Does Woodrow Wilson Belong At Princeton? by Richard A. Epstein

http://www.hoover.org/research/does-woodrow-wilson-belong-princeton

Back in 2008, the Princeton Alumni Weekly published the results of a panel deliberation ranking the university’s most influential alumni. At the top of the list was James Madison (class of 1771) and close behind him, in third place, was Woodrow Wilson (class of 1879), who was Princeton’s president from 1902 to 1910. He left the university to enter politics first as governor of New Jersey between 1911 and 1913 and then as President of the United States from 1913 to 1921. By all accounts, his presidency at Princeton transformed the school from a college for playboys into the serious academic institution that it has become today. He openly urged African Americans to apply and also hired the first Jewish and Roman Catholic faculty members.

It is a sign of the times that there is an active movement at Princeton, led by the students of the Black Justice League, to remove his name from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and from the Wilson House at Princeton. The main charge against Wilson was that he was a racist for overseeing, as President of the United States, the systematic removal of black employees from the federal civil service long after it had been desegregated. He was also a sympathizer of the Klu Klux Klan. His resegregation policy provoked a huge backlash from the NAACP, which had previously endorsed his 1912 presidential campaign given his promises to be “President of the whole nation” and to supply black citizens an “absolute fair dealing.”

Obama Fights to Save Planet That Hasn’t Warmed in Nearly 19 Years By Deroy Murdock

Until world leaders can explain their way past two specific graphs, their gathering in Paris this week to combat so-called global warming might as well launch a War on Leprechauns.

It would be bad enough if President Obama and some 150 other heads of state were pursuing destructive solutions to a legitimate problem. Far worse, they are poised to adopt policies that will slow economic growth, spread poverty, and stymie human progress, all in slavish service to an utterly bogus “problem” of their own imagination. They are like madmen frantically swatting brooms at “bats” that flap their brittle wings solely inside these politicians’ febrile skulls.

Those who push this agenda once hollered about pending doom, thanks to “global warming.” A few years ago, they quietly retired that rhetoric and, instead, began shouting about “climate change.”

Why the jumped-up new slogan? “Global warming” stopped happening, and complaining about it increasingly made them look deranged.

As this graph clearly indicates, scientific observations from weather satellites have reported zero warming in global mean temperatures since February 1997, when readings from recent decades peaked. Simply put, despite the warmists’ high-decibel bluster, there has been no global warming for 18 years and nine months.

A New Breed of American Environmentalists Challenges the Stale Dogma of the Left — Julie Kelly

While world leaders in Paris this month push for sacrifice and austerity to save the planet, one American environmental group is boldly pushing back. A new breed of environmentalists — including many former hard-core greens — is promoting “ecomodernism,” a fresh approach that challenges the dogma of the traditional environmental movement.

Ecomodernists have a more optimistic, capitalistic, and sensible world view than their old-guard counterparts. And if the Paris conference fails to produce results, ecomodernists could represent a new path forward on both environmental and global-growth issues. “Instead of viewing environmental problems as a sign of the coming apocalypse, we instead view them as unintended consequences of development,” says one of the movement’s founders, Michael Shellenberger. “We are not going to solve global warming with all of us trying to live with less.”

Shellenberger is a lifelong liberal activist who once worked for groups such as the Sierra Club and Earthjustice. His environmental cred is stellar: Even as a kid, Shellenberger would cast off paper boats lit with small candles every August to commemorate the Hiroshima bombings. During the anti-nuke 1980s, he was swayed by the documentary The Day After and other films that showed doomsday scenarios about nuclear proliferation. “I was anti-nuclear my whole life.”

Obama’s Special Brand of Climate Doomsaying By Charles C. W. Cooke

In Paris yesterday morning, President Obama suggested rather dramatically that unchecked “climate change” would mean “submerged countries, abandoned cities, and fields that no longer grow.” Almost immediately, social media was set alight by mockery and the rolling of eyes. And with good reason. For decades now, Americans have become accustomed to hearing tales of imminent destruction, and to finding themselves very much alive after that vaunted seventh seal has been opened. Whatever power the environmentalists’ admonitions may once have had over the national psyche, they seem now to be received with a dull disinterest — or, worse, laughter. The Boy Who Cried Wolf was a warning, not an instruction manual. Do our doomsayers know this?

Perhaps they do not. Over the past 15 years or so, the residents of these United States have been subjected to an almost endless stream of hysterical, green-tinged hype. In 2009, we were told by Al Gore that “the entire north-polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.” (It wasn’t, and the disaster date has been recalibrated for the middle of the 21 century.) A year earlier, we were told by ABC that, come June 2015, New York City would be underwater, gas would cost over $9 a gallon, and a carton of milk would set consumers back almost thirteen bucks. (Instead, the price of gas has been cut in half, milk has remained as cheap as ever, and New York has managed just fine.) And a year before that, we were told by the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, that “if there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.” (It’s a claim that his successor is now repeating over and over again in Paris, with different years serving as the point of no return each time, natch.) Oddly enough, nobody seems to have learned anything from these mistakes. As I write, the sillier among America’s progressive commentariat are trying desperately to blame the rise of ISIS on excessive Western carbon emissions. It won’t end well.

How Rubio Could Foil Cruz’s Plot to Unite Conservatives By Tim Alberta

One summer afternoon in 2013, Marco Rubio arrived at Mike Lee’s Senate office for a strategy session on derailing the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Waiting inside were some of the upper chamber’s most conservative members, along with a group of influential activists. It promised to be an awkward pow-wow for the Florida senator, who had spent the 113th Congress authoring and promoting an immigration bill that turned some of his staunchest supporters — including some of those gathered in Lee’s office — into disgruntled opponents. Unperturbed, Rubio flashed a boyish grin and, according to multiple people present, greeted the group with a declaration: “The prodigal son is here.”

He knew he had sinned in their eyes, and that he needed the leaders of the increasingly powerful conservative movement that had championed his insurgent Senate bid to forgive him if he hoped to win their support for an eventual White House run. Yet one person in the room was already working overtime to make sure that wouldn’t happen. Ted Cruz, having copied Rubio’s anti-establishment blueprint to win his own Senate seat in 2012, had since usurped Rubio’s standing as the Tea Party’s favorite senator — in no small part by becoming the most vocal antagonist of the immigration-reform package that had blown up in the Floridian’s face earlier that summer. Both young senators harbored presidential ambitions, and if they ran against each other, Cruz wanted a clear contrast drawn between his brand of uncompromising ideological warfare and Rubio’s more pragmatic conservatism.

The New French “Résistance” by Guy Millière

Some spoke of “resistance,” but to them, resistance meant listening to music. A man on a talk show said he was offering “free hugs.”

A French judge, Marc Trevidic, in charge of all the major Islamic terrorism cases over the last ten years, said a few days before the November attacks in Paris that the situation was “getting worse” and that “radicalized groups” could “carry out attacks resulting in hundreds of deaths.” He was quickly transferred to a court in northern France, where he has been assigned to petty crimes and divorce cases.

France’s political leaders are apparently hoping that people will get used to being attacked and learn to live with terrorism. In the meantime, they are trying to divert the attention of the public with — “climate change!”

The rise of populism is slowly destroying the unelected, unaccountable, and untransparent European Union.

Several weeks have passed since Islamic attacks bloodied Paris. France’s President François Hollande is describing the killers as just “a horde of murderers” acting in the name of a “mad cause.” He adds that “France has no enemy.” He never uses the word “terrorism.” He no longer says the word “war.”

U.S. Prisoner Release Policy: Terrorists Yes, Americans and Human Rights Heroes No by George Phillips

When Carlos Manuel Figuerosa Alvarez climbed over the wall of the U.S. Embassy in Havana, U.S. officials turned him over to Cuban police, who, according to reports,detained him and immediately began to beat him. Did U.S. officials assess if Figuerosa’s safety was in jeopardy? Did they ignore the policy that a Cuban may be eligible for refugee status in the U.S. if they are a human rights activist or former political prisoner?

A recent report by the Director of National Intelligence showed that of those so far released from Guantanamo Bay, 116 have returned to terrorist or insurgent activities and another 69 are suspected of having done so. These figures represent nearly 30% of released detainees.

President Obama pledged, “We are not going to relent until we bring home Americans who are unjustly detained in Iran.” But “we” have relented. If not, what are “we” doing to secure the release of the four Americans unjustly in Iranian prison?

The Obama Administration, to the chagrin of opponents of rogue regimes and terrorism, has made generous deals with the autocratic governments of Cuba and Iran, and seems in the process of making the release of terrorist detainees in Guantanamo Bay a cornerstone of its foreign policy.

Obama in Paris: ‘Mass Shootings Don’t Happen in Other Countries’By Michael Walsh (!!!???)

Yes, he just said that:

While giving a press conference in Paris, President Barack Obama told reporters that the mass shootings that plague the United States just never happen in other countries.

“With respect to Planned Parenthood, obviously, my heart goes out to the families of those impacted,” Obama said in response to a reporter’s question. “I mean, I say this every time we’ve got one of these mass shootings; this just doesn’t happen in other countries.”

For those living under a rock, the city of Paris itself was just hit with a series of simultaneous terrorist attacks. The majority of 130 deaths were in mass shooting attacks, where the ISIS-affiliated terrorists attacked public places with automatic rifles. Nearly one hundred people alone were killed in just one mass shooting at the Bataclan theater.

Earlier this year, Paris was also the victim of a terrorist attack targeting the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. The al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists wielded assault rifles, killing 11 innocent people.

Obama’s ‘Peace’ Strategy. By James Lewis

I haven’t checked lately to see if the oceans are still rising, due to human sinfulness and love of big cars, or whether the waters are finally receding, as per Obama’s instructions seven years ago.

Peace is breaking out all over. In Syria 200,000-300,000 people are dead in a civil war, where Obama supported terrorist gangs like Al Nusra and the “Free Syrian Army.” The U.S. created the “moderate” FSA, and gave it TOW anti-tank missiles, which it used to shoot down that Russian rescue helicopter last week, as it was trying to pick up the downed jet pilot.

The Free Syrian Army now turns out to be a front for the Ikhwan, the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama’s close ally in all his Middle East adventures. Meanwhile, Yemen and Libya have fallen apart. In Nigeria, Boko Haram has actually killed more people than ISIS. BH is still raiding towns to steal African children for the slave markets, without a word of protest from Jesse Jackson or Jeremiah Wright.

Apparently All Black Lives don’t really matter. Not if they are in Africa.

The territory controlled by ISIS now covers the most strategic points in all of Iraq and half of Syria, making up the single biggest would-be state in that region.

‘Tactical Patience,’ ‘Zero Casualties’ and Still no Goal By Shoshana Bryen

The peak of lunacy in the American fight against ISIS may have been reached.

Remember that in October 2013, with ISIS bearing down on a Yazidi city in Syria, Pentagon spokesman Adm. John Kirby told reporters U.S. air power wouldn’t save Kobane, but that there was a “larger strategy” in place. “The primary goal of the campaign is not to save Syrian cities and towns,” U.S. Central Command officials echoed, “but to go after ISIS senior leadership, oil refineries, and other infrastructure that would curb the group’s ability to operate.” Individuals caught in the maelstrom were just unfortunate.

Last week, U.S. forces took out 116 of about 300 ISIS oil tanker trucks headed for Turkey. Not bad? Oh, yes it was – and it explains a lot about the ineffectual “war” we fighting.

Asked by The Washington Examiner why it took 14 months of air warfare to make the first strike on oil tanker trucks, Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman Col. Steve Warren replied that American officials were deeply worried about harming the truck drivers, who were working for the Islamic State but might not be ISIS themselves. U.S. officials settled on a plan to drop leaflets on the trucks about 45 minutes before the raid, warning the drivers that an attack was coming, while U.S. pilots flew low passes over the area. Planning all that took time.