Displaying posts published in

March 2019

On Climate, the Kids Are All Wrong And a band of ignorant brats shall lead them: Some things have hardly changed since 1212. By Paul H. Tice

https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-climate-the-kids-are-all-wrong-11552430379

In the summer of 1212, thousands of divinely inspired young people from across Catholic France and Germany took off to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims. None made it to the Holy Land. Many died along the way or were sold into slavery. As military campaigns go, the Children’s Crusade was a disaster. Yet environmental activists and politicians are adopting the same “a child shall lead them” strategy to push their climate change agenda and its latest incarnation, the Green New Deal.

Youth-oriented climate groups have proliferated in the past few years, helped by logistical support from the United Nations. With earnest names such as iMatter Youth Movement, Zero Hour and Youth vs. Apocalypse, these outfits publicly lecture world leaders and march for the cause. This Friday has been designated “a global day of action” on which thousands of students world-wide are expected to strike—otherwise known as cutting class.

A few of these youth groups are highly litigious, bringing lawsuits on the novel theory of “intergenerational equity.” Most cases have been dismissed, although some continue to work their way through the courts, including Juliana v. U.S., filed in 2015 by Our Children’s Trust.

The bigger scandal in college admissions is what is legalBy Thomas Lifson

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/the_bigger_scandal_in_college_admissions_is_what_is_legal.html

Alleged fraud marks the explosive indictments relating to college admissions practices revealed yesterday, but a much bigger scandal consists of all the legal ways ruling class privilege replicates itself through the vehicle of higher education.

I am grateful to the U.S. attorneys who pressed ahead with their investigation of the alleged criminal acts underlying the college admissions scandal rocking higher education today. And I await further indictments that apparently will be forthcoming. But I know that the people who got caught, including those whose indictments may come later, are the tip of the iceberg (in Alan Dershowitz’s phrase) and were foolish in committing actual crimes, when completely legal ways of accomplishing the same ends are so widely available.

Both U.S. attorney Andrew Lelling and Alan Dershowitz, the emeritus professor of law who spent half a century at Harvard Law School, acknowledged yesterday that those with enough money to donate a building can perfectly legally gain preferential entrance to elite higher education for their kids.

Appearing Fox News yesterday, Dershowitz explained:

Manafort Sentencing, Round 2 By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/paul-manafort-sentencing-washington-dc-federal-court/

The 47 months from a Virginia court was a side show. Today’s sentencing is the main event.C ritics who last week blasted the light 47-month sentence imposed on Paul Manafort by Judge T. S. Ellis of the federal district court in Alexandria, Va., may lack familiarity with both the federal sentencing guidelines and the peculiarities of Manafort’s case. As I observed in my weekend column, he is going to get slammed when he gets sentenced today by Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the federal district court in Washington, D.C.

I am not telling you this based on some crystal ball I’ve been hiding. You just need to read Manafort’s plea agreement in the Washington case.

Manafort should have had only one case, not two. Even though the charges are different, the two cases were based on the same fact pattern, and they have always been two parts of the same whole. Manafort was tried twice instead of once, strictly because of his own choice.

Prosecutors would have preferred to file the whole case in Washington. But the case involved some counts (the tax counts, in particular) as to which Manafort was entitled to be tried in the venue of the offense — in Virginia, where he resided. Defending oneself in a trial is prohibitively expensive for those who have means to hire their own counsel; and trials are emotionally wrenching for an accused and his family. So most defendants waive venue objections; that allows all the counts to be tried once, in one district. But Manafort calculated that Virginia would be a friendlier place for him than Washington: He hoped to beat the case there, and maybe gain some momentum that might miraculously help him in Washington — or at least improve his argument for a pardon. He was largely wrong — convicted on all the counts the Virginia jury decided, and the hung jury on the other charges meant he could be tried again if the special counsel chose to do so. Consequently, Manafort pled guilty in the Washington case because it made no sense to fight on.

Judge Ellis may be sympathetic to Manafort, and he may have been trying to convey a signal, by the light sentence, that he thought the prosecution was overkill (i.e., that no matter how serious Manafort’s offenses are, he would never have been prosecuted if he had not gotten involved in Donald Trump’s campaign). But the Virginia sentencing exercise was theater. No matter what Ellis did, Manafort was going to be sentenced to heavy time in Washington.

In his Washington plea agreement, Manafort and his counsel agreed that his sentencing-guidelines range, at a minimum, calls for 210 to 262 months’ imprisonment (roughly 18 to 22 years). I say “at a minimum” because the agreement’s guidelines calculation includes a caveat that Manafort’s downward adjustment (2 “offense level” points) for accepting responsibility by pleading guilty could be withdrawn if Mueller’s office presses the contention that Manafort proceeded, post-plea, to lie in his failed cooperation attempt. If he is at offense level 39 instead of the currently projected 37, Manafort’s sentencing range spikes up to 262 to 327 months (roughly 22 to 27 years).

The Celebrity College Admissions Scheme Hurt Good Kids The Most Every spot taken by a cheater is a spot that is denied to someone who played by the rules and did the honest work. By Angela Morabito

http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/13/celebrity-college-admissions-scheme-hurt-good-kids/

This month, millions of high school seniors will open emails and envelopes to find out if they were accepted to the colleges of their choice. Thanks to Felicity Huffman, Lori Loughlin, and others who allegedly participated in admissions fraud, these college seniors will all wonder if they truly got a fair hearing before the admissions board.

Huffman, Loughlin, and dozens of others are accused of knowingly paying tens of thousands of dollars to a sham charity run by William Rick Singer, who then apparently used the money to bribe admissions test administrators and college sports coaches. The fraud involved bribing test proctors to “help” specific students or having someone else take the SAT in a student’s place, as well as pasting the faces of these kids onto photos of people playing sports. According to U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling, Singer’s sham foundation received $25 million to get the children of wealthy parents into schools like Stanford, Georgetown, Yale, the University of Southern California, and the University of Texas.

Traditionally, wealthy parents have had two options for using money to boost their kids’ chance of admission at elite schools. The first is slapping their last name across a university building for a hefty donation with unwritten expectations attached. This route is only open to families with hundreds of thousands of dollars to spare. A hefty donation benefits the college and ideally allows the school to devote more resources to helping students, but it doesn’t make the donor’s child more qualified than other students in the applicant pool.The other method is far more accessible, and entirely ethical: Pay for private tutoring, intense sports training, or coaching in some other extracurricular activity. This method benefits the kid, because it’s geared toward expanding his or her abilities.

Schiff says impeachment still possible even if Russia probe clears Trump By Caitlin Oprysco

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/13/schiff-trump-impeachment-russia-probe-1219471

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff said Wednesday that even if a report from special counsel Robert Mueller exonerates President Donald Trump, impeachment talk might remain on the table.

Schiff (D-Calif.), whose committee is still investigating the president’s ties to Russia during to the 2016 presidential election, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that if neither Mueller nor his panel find definitive evidence of collusion or obstruction of justice by Trump, he would consider that to be the end of the collusion inquiry, the most likely grounds for impeachment.

Still, he said, “there may be grounds for removal of office or there may be grounds for indictment after he leaves office that the Congress discovers.”

He pointed out that Mueller’s narrow mandate may have precluded the special counsel from investigating “whether the Russians were laundering money for the Trump Organization,” something Schiff said his committee is looking into.

“Our predominant concern on my committee is: Was this president, is this president compromised by a foreign power?” the California Democrat said.

Lisa Page admitted Obama DOJ ordered stand-down on Clinton email prosecution, GOP rep says

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-fbi-lawyer-lisa-page-admitted-obama-doj-ordered-stand-down-on-clinton-email-prosecution-gop-rep-says

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page admitted under questioning from Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe last summer that “the FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider charging Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information,” the congressman alleged in a social media post late Tuesday, citing a newly unearthed transcript of Page’s closed-door testimony.

Page and since-fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, who were romantically involved, exchanged numerous anti-Trump text messages in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, and Republicans have long accused the bureau of political bias. But Page’s testimony was perhaps the most salient evidence yet that the Justice Department improperly interfered with the FBI’s supposedly independent conclusions on Clinton’s criminal culpability, Ratcliffe alleged.

“So let me if I can, I know I’m testing your memory,” Ratcliffe began as he questioned Page under oath, according to a transcript excerpt he posted on Twitter. “But when you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to —”

Antisemitism on Parade–Everything Old is New Again By Joan Swirsky

https://canadafreepress.com/members/1/JoanSwirsky/130

”…the Democrats have become an anti-Israel party. They’ve become an anti-Jewish party.” —President Donald J. Trump”…the chickens of the Democratic Party are coming home to roost…maybe then they will also realize that anti-Semitism, like most cancers, is fatal unless it’s removed.” —Michael Goodwin, NY Post

Most people thought antisemitism had been relegated to the trash bin of history after Hitler and millions of his willing German-Polish-Austrian-French-Swiss-Belgium executioners—with savage premeditation—murdered six-million Jews in the 1930s and ‘40s, and the world—significantly after the fact—seemed to wake up to the psychotic, irrational, obsessed nature of Jew hatred.

But today, less than 75 years after the founding of Israel, Jew hatred has emerged from the cesspool in which it festers. The maniacal obsession with Jews is on the rise, not only throughout the Middle East and Europe—France, England, Germany, Ireland, Scandinavia, Belgium, et al—but it is also contaminating America the Beautiful!

Boeing misstep a strategic opportunity for US President Trump should use the full power of his office to hold Boeing accountable and stand up to industry corruption. David Goldman

https://www.asiatimes.com/

I didn’t say that Boeing is arrogant. I said they have their noses in the air.Jokes aside, l’Affaire Boeing is a watershed. President Trump is under pressure to circle the wagons around one of America’s flagship industrial companies, among other reasons because China will exploit the crisis to promote its new entry into the civil aircraft market. He should ignore the legions of industry lobbyists and their Hallelujah chorus at the Pentagon, and take the opportunity to clean out the swamp in America’s military industry.By now the whole world knows what pilots and aerospace engineers have known all along: Boeing stuck big modern engines on a 1950s airframe design, which made the 737 Max inherently unstable, with a tendency to go nose up and stall. It used a software kluge to compensate but didn’t retrain pilots in the new aircraft in order to speed sales.

What culpability the company bears is a matter for the lawyers to sort out. Norwegian Air won’t be the last airline to demand compensation from Boeing for lost revenues while the 737 Max fleet is grounded.The 737 Max scandal is a disaster for the United States, and it couldn’t have happened at a more delicate moment. China’s aircraft manufacturer COMAC already has nearly 1,000 orders for its C919 twin-engine passenger jet, designed to compete with the 737 Max as well as the Airbus 320. Not only has the prestige of American industry been tarnished, but the credibility of its air safety regulators, the Federal Aviation Authority and the National Transportation Safety Board, is compromised.President Trump should remember Winston Churchill’s advice never to waste a crisis, and use the full power of his office to hold Boeing accountable for cutting corners and withholding key information. That’s the right thing to do as a matter of sheer political expediency – Americans want their leaders to stand up to industry corruption – but it’s also a strategic opportunity.

Rep. Omar and anti-Semitic distractions By Lawrence J. Haas

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/433633-rep-omar-and-anti-semitic-distractions

Imagine that a new member of Congress denounces Muslims as terrorists and suggests they’re more loyal to their faith than to America.Then imagine that a cross-section of politicians, pundits, and Muslim leaders denounce the ugly sentiments but also stress that Islamic-driven terrorism is a legitimate issue of debate; that the Islamic Republic of Iran is the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism; that Saudi Wahhabism fuels the intolerance that drives some Muslims to violence; that Islamic states in the Middle East discriminate harshly against Jews, Christians, and others; that Muslims aren’t the group in America that faces bigotry; and that the controversy over one lawmaker’s remarks are diverting attention from far more important issues around Islamic governments.

Inconceivable? Indeed. Instead, policymakers, opinion leaders, and religious figures would unite to condemn the remarks, denounce Islamophobia, and insist on a full-throated apology from the member.That highlights the double standard that far too many influential figures apply to anti-Semitism – a double standard that long predates the ugly utterances of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and the defenses of her supporters.Consider the multiple distractions that prevented a singular denunciation of Omar’s anti-Semitism.First, the Israel distraction.

Thought of the Day “Lessons from History” Sydney Williams

http://swtotd.blogspot.com/

“Those who would give up essential liberty, to obtain a little safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

“There is nothing which I dread so much as the division of the Republic into two great parties,each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This,in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” John Adams (1735-1826)

If one were to draw a spectrum of our politics, it would have, on the far right, Libertarians who believe in minimal government and, on the far left, a Social Welfare State comprised of those who believe that government’s primary responsibility is to care for all the needs of all its people. Most of us reside somewhere between those two poles. If we go beyond both extremes, the spectrum becomes circular, as both end in autocracies.

The natural tendency for any organism is to grow, which it does until it stops and dies. That is true for elephants, sparrows, snails, man and Maple trees. It is also true for businesses, non-profits, partnerships and, unfortunately, governments. Growth in government should be tethered to increases in population and reasonable services, without letting it expand to the point it destroys the society it was created to serve. For a government bureaucrat running a department, aspiration is natural. They request new funds, find new things to do and hire new people. They are not held to the profit and loss demands of for-profit businesses. Compounding the problem has been the expansion of the “deep state,” which is defined as networks of power within the bureaucracies and agencies of government, people not accountable to voters. There are an estimated three million federal non-elected, non-military, civil service workers in the U.S. It is not in the career interests of department managers to eliminate or even reduce their number of employees. And government salaries are among the nation’s strongest, so that the three richest counties in the U.S. – Loudon (VA), Howard (MD) and Fairfax (VA) – are Washington suburbs. The trick is how do we get government to reduce costs and slow its growth, while keeping alive its promise of liberty and prosperity?