EDUCATION Comments turned off

Getting Them Young Minnesota is Ground Zero in the Left’s efforts to brainwash young people. Matthew Vadum

Posted By on October 12th, 2017

In places like Edina, Minnesota, the Left has transformed K-12 schools into indoctrination factories whose overarching purpose is to train students to be reflexively racist and anti-American.

Educators in Edina, a wealthy Minneapolis suburb, don’t even try to conceal their sinister goals. Elementary school students there are subjected to an A-B-C book titled A is for Activist. Among the alphabetized propaganda points are these gems:

“A is for Activist. Are you an Activist?”

“C is for … Creative Counter to Corporate vultures.”

“F is for Feminist.”

“T is for Trans.”

“X is for Malcolm as in Malcolm X.”

When Donald Trump won the election last November, anarchy and partisan bullying paralyzed the high school.

“I felt like the school was descending into mass hysteria,” one student said of the day after the election. Another said Trump’s victory was treated as “the end of the world as we know it.”

Students reported “[e]very teacher was crying in class, one even told the whole class ‘Trump winning is worse than 9/11 and the Columbine shooting.’” The sheer volume of “liberal propaganda that was pushed every single day in class this year was worse than it’s ever been–and you’re bullied by the teachers and every student if you dare speak against it.”

“[T]he teachers can absolutely do whatever they want. The administration will do nothing about it!! The day of the election every single student was in the commons chanting ‘F*** TRUMP’ and the teachers never did anything. A LOT of people are starting to complain and my mom has some friends who are leaving the school district.”

Teachers in Edina use totalitarian methods, particularly self-criticism sessions, to enforce ideological rigidity and reinforce social cohesion.

One mother complained of a humiliating Khmer Rouge-like denunciation process her son was forced to endure. In a 10th grade AP World History class, the teacher “called out any Trump supporters and asked them to assure the class that they weren’t racist.” In much of the United States, sending one’s children to public schools is already tantamount to child abuse. Too often elementary and secondary schools, especially in the inner cities, fail to teach pupils even the basics of reading, writing, and thinking critically. Nowadays they focus on crusades for so-called social justice instead of doing their jobs. This includes pedagogical sermons excoriating President Trump for the crime of trying to “Make America Great Again.”

In Edina radical indoctrination has supplanted actual education that helps students prepare for the real world.

Test scores in the community’s once top-rated schools have been plummeting, writes Katherine Kersten, senior fellow at the Minnesota-based Center for the American Experiment, in Thinking Minnesota magazine.

“There’s been a sea change in educational philosophy, and it comes from the top,” she writes.

In recent years teachers have been shoving so-called white privilege, along with Marxism, feminism, and post-colonialism, down their young charges’ throats.

It’s no secret that public school teachers across America are largely driven by ideology, not a desire to educate. They teach students that America, a nation flawed in its conception by the original sin of slavery, has never truly experienced reforms. It is as if the Civil War and the Civil Rights Era never happened. Corporations and the rich oppress the citizenry daily as the U.S. unjustly pushes around less powerful countries, especially Muslim ones. America is so fundamentally corrupt and evil in their view that it can only be fixed by radical changes like those espoused by educational theorists like Paulo Freire and Bill Ayers.

In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire argued that schools be used to inculcate radical, revolutionary values in students so they become agents of social change. Generations of teachers answered his call.

ISRAEL, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

DAPHNE ANSON: ANTI-ISRAEL EVENTS IN ENGLAND MOUNTING

Posted By on October 12th, 2017

“When the Discussion Opened to the Floor, a pro-Israeli Commentator Spoke …”
As I noted last week, anti-Israel events are sprouting thick and fast in the countdown to 2 November and the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, with Israel-denouncing Christians doing their share of the participating.

One such event that caught my eye was that held on 7 October at the British Library. Sponsored by the anti-Israel Middle East Monitor, it was entitled “Palestine, Britain and the Balfour Declaration 100 Years on”.

Professor Avi Shlaim, Emeritus Professor of International Relations at Oxford University, was the keynote speaker, and you can read about the rest of the panelists, and their highly biased offerings, here, where there is also a video and several photos of the event. Begins the account:

“The grey weather did not deter the hundreds of attendees who arrived early on Saturday morning at the British Library in London to attend MEMO’s conference to commemorate 100 years since the Balfour Declaration. A heavily subscribed event, the conference took a detailed look at Britain’s role in the creation of Israel, past and present, showcasing an alternative narrative to the celebrations promised by British Prime Minister Theresa May.

Attendees were able to purchase books on the Palestinian issue, including those shortlisted for the Palestine Book Awards 2017 and indulge in refreshments before being ushered into the auditorium. They were welcomed by Dr Daud Abdullah, the Director of MEMO, who expressed the importance of recognising the Balfour Declaration for what is was.”

Professor Penny Green of Queen Mary’s University of London, chaired the first session, journalist Peter Oborne (notorious for his obsession with Britain’s so-called “Israel Lobby”) the second, and Corbynista ex-Labour cabinet minister Clare Short [read me here] the third.

“Zionism was a settler colonial movement and the state of Israel its progeny, is a settler colonial state,”

declares that account, inter alia,in effect summarising the conference’s thrust.

Note this paragraph:

“Journalist David Cronin [associate editor of the Electronic Intifada, folks], looked at strategies used to oppose the Israeli occupation, namely the use of boycotts. He pointed out that Balfour had an aversion to boycotts, namely because of the powerful symbolic nature that withholding payment presented. He advocated that the international community and Palestinians should harness the power of boycotts to bring about a change in Israel.”

And these (emphasis added):

“Dr Jacob Cohen [praised by no less an antisemite than Gilad Atzmon here], who joined the Zionist movement at the age of 16 before leaving it four years later, also praised how the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement had expanded its international influence and hoped that the global community would continue such long-term campaigns. He was heckled during his speech when he accused of Israel of perpetuating conflict in order to receive foreign aid and weapons investment, an argument the majority of the audience applauded.

When the discussion opened to the floor, a pro-Israeli commentator spoke in defence of Israel, alleging that it had made peace with Arab countries, retreated from Gaza and was prepared to sacrifice it’s land for peace. Other questioners spoke positively of the support for the Palestine movement and encouraged all listeners to transform their attendance into activism.

As the attendees filed out of the auditorium, many expressed their gratitude to MEMO for hosting such a comprehensive event that had invited speakers from all over the world, to discuss the origins of an enduring conflict that has affected millions of people.”

There he sits, if I’m not mistaken, in the centre of this photo of the audience, that same “pro-Israel commentator”, I’ll wager, namely the intrepid Jonathan Hoffman (good onya, sir!):

A shot of the event by a certain clerical anti-Israel activist:

(Plenty of antisemitic posts below the line on the account I’ve linked to show some of the supporters of the event for what they are.)

ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE Comments turned off

Roger Franklin : Lateline, a Climate Change Casualty

Posted By on October 12th, 2017

The unwatched and doomed nightly gabfest had two seats available for guests to discuss Tony Abbott’s thoughts on climate change and energy policy. One might have been given to a sceptic in the interest of spirited debate — but no, it was two warmists sprouting unchallenged, ABC-endorsed piffle.

_____________________________________

Taking a break from tweeting energetically in support of gay marriage, Lateline compere Emma Alberici has provided a pithy explanation for her show’s cancellation. The stated reasons are that it has passed its use-by date and can no longer pull a worthwhile audience — a grim fact diplomatically expressed by ABC in-house apologist Gaven Morris as a consequence of “changing viewer habits”.

Actually, viewer habits haven’t changed at all. Boring, predictable, laughably biased fare has never been a marquee attraction and it doesn’t get any more predictable, laughable or biased than Lateline. Take the show’s assault on Tony Abbott’s most recent thoughts on climate change, which prompted Ms Alberici’s tweet reproduced above.

Know that Lateline had two seats available for guests to discuss Abbott’s address. So how did the bookers fill them? By recruiting two former chief scientists — Ian Chubb and Penny Sackert, each an ardent warmist — to opine at some length that the former PM is a dill. Why not host just a single former chief scientist and bring in a sceptic, Ian Plimer for instance? That might have made for some genuine excitement, the sort of thrust-and-parry conversation to stop viewers reaching for their channel-changers.

But this is the ABC we’re talking about, so no chance of that. Instead, as Alberici’s smug little tweet indicates, it was only the catastropharian narrative the ABC favours that received an airing. “Experts”, you see. And such experts!

Expert Sackett, an astronomer by training, expertly predicted in 2009 that the planet had only half a decade to get Gaia’s house in order, telling the ABC

we have about five years to avoid the dangerous climate change that would be generated if average global temperatures increase by more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

That expert prediction was uttered in 2009 and yet here we are, three years past Ms Sackett’s deadline and with the planet still rolling right along. A compere keen to retain and build an audience might have put it to her guest that perhaps, just maybe, dud prognostications of that sort do little to establish credibility. But Ms Alberici uttered not a peep, allowing her guest free rein to peddle even more absolute nonsense, all of it unchallenged (of course), and with a double-pike twist of self-contradiction tossed in for good measure. Here’s what Ms Sackett told Lateline (emphasis added):

EMMA ALBERICI: Penny Sackett, what Tony Abbott says is more people die in cold snaps than in heatwaves. So to the extent that the temperature is rising, it’s a good thing.

PENNY SACKETT: Well, I’m afraid that is just not supported in general by the facts … in Australia what we know is that currently it probably is true that more people in the past have died because of cold weather

So something “not supported” by “the facts” is probably “true”. Climate science, settled or not, is a genuinely wondrous thing. But Ms Sackett was only warming up, so to speak (emphasis added).

… we also know that in the last decade the number of heat deaths has gone up by a factor of 23 over the decade previous.

A “factor of 23″, this expert says. Translated, what Ms Sackett would have you believe is that global warming is killing Australians at 23 times the rate they were expiring before the expert establishment discovered that climate change is a bonza grant magnet and career enhancer. So where did Ms Alberici’s expert guest find that shocking, we-must-act-now factoid? Most likely here, in a Climate Commission paper by the three mush-keteers of climate science, professors David Karoly, Matthew England and Will Steffen (follow the links for more on their prognosticative achievements).

During the Brisbane heatwave of 7–26 February 2004 the temperature ranged from 26°C to 42°C. Overall deaths increased by 23% (excluding injury and suicide) compared with the death rate during the same period in 2001–2003 when the temperature ranged from 22°C to 34°C (Tong et al., 2010).

So, if that is indeed the source of Ms Sackett’s claim, her “factor of 23″ is a misquotation and an exaggeration by, as she might put it, a factor of 92.

OK, everyone makes mistakes, but is Ms Sackett’s assertion that Australia is witnessing a hike in heat-related deaths even remotely accurate? Not according to a 2014 paper by five number-crunchers from Macquarie University who analysed heatwave mortality from 1844 to 2010 and concluded (emphasis added)

Both deaths and death rates (per unit of population) fluctuate widely but show an overall decrease with time.

Interestingly, the Karoly, England and Steffen paper notes that, when we do see an eruption of heat-related deaths, it is the elderly and poor who suffer most. Given that the latest thrust of Turnbullian climate policy is to ask that air conditioners be switched off during heat waves — free movie tickets if you do! — it is now official policy to encourage more suffering, and presumably more deaths, to protect the windmill-plagued electricity grid’s stability. Perhaps Alberici was thinking of her next tweet and thereby missed the opportunity to ask her guest if she sees anything bizarre in forcing up the cost of power to safeguard the planet from the ravages of climate change while simultaneously putting the lives of pensioners and babies at greater risk from that same climate change.

Lateline‘s second climate expert, the neurologist Ian Chubb, appears also apt to quote grossly inaccurate numbers. In his case it was his citing of the artfully crafted furphy that 97% of climate scientists believe wholeheartedly in anthropogenic climate change.

Yes, despite that claim having been systematically demolished, not just once but again and again, Lateline‘s Expert #2 is still parroting it. And Ms Alberici let it slide into the conversation without qualification or comment.

Ms Alberici’s next gig at the ABC will see her re-cast as the national broadcast’s chief economics correspondent, which is a bit of a worry. Economics, like alleged climate science, involves lots of numbers and more of those experts before whom she genuflects.

Oh dear.

Roger Franklin, the editor of Quadrant Online, and has just paid a $940 quarterly electricity bill — the cost of saving the planet, experts say.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Conservatives Need to Stop Indulging Leftist Narratives By Deion Kathawa

Posted By on October 12th, 2017

The Daily Wire recently posted a short, satirical video (since removed) mocking those who gleefully take offense at the most imperceptible of slights. In this case, that we celebrate Columbus Day (and not, as they would prefer, “Indigenous Peoples Day”).https://amgreatness.com/2017/10/11/conservatives-need-to-stop-indulging-leftist-narratives/

The video depicted Native Americans savagely killing one another and cannibalizing the dead. Columbus then arrives and brings enlightenment, peace, and material progress. It closes with two columns which list achievements: one for the natives up until the arrival of Columbus and one for the continent following the introduction of Western civilization by Columbus and those who followed him. The natives’ list is quite short and comprised mainly of some trivialities (and some horrors), while the post-Columbus list is quite lengthy and boasts much more impressive civilizational content.

The video is meant to be inflammatory. It is, after all, responding in kind to those who are inflammatory themselves. Those who seek continuously to divide us along racial, ethnic, class, and gender lines—those who desire the obliteration of our collective historical memory and to replace it with politically correct fictions—deserve to be called out for their subversive activity and bizarre worldview.

Is the video reductive? Of course! But so is the Left’s preferred approach to race (i.e., all white people are a plague, and all non-whites are their sainted victims). Did Columbus’ arrival result in some serious evils? Sure (even if many of them were unforeseeable and unintentional tragedies, such as the spreading of disease and misunderstandings resulting from cultural barriers). Can any serious person contend, however, that, on balance, the arrival of Columbus on this continent was a bad thing?

Doubtful, and I think that’s a project doomed to failure. Just look around.

So why did the video evince such panicky, overwrought denunciations from some corners of the Right—and even a groveling apology from Mr. Ben “facts don’t care about your feelings” Shapiro himself?

Because the only thing that a “mainstream conservative” enjoys more than fulminating impotently after losing an election to a Democrat is trying desperately to win the approval of those same Democrats after losing to them. Conservatives love being cheap dates for Democrats.

The “mainstream conservative,” therefore, gets an unalloyed thrill—not unlike the thrill that once ran up Chris Matthews’ leg—from viciously attacking alleged “bigots” on his own side. Why does he do this?

Because he has bought into the Left’s game. He has accepted their warped, destructive, and cynical way of thinking about race, and he is eager to demonstrate his own personal separation from it and, thus, to signal his virtue. He believes that he has a duty to atone for the supposed racial sins of his tribe, announced infallibly by the Left’s religion: Social Justice. How to atone? By screaming, like a dutiful drone, “Racist!” whenever a progressive would.

EDUCATION Comments turned off

‘Reading the Riot Act’ to Truth-Tellers at UT San Antonio By Bruce Bawer

Posted By on October 12th, 2017

Born in Jacksonville, Florida, in 1952, Eve A. Browning received her Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of California, San Diego, in 1979. After teaching for three years at Ohio State University and a year at the University of Denver, she spent three decades on the faculty of the University of Minnesota at Duluth. Three years ago she left Duluth for the University of Texas at San Antonio, where she now chairs the Department of Philosophy and Classics. She has two academic books to her name, both published in 1992: one, co-edited by her, is about “feminist ethics,” and the other, written by her, is about “feminist criticism.” She’s published scholarly papers in such journals as the University of Dayton Review and reviewed books for the Women’s Studies Review and Women’s Review of Books.

It’s not a stellar CV, to put it mildly. Then again, over the years Browning has participated in conferences with titles that include the words “ethics” and “moral complexity” and “extreme vice” and “liberty and virtue” and “liberty and moral decline” and “character formation” and “modern freedom.” So you might expect that she’s actually devoted some serious thought to these topics.

In September of last year, however, Browning had a meeting with a graduate student that raises sobering questions about the extent and depth of her reflection on these matters. The student was Alfred MacDonald, who at the time of the meeting had been studying philosophy at UTSA for about two months; Browning, in her capacity as department chair (he wasn’t taking a class with her), had summoned him to her office for a discussion. About what? She wouldn’t say. Her caginess on this point, and her unwillingness to handle the matter by e-mail, raised MacDonald’s suspicions, and so he clandestinely taped their conversation, which in the state of Texas is legal. He posted the tape on YouTube, which took it down after Browning complained; the complete tape is now available here, with a shorter version here. There’s also an online transcript of their exchange.

These videos and transcript are representative documents of our times.

After mentioning that MacDonald had missed a couple of classes – an issue that he acknowledged and explained – Browning came round to what was plainly the real problem in her eyes: she’d been informed that in a conversation MacDonald had recently had between classes, “the topic of one student being engaged to a Muslim” had come up, “and it was alleged that you made offensive comments about Islam to that student.”

MacDonald admitted at once to having said to another student: “I don’t think highly of Islam because I am bisexual and could be legally put to death in about a dozen countries that use Islam for their legal system.” But not until he’d said this did his interlocutor reveal that her fiance was a Muslim. Whereupon, says MacDonald, “I repeatedly told the student ‘I’m sure he’s a great guy.’ She seemed pleasant as if nothing had gone wrong, and then reported this to the chair afterward.”

Hence the meeting with Browning, who, after being told by MacDonald what he had said to his fellow student about Islam, asked him: “Do you understand how someone would find that offensive?” Note well: Browning didn’t mean that the Islamic death penalty for gay people is offensive; she had nothing to say about that. What she meant was that mentioning the penalty is offensive.

She then professed to be puzzled by MacDonald’s reference to the Islamic death penalty:

EVE BROWNING: It’s a confusing comment to me because Muslims do not all live in countries in which bisexuals are executed. Muslims live in the United States –

ALFRED MACDONALD: Sure.

EVE BROWNING: – Muslims live in France, Muslims live in every country in the world – it’s the fastest growing world religion.

Needless to say, these facts were entirely irrelevant to MacDonald’s point about Islamic law – and Browning cannot possibly be stupid enough to have thought otherwise. But MacDonald agreed that they were, indeed, facts, and even volunteered that “one of my good friends at the university is Muslim.” But this didn’t win him any points with Browning, who asked: “And do you tell him that you object to his religion because there are places on earth where gay, lesbian and bisexual people are discriminated against, including your own country?”

This, of course, was a classic moral-equivalency ploy: hey, gays may be victims of “discrimination” in Iran and Saudi Arabia, but don’t forget that they also experience prejudice in the U.S.! MacDonald corrected Browning, informing her that his Muslim friend was a “her,” not a “him,” and reiterating that when it came to the treatment of gays in those Islamic countries, he wasn’t referring to mere discrimination but to execution. As he put it: “Death penalty’s pretty severe.”

But Browning couldn’t even be bothered to agree. Instead, she resumed her attack on him for being “offensive”:

EVE BROWNING: What does that have to do with her being engaged to a Muslim?

ALFRED MACDONALD: Nothing. I wasn’t talking about the engagement to the Muslim. I was talking about Islam in that particular moment.

EVE BROWNING: Well, let me just say that kind of thing is not going to be tolerated in our department. We’re not going to tolerate graduate students trying to make other graduate students feel terrible for our emotional attachments.

She then threatened to refer MacDonald to the university’s “Behavior Intervention Team,” which, she explained, is “trained on talking to people about what’s appropriate or what isn’t,” or to “the student conduct board,” which had the power to recommend his dismissal from the university. When MacDonald commented that he “thought that UTSA was a public university with first amendment protections” and expressed surprise that he could be kicked out for stating objective facts about Islam, Browning affirmed that this was indeed the case, and that the chief objective of her conversation with him was to try to “inculcate” in him “professional standards and performance and behavior” – because when anyone deviates from these standards, “students are intimidated; they don’t learn well, they aren’t happy, they don’t flourish, they leave the program.”

Browning then repeated these points at some length, saying that “confrontational interaction with other graduate students is objectionable and unprofessional,” that MacDonald’s Islam comment had been “very objectionable,” that “if you do behave objectionably…you’re not being a constructive member of the community,” and so on. When MacDonald tried to push back against her characterization of his Islam remark, she complained: “You’re clearly expressing a lot of resistance to what I’m telling you.” And she told him that if he were working under her in an office environment, his Islam comment “would get you fired.” CONTINUE AT SITE

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Conservative Blogger’s Car Torched in Chicago By Debra Heine

Posted By on October 12th, 2017

For the past year, conservative writer Warner Todd Huston’s home in Chicago has been under attack by vandals in what looks like an attempt to intimidate him.

Huston is a feature writer for Breitbart News and has written articles for RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, YoungConservatives.com, and a host of other conservative news sites — including his own website, Publius Forum.

The vandalism started off small. Early this year, an Army flag was pulled off his flag staff and left ripped and in pieces on his lawn.

A few weeks later, the flag he replaced it with was stolen. Next, his garage door was egged.

Then it escalated: “On the night of July 1, the U.S. Army flag that I fly in honor of my son who is in the service was scorched and on it was written in marker ‘die dogs’,” Huston wrote at Publius Forum.

After that, he filed a police report “just to be on the safe side.”

On September 24, his garage door was egged again, and someone wrote “racist” on one of the metal panels.

Huston then filed a second police report.

Late last week, Huston says, the vandalism escalated dramatically.

Huston described what happened at Publius Forum:

At about 1 AM or so on Saturday morning, I was awakened by a noise outside my home. I can’t really say what the noise was as it woke me from a deep sleep. It was just a shout that awoke me. I looked at my window and saw what struck me as a strange light outside. So, I went to the front door…

And saw my car interior on fire…

The surface of my passenger seat was set aflame and the entire interior of the car destroyed. Fortunately it isn’t a new car (it’s a 1999 Oldsmobile 88). But unfortunately, because it is so old I never put it on comprehensive coverage leaving it only at liability coverage. So, insurance won’t cover this destruction and I am now without a car.

Naturally the police became involved, but they say they won’t classify it as arson because they don’t have any evidence to show for it. A plastic pop bottle and cap was left inside by who ever did this. It smelled of gas to me.

Police wondered if I smoked in the car. I don’t smoke cigarettes and only occasionally smoke a cigar but NEVER in a car. If you’ve ever smoked a cigar you know that doing so in a car is a messy, ashy endeavor. I don’t do it. So, there is nothing that should have set my car on fire 7 hours after I last drove it. Also, it was the surface of the seats that went up in flames. Nothing electrical any where near the burn zone.

Chicago is home to many far-left groups, but these attempts to intimidate Huston could also be the work of a “lone wolf” extremist. Or it could be punks in the neighborhood who don’t like his politics.

As a conservative journalist, Huston writes about a variety of subjects important to conservatives such as Islam and immigration. PJ Media asked him if he has written anything about antifa in recent months. He replied: “Sure have.”

Still, Huston has no idea what is behind the vandalism. “I haven’t a clue who did it,” he said. “It has been a bit of a problem for most of the year. As to topics, you know me, I cover everything going on out there. I could have set off any number of people!!” CONTINUE AT SITE

HOMELAND SECURITY, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Kirstjen Nielsen, White House Aide, Is Picked to Run Homeland Security By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS

Posted By on October 12th, 2017

WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Wednesday that he intended to name Kirstjen Nielsen, a top White House aide, to lead the Department of Homeland Security, elevating a former homeland security official in the George W. Bush administration who has lately worked to impose order in Mr. Trump’s chaotic West Wing.

Mr. Trump announced his choice in a statement that noted Ms. Nielsen’s “extensive professional experience in the areas of homeland security policy and strategy, cybersecurity, critical infrastructure and emergency management.” She is the first nominee for the homeland security post who had served in the department, according to the statement.

If confirmed, Ms. Nielsen would replace John F. Kelly, who was homeland security secretary until he left in July to serve as the White House chief of staff and bring discipline and direction to a West Wing plagued by disorganization and infighting. Mr. Kelly had drafted Ms. Nielsen to be his chief of staff at the Homeland Security department, and when the president plucked him for the White House, he brought her as his No. 2.

Known as a no-nonsense player and policy wonk, Ms. Nielsen appears unlikely to land at the center of the type of controversies that have engulfed Mr. Trump’s presidency. But her regimented style in a freewheeling and often dysfunctional West Wing frustrated some senior officials and people close to the president, who chafed under her dictates. On Wednesday, some of them described Ms. Nielsen’s promotion as a solution to a toxic personnel situation, while others fretted privately that her departure would create a void at the White House that would be difficult to fill.

Mr. Kelly pushed hard for her selection, making a personal appeal to Mr. Trump during a monthslong search process. Among the other candidates considered, according to people familiar with the process, was Representative Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas and the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Former colleagues said on Wednesday that Ms. Nielsen was well qualified.

“She’s a total homeland security expert — absolutely has no learning curve,” said Michael Allen, who worked with Ms. Nielsen during the Bush administration. “She’s an experienced manager, she’s an implementer, she knows how to get under the hood and figure out what needs to be connected to what.”

Added Frances Townsend, her boss at the White House during the Bush administration: “She is tough as nails, competent and has rightly earned the president’s respect.”

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Trump Picks Kirstjen Nielsen for Homeland Security Secretary Cybersecurity expert has served as top aide to White House Chief of Staff John Laura Meckler

Posted By on October 12th, 2017

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump picked cybersecurity expert Kirstjen Nielsen to be the next Homeland Security secretary, putting a low-profile figure into a critical job after former Secretary John Kelly was named White House chief of staff.

Ms. Nielsen, 45 years old, was Mr. Kelly’s chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security. She followed him to the White House, where she serves as principal deputy chief of staff, Mr. Kelly’s top aide. Her close relationship with Mr. Kelly was critical in the decision to name her to the post, people familiar with the selection said Wednesday.

Secretaries of homeland security have traditionally been high-profile figures, including former governors and, with Mr. Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general. That isn’t the case with Ms. Nielsen. But administration officials point to her wealth of experience in many issues the agency handles and note that she would be the first secretary to have worked at the agency before.

One downside, though, is she lacks the sort of experience communicating with the public that elected officials have, and that can be important in an emergency or in the case of a terror attack. Acting Secretary Elaine Duke, another nonpolitical homeland expert, ran into trouble for indelicate comments in response to a question about one of the recent hurricanes, for instance.

But Ms. Nielsen is well steeped in the issues that the agency deals with on a daily basis, from her service during the Trump and George W. Bush administrations.

She worked at the Transportation Security Administration and for the White House Homeland Security Council during the Bush years. She then worked in the private sector—at positions including the Center for Cyber and Homeland Security at George Washington University and the National Cybersecurity Center—before being brought into the Trump transition to help guide Mr. Kelly through his Senate confirmation process.

If confirmed by the Senate, she would succeed Ms. Duke, who was deputy secretary under Mr. Kelly and has been acting secretary since July.

DHS, created in the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks, is a sprawling operation with responsibilities including immigration enforcement, disaster response, the Secret Service and U.S. border and airport security.

As such, Ms. Nielsen would be thrust to the forefront of some of the administration’s most controversial initiatives. Those include Mr. Trump’s effort to build a wall on the southwest border with Mexico, increase deportations of undocumented immigrants, enforce travel restrictions on people from targeted countries, and increase vetting of travelers to the U.S. She would also take over the Federal Emergency Management Agency at a time of intense recovery efforts following a series of damaging hurricanes.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

An Air-Traffic Winner How to help the traveling public and the economy.

Posted By on October 12th, 2017

The House has been working for months behind the scenes on the most significant improvement to commercial air travel in decades: Converting Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air-traffic control into an operation governed by pilots, airlines, controllers and other industry experts. This would be good news for the economy and the traveling public, if Republicans don’t wig out.

House Transportation Chairman Bill Shuster’s legislation would set up a nonprofit entity that manages air-traffic operations, while FAA continues regulating safety and certifying equipment. Instead of taxes, the services would be funded by user fees. This arrangement has allowed Canada to lower levies by about one-third and manage routes and landings more efficiently. Canada’s air-traffic outfit even sells technology to other countries.

For years the Inspector General of the Transportation Department has been the official biographer of the FAA’s failures in overhauling radar technology that dates to World War II. The tales include tech updates that are billions over budget and a decade late. One microcosm: An IG report from 2014 noted that FAA had implemented 51 initiatives to boost controller productivity, improve best practices and cut costs. Only two produced discernible savings. Six increased costs, and no one can be sure what the other 43 did.

A version of Mr. Shuster’s plan stalled in the House last year amid objections from the general-aviation community, which is now trying to shoot down this year’s draft. Yet the bill exempts hobbyists from paying user fees and explicitly bans the air-traffic operation from restricting air space. GA outfits have also pumped specious national-security concerns, even as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has welcomed the spinoff.

One overwrought objection was that the bill would be a big business giveaway to major airlines, which would have had four representatives on the governing board. The revised bill grants airlines one seat and adds representation for cargo and regional airlines, as well as airports. Robert Poole, the intellectual force behind the idea who supported the first version, calls the new bill a “big improvement.”

Another concern is that rural airports will be closed or harmed, though the bill maintains subsidies for remote areas, which is lamentable if a political reality. A Reason Foundation report details how FAA after the 2013 budget showdown put a moratorium on new contract towers that can benefit small airports, which will never beat out JFK or San Francisco International for FAA dollars. Under a new arrangement, rural airports could explore technology like remote towers, which allow controllers to manage operations with sophisticated cameras and communication equipment.

Many of these complaints come from the unprotected class of Americans known as corporate-jet passengers. The National Business Aviation Association is opposing the bill even though it exempts business jets from paying more in fees. That dispensation is regrettable. If the proletariat sitting in steerage pays for air services, so should a CEO flying across the country for lunch. The irony is that corporate-jet users are the least price-sensitive passengers and put a high value on time. Wouldn’t many executives happily pay extra for a faster landing and shorter lines on the tarmac? NetJets to its credit seems to recognize these realities and endorsed the bill this month.

MOVIES AND TELEVISION, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Piers Morgan: Spare me Hollywood’s hypocritical horror over Harvey Weinstein – the same people, led by moralizing Meryl, gave a standing ovation to child rapist Polanski

Posted By on October 12th, 2017

I spoke to Harvey Weinstein on Monday night.

‘Harvey…how’s your life?’ I asked, winning myself the Most Stupid Question of the Year Award.

He sighed loudly, paused for a second or two, then chuckled, wryly.

‘My life? It’s really not that great right now to be honest, Piers…’

At the time, he was still fighting to save his movie mogul career, and his marriage, after the New York Times bombshell report disclosing he had paid off eight women for sexual harassment.

Weinstein asked to go off-the-record, and we talked for another minute or so before I heard urgent mutterings and he suddenly said: ‘I have to go….this is a very important call… I’m sorry… I’ll call you straight back.’

He didn’t call back.

Within 24 hours, a blizzard of horrific new revelations erupted in the New York Times and New Yorker magazine featuring fresh allegations against Weinstein from myriad famous and non-famous women of rape, sexual assault and harassment.

Perhaps that ‘very important call’ was from one of those publications, or his lawyer, who knows?

It doesn’t really matter now.

As I write this, Harvey Weinstein’s career is gone, his marriage is gone, and his reputation as one of the greatest, and most successful, power brokers in Hollywood history is gone too.

Fired by his own company, and dumped by his wife Georgina, beleaguered Weinstein has escaped to a sex addiction clinic somewhere in Europe.

It’s a staggering fall from grace, even by the brutal standards of Hollywood.

Yet it’s a fall that deserves not a scintilla of sympathy, given the scale of his appalling behaviour.

I’ve known Weinstein for a decade.

He’s an unquestionably brilliant movie producer – his films have generated over 300 Oscar nominations – and a very smart, charismatic guy.

I’ve only ever seen the best side of Harvey: the fast-talking, quick-witted, pugnacious, determined and driven side with a genuinely passionate love for film.

I’ve always got on very well with him and enjoyed his company, and hope he gets the treatment he clearly needs.

But now we’ve seen another side exposed, one that’s made very grim reading: that of a ruthless, selfish, bullying, misogynist prone to harassing women into trading sexual favours for movie roles.

We’ve also heard the tape – that shocking minute-long wire-tapped audio of him terrorizing a young, frightened actress outside his New York hotel room, a woman he admits to having groped the day before.

You can’t hear it without feeling utterly repulsed.

Nor can you hear it without now believing every word all his other accusers are saying.

As Weinstein himself admitted: ‘I appreciate the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past has caused a lot of pain.’

Yes, it has.

And I applaud the courageous women who first came forward last week to lift the lid off Weinstein’s decades of depravity when he was still in a position of great power to make or break their careers.