was in power.

Feminists like to say that “conservatives don’t get it” about sexual harassment. Hypothesis: maybe that’s because conservative-leaning people generally don’t harass women like liberals do. (As someone somewhere asked recently: where would you like your daughter to intern: Vice President Mike Pence’s office, or the Weinstein Company?) Maybe the left complains about “objectifying women” because it is routine behavior for leftists.

MARK STEYN FULL ONE-ON-ONE WITH TUCKER

Bannon Speech Surprises, Heads Up!

Jon Fleischman
Executive Director, CA Republican Party (1999-2001)
Vice Chairman, South - CA Republican Party (2007-2011)
Dear Bob Dunn,
Below is a column I penned yesterday for Breitbart:

Bannon Speech Surprises,
Delights Typically Moderate California Republican Party
By Jon Fleischman

Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon's address at the California Republican Party convention on Friday in Anaheim was remarkable - not just for its content, but for the reaction it elicited from the audience.

"Steve Bannon's speech was the one that really fired up this convention," said State Senator Joel Anderson (R-Alpine).  "It's easy as a California Republican to lose heart when you consider the kind of policy-making coming out of Sacramento. Bannon was able to remind people that, nationally, we are making great strides and gave everyone here a reason to work harder than ever."

California Republicans are often seen nowadays as a moderate bunch. But the party faithful warmed quickly to Bannon's message of challenging the Washington establishment.

In fact, Bannon's address caused more buzz at the convention than did speeches from more traditional conservative figures - House Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, and Fox News show host Judge Jeanine Pirro.

Stepping out from behind the podium, comfortably walking about the stage, Bannon gave a forty-minute-long extemporaneous speech covering a myriad of issues that began with effusive praise of President Donald Trump. He continued by emphasizing the importance of winning and how victories beget victories, and about the great challenge ahead in taking on the "corporatists, lobbyists, consultants, and the politicians they control."

Bannon's speech was equal parts praise for President Trump and his policies; a call to action against the GOP establishment; a strong critique of former President George W. Bush and U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ)'s recent speeches against Trump; and words of strong encouragement for the activists in the audience.

Sen. Cotton, a favorite of conservatives, hammered the Democrats who run California's government for making California a "sanctuary state" for those here in violation of federal immigration laws. He also focused on the massive gas tax recently passed by Democrats in Sacramento. "If you live in West L.A. or San Francisco and you have the money to afford a Tesla, maybe you'll be OK," Cotton told delegates.  "What about the farmer in the Central Valley who has a pickup truck and needs to fill it up three times a week?"

Rep. McCarthy also praised President Trump - and also, like Cotton, blasted Democrats in Sacramento for their left-wing, progressive agenda. McCarthy also admonished those Republicans in the state legislature who have recently been voting with Democrats, warning that they will not win a majority by being Democrat-light.

While there was a lot of enthusiasm among the delegates present, the road ahead for California Republicans looks rocky. Delegates did pass a change in party rules that allows the party to endorse primary candidates at their next convention, ostensibly to ensure at least one candidate survives the "jungle" primary.  However, the next scheduled convention is in early May, long after candidate filing is closed and ballots are printed.  In 2016 two Democrats - then-Attorney General Kamala Harris and then-U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez - made the runoff for U.S. Senate, with no Republican on the general election ballot. There is a legitimate concern that this will happen again with the Governor's race and U.S. Senate race in 2018.

Moreover, Democrats nationally are targeting about a half-dozen GOP-held House seats in California that voted for Hillary Clinton in the presidential election.

In a somewhat controversial move, convention delegates approved a change in the party's rules allowing for the party to set up a special account from which to pay the chairman an unspecified salary. Nothing was in that change to the rules that would require any disclosure about what persons or companies are making contributions into that special fund. Up until this point the chairmanship has always been a volunteer-held position.

This column originally appeared on Breitbart.com/California
Please feel free to share on social media.

Personally, I like that position to be a paid one. Let it be someone's day job, no half efforts. We are only giving partial service without a dedicated and professional team... BH