The North Korean-Iranian Alliance

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents a two-part review of the Iranian-North Korean nuclear, missile, and foreign policy alliance .

As North Korea rapidly progresses towards the capability of conducting a nuclear strike on the American mainland, analysts are confronting another horrifying reality.

It may not be sufficient to engage North Korea alone to prevent an attack from a secondary power. Atomic threats, in concert with the Pyongyang government, may simultaneously arise from a wholly different portion of the globe, as well as possibly within our own shores, from both national actors as well as terrorist organizations. Adding to that troublesome scenario is the after-effects of the extraordinarily poor decision making during the Obama Administration, which severely reduced the ability of the United States to confront anything more than a single-region threat.

The necessity of pre-emptive action against North Korea is growing sharply.  As noted in a Breitbart analysis, experts are deeply concerned that the Pyongyang regime has developed the capability of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack that could devastate the U.S. mainland. “Dr. Peter Vincent Pry…executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and…the chief of staff of the Congressional EMP Commission..pointed to two North Korean satellites that are currently orbiting the U.S. at trajectories…are optimized for a surprised EMP attack.”

If it becomes necessary to strike at North Korea to prevent an atomic assault on the United States, Iran can be expected to strike against U.S. interests and allies in the Middle East with its own forces, and perhaps worldwide—even within America itself– through its staunch support of terrorist forces such as Hezbollah.

When Tehran does make a move against the U.S. in response to an American self-defense response to North Korea, the Pentagon will have a difficult time meeting the two-front challenge.

Apparently oblivious to the growing danger from the rising strength of superpowers such as Russia and China and belligerent states North Korea and Iran, the Obama Administration decided to slash military spending during its tenure. A significant aspect of that decision was to downgrade the Pentagon’s resources to the point where it could no longer protect American interests in two areas during the same time span.

In 2010, the Obama Defense Department  announced that  “The model used to determine the appropriate size of the United States military is being replaced following the Quadrennial Defense Review process…the theory that U.S. forces should be sized based on the need to fight two major wars simultaneously no longer is appropriate.” The ability to “defeat two regional aggressors” was considered part of a replaced “Old planning program.”

Writing in CNN’s Security Blog, Chris Lawrence noted The military would not maintain its ability to wage two large conflicts at the same time, such as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan…”

The fallacy of that revision was obvious. North Korea and Iran, two very likely opponents, have a close military and diplomatic relationship.  Indeed, it is difficult to distinguish where the military technology of one ends and the other begins.

A Joint Hearing before the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,  noted that:

“The long history of secret cooperation between Iran and North Korea in violation of international law stretches back for decades. North Korea first sold Iran ballistic missiles during the 1980s during Iran’s war with Iraq. By the end of the 1980s, North Korea and China were supplying Iran with about 70 percent of its arms. Move to the 1990s, and Iran and North Korea had moved onto working together to develop long-range ballistic missiles. North Korean long-range ballistic missiles became the basis for the Iranian Shahab missile series, which currently threatens Israel, our other Middle East allies, and even Central Europe. In fact, the intelligence community has said that missile cooperation between Iran and North Korea has provided Iran with an increase in its military capabilities. By the beginning of the 2000s, the Iranians were giving North Korea sensitive data from their own missile tests to improve the North Korean missile systems. In fact, Iranian officials have been present at nearly every major North Korean missile test.”

The Report concludes tomorrow

The Left’s Tolerance of Terror, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its two-part review of the connection between the Left and terrorists.

Author Jamie Glavoz’s in his study United in Hate analyzes the Left’s contemporary romance with militant Islam as a continuation of the Left’s love affair with totalitarianism in the twentieth century. He notes that “Both the radical Left and radical Islam possess a profound hatred for Western culture, for a capitalist economic structure that recognizes individual achievement, and for the Judeo-Christian heritage of the United States. Both seek to establish a new world order: leftists in the form of a classless communist society, and Islamists in the form of a caliphate ruled by sharia law.”

The Nation published an article describing how author Bryan Burrough engaged in five years of  esearch and writing on left wing terrorism. “In Days of Rage, Burrough seeks to counter what he views as the successful efforts by these former terrorists to craft ‘an image of the group as benign urban guerrillas who never intended to hurt a soul’—and whose ‘only goal’ was ‘to damage symbols of American power, such as empty courthouses and university buildings, a Pentagon bathroom, the U.S. Capitol’—when, in fact, they were ‘murderous.’…Much the same could be said, with proper caveats, about the other groups he covers, who were convinced that if they attacked the right symbols of power—robbed the right banks, broke the right windows, kidnapped the right heiresses, and murdered the right number of police—‘the revolution’ would surely follow. These groups included the Black Panthers, the Black Liberation Army, the Symbionese Liberation Army, the New World Liberation Front, the FALN, the ‘Family,’ and the United Freedom Front.”

A US. Government study, “Left-Wing Extremism: The Current Threat,” prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Office of Safeguards and Security by Karl A. Seger, Ph.D. in 2001 found that:

“Communism evolved from left-wing extremism. The threat from left-wing extremists did not die with the collapse of the Soviet Union, however. Domestic groups and state-sponsored cells and individuals have continued their espionage activities and the planning of terrorist actions against the U.S. government. Leftist extremists were responsible for three-fourths of the officially designated acts of terrorism in America in the 1980s. From an international perspective, of the 13,858 people who died between 1988 and 1998 in attacks committed by the 10 most active terrorist groups in the world, 74 percent were killed by leftist organizations.

“ …There are individuals and organizations within the United States who maintain the same ideology that resulted in the growth of left-wing terrorism in this country in the 1970s and 1980s. Some of the leaders from that era are still communicating from Cuba with their followers in the United States, and new leaders and groups are emerging. … all security professionals must be alert to the potential threats presented by these ideologies. The lessons of the 1960s and 1970s should not have to be relearned in the next century. Those who think Marxist-Leninist ideology died with the Soviet Union should listen to the words of Fidel Castro as he concluded his speech on the 40th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution in January 1999, “Socialism or death! Venceremos!” (Castro, 1999). Left-wing extremism continues, indeed, to be a potential threat to U.S. government agencies. The challenge in responding to this threat is to ensure that the rights of individuals to form and express their own beliefs are balanced with the need to provide security and protection against terrorism and espionage that may be committed by the most extreme members of these movements.”

The bombings of the late 20th Century characterized leftist violence in that era.  Currently, the mass disruptions of opposition political events, such as Trump campaign stops during the 2016 election and the numerous protests that have arisen since the inauguration have become the Left’s weapon of choice in the 21st. The prevention of free expression on college campuses, through unlawful activity, is another form of terror currently fashionable on the left.

In 2009, The Department of Homeland Security issued a warning that yet another tactic may be employed. The study,  “Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade”  notes:

“… a number of emerging trends point to leftwing extremists maturing and expanding their cyber attack capabilities over the next decade with the aim of attacking targets in the United States. The potential for economic damage, the individually-initiated and anonymous nature of cyber attacks, and the perception that cyber attacks are nonviolent align well with the ideological beliefs, strategic objectives, and tactics of many leftwing extremists. The increasing reliance of commercial businesses and other enterprises on cyber technologies, including interconnected networks and remote access, creates new and expanding vulnerabilities that technically-savvy leftwing extremists will exploit. The proliferation of cyber technologies and expertise as well as the public availability of online hacking tools and ‘hackers-for-hire’ offer leftwing extremists incentives to adopt a cyber attack strategy.”

The Left’s Tolerance of Terror

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents a two-part review of the connection between the Left and terrorists.

Why does the U.S. Left continue to tolerate, and even celebrate, terrorists?

Despite the recent horrific terror attack in Manchester, New York, one of America’s most politically-left cities and the site of the worst terror attack in history,came close to holding a parade in honor of a renowned terrorist.

The City’s annual Puerto Rican Day Parade committee decided to honor Oscar Lopez Rivera, a  terrorist. A local paper, the New York Post, described him: “Oscar López Rivera [OLR] and his FALN maimed and murdered innocents with their bombs. OLR was nabbed with bomb-making materiél when arrested; trial testimony showed he’d trained others in creating the devices of terror.”

There is no grey area, no question about OLR’s terrorist credentials. After being apprehended, he was tried and convicted in the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in 1980—1981.   The charges included armed robbery and for being a recruiter and bomb-making trainer in the FALN. OLR admitted that all the charges were true.

In 1999, President Clinton was willing to pardon OLR if he renounced the use or threat of violence. OLR refused the deal.  President Obama eventually freed him, following in the footsteps of fellow leftist President Jimmy Carter, who rather shockingly pardoned terrorists who attacked the U.S House of Representatives, wounding four members, and who plotted to assassinate President Harry Truman.

NYC hard-left Mayor, Bill deBlasio planned to march in the parade.  That’s no surprise.  DeBlasio also supported the Soviet Union when they began to place military assets in Nicaragua in the 1980s.  He was joined by the Speaker of the City Council, Melissa Mark-Viverito.

Obama and other leftists have had links to another terrorist, Bill Ayers. Progressive apologists explain he is now considered “respectable.”

OLR eventually decided not to accept the “honor.”

Discover the Networks describes Ayers career:

“In the late Sixties, Ayers became a leader of the Weather Underground (WU), a splinter faction of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Characterizing WU as “an American Red Army,” Ayers summed up the organization’s ideology as follows: ‘Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents.’ One of Ayers’ fellow WU leaders was Bernardine Dohrn, the woman who would later become his wife. In a July 29, 1969 speech which he delivered at the University of Oregon, Ayers boasted of SDS’s role in the Venceremos Brigades, a project initiated by the Cuban intelligence agency to recruit and train American leftists as ‘brigadistas’ capable of waging guerrilla warfare. Ayers was an active participant in the 1969 ‘Days of Rage’ riots in Chicago, which were led by WU’s antecedent group, Weatherman. In the mayhem, nearly 300 members of the organization engaged in vandalism, arson, and vicious attacks against police and civilians alike…In his 2001 memoir Fugitive Days, Ayers recounts his life as a Sixties radical and boasts that he ‘participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972.’ Of the day he bombed the Pentagon, Ayers writes, ‘Everything was absolutely ideal…. The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.’ He further recalls his fascination with the fact that ‘a good bomb’ could render even ‘big buildings and wide streets … fragile and destructible,’ leaving behind a ‘majestic scene’ of utter destruction. All told, Ayers and the Weather Underground were responsible for 30 bombings aimed at destroying the defense and security infrastructures of the U.S.  ‘I don’t regret setting bombs,’ said Ayers in 2001, ‘I feel we didn’t do enough.’ Contemplating whether or not he might again use bombs against the U.S. sometime in the future, he wrote: ‘I can’t imagine entirely dismissing the possibility.”

The Report continues tomorrow

Contrast in Charges about Trump and Clinton, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government completes its review of the contrast in the  treatment of allegations about the Trump and Clinton campaigns. 

The appointment of a Special Counsel to review questions concerning the Trump campaign has raised questions of whether there was a sufficient evidentiary basis to do so, and highlighted contrasts between the relative eagerness of Washington to review the Trump campaign while ignoring clear conflict of interest actions by Hillary Clinton.

President Trump’s supporters allege that the former Obama Administration initiated charges of collusion to cover up its illegal surveillance of the Trump campaign, abusing The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, popularly called the FISA court, to do so.  FISA is a federal tribunal consisting of 11 federal judges who serve on a weekly rotating basis, It was established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against international intelligence agents working within the United States. It convenes in an undisclosed but highly protected courtroom not far from the White House.

While those who disagree with President Trump’s allegation that he was unlawfully spied upon point out that there was no FISA authorization to do so, it does not mean that surveillance didn’t take place. The Obama Administration has a history of abusing federal assets and agencies for partisan political purposes. The Department of Justice intentionally turned a blind eye towards offenses having to do with voting, the Internal Revenue Service clearly was employed in partisan attacks against the Tea Party, and even agencies such as NASA, NOAA, and the EPA were manipulated for political or ideological gain.

As Trump began to explode in popularity, the Obama Justice Department and FBI considered a criminal investigation of Trump associates, and perhaps Trump himself, based on what may have been artificial concerns about connections to Russian financial institutions.

Heatstreet describes the allegation:

“An initial request to place surveillance on Trump Tower was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October on flimsy evidence that a server in Trump Tower hay have had links to two Russian banks. ‘Sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons.’ It turned out there was nothing amiss. Rather than shut the case down, though, the Obama Justice Department converted it into a national-security investigation.”

That the FISA court reportedly turned down the Obama Justice Department’s initial request, is notable, according to RealClearPolitics  “The FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national-security surveillance. Not taking no for an answer, the Obama Justice Department evidently returned to the FISA court in October 2016, the critical final weeks of the presidential campaign. This time, the Justice Department submitted a narrowly tailored application that did not mention Trump. The court apparently granted it, authorizing surveillance of some Trump associates. The New York Times has identified – again, based on illegal leaks of classified information – at least three of its targets: Paul Manafort (a former Trump campaign chairman), and two others whose connection to the Trump campaign was loose at best, Manafort’s former political-consulting business partner Roger Stone, and investor Carter Page. The Times ultimately concedes that the government’s FISA investigation may have nothing to do with Trump, the campaign, or alleged Russian efforts to interfere in the U.S. election by hacking e-mail accounts.”

Breitbart quotes Mark Levine  describing the Obama White House’s practices as those of “a police state… and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation.” Levin called the effort against the Trump campaign a “silent coup” and demanded that it be investigated.

Breitbart and Levin describe an unusual timeline that appears to indicate a concerted effort to surveil the Trump campaign and deflect attention away from scandals affecting the Clinton campaign, including the DNC’s interference in the Democrat primary process to insure a Clinton victory, a move which infuriated DNC staffers who supported rival Bernie Sanders and reportedly prompted them to leak embarrassing facts about Clinton to Wikileaks, leaks which those leading the charge against the Trump campaign now blame on “collusion” between the GOP candidate and the Russians.

A Grabien  review notes “So here we have the president of the United States using America’s most advanced surveillance technology, designed for monitoring foreign actors, against his domestic political opposition.”

In extremely sharp contrast, there has been no investigation called for or commenced in the clear, specific, substantial, lucrative and illegal contacts between the Russian government and Hillary Clinton that compromised the national security of the United States. Notes the Washington Post “The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday. Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations. The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.”

Following a Clinton State Department approved deal that gave a 20% interest in U.S. uranium interests (uranium is the basic ingredient in nuclear weapons) “Bill Clinton keynoted a seminar staged by Renaissance Capital in Moscow, a reputedly Kremlin-controlled investment bank that promoted this transaction. Renaissance Capital paid Clinton $500,000 for his one-hour speech”
reports National Review . Vast, additional funds from other sources flowed to the Clinton foundation as well.

No investigation has been commenced against the Clintons, and no outrage has been expressed by the media.

Contrast in Charges about Trump and Clinton

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government reviews the contrast in the  treatment of allegations about the Trump and Clinton campaigns. 

The awaited testimony of former FBI Director Comey  produced two major results. The first is that it is clear that there is no evidence of any action by the President that justifies a consideration of impeachment. The second is that Comey had substantial concerns that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch colluded with the Clinton campaign. Little information or clarity was added to the issue of Russian collusion.

By the way, Alan Dershowitz writes: “Throughout American history — from Adams to Jefferson to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Obama — presidents have directed (not merely requested) the Justice Department to investigate, prosecute (or not prosecute) specific individuals or categories of individuals.”

That leads to the salient questions:  Was it appropriate to appoint a special counsel to examine allegations about the Trump campaign? Was it appropriate to not appoint a special counsel or otherwise commence an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s profiting from the sale of uranium to Russia?

The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, Chapter VI, Part 600.1 states that a special counsel should be appointed:

“when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and (b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.”

The key issue is whether there is sufficient substance in the allegations concerning the charge that the Trump campaign “colluded” with Russia.  Similarly, there must be a description of what actions occurred which would amount to “collusion.” Strangely, there appears to be a total lack of interest in very specific and open information concerning illicit Russian contacts with the Clintons.

According to the law firm of  Burnham & Gorokhov “In most cases, a federal investigation is triggered by the filing of a credible crime report. Sometimes, it may also commence as a result of information law enforcement agents receive from defendants in pending criminal cases who are hoping to receive leniency (i.e., cooperators). In other cases, a federal investigation may result from data gathered by a federal intelligence agency, such as the CIA…”

There has been no evidence presented of Trump campaign officials meeting with Russian officials in anything other than a casual or nonrelated capacity, for example, at general events attended by many in the Washington orbit.  Indeed, even if—and there has been no evidence of this—Trump campaign officials engaged in specific planned meetings with Russian officials, there is no description of how this constituted an actionable violation of the law by the campaign of a candidate for president, or that anything was specifically said or agreed to that constituted a violation of the law, sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Some individuals with significant ties to the Trump Administration and campaign have had previous business dealings with Russian officials. The extent to which this has been stretched to being evidence of “collusion” is extraordinary, symbolized by demands that any records of Russian officials staying at hotels owned by Trump interests be released.

The refusal to present evidence sufficient to commence an investigation, and the hostile reaction to requests for the presentation of such evidence, is worrisome. Notably, in an exchange during a House Intelligence Committee Hearing, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) specifically asked former CIA Director John O. Brennan about the existence of any evidence of Trump campaign wrongdoing.  Brennan testily replied that “I don’t do evidence.” The anger of CIA officials at being asked to produce substance behind the allegations was further highlighted by the threatening comments by Former CIA Official Phil Mudd, who, as reported by Fox News, said Gowdy should “have his ass kicked” for his questioning the lack of evidence.

The unsubstantiated claims that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia has been called  a cover-up for unlawful surveillance the Obama Administration engaged in against the Republican 2016 presidential candidate.

The misappropriation of government assets, including the intelligence services, for partisan political purposes characterized the Obama Administration.

Circa  reports that “The National Security Agency under former President Barack Obama routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall, according to once top-secret documents that chronicle some of the most serious constitutional abuses to date by the U.S. intelligence community.”

The move was consistent with other Obama Administration abuses, including the use of the IRS to harass political opponents, and the Justice Department surveillance of reporters.

Breitbart quotes Mark Levine describing the Obama White House’s practices as those of “a police state… and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation.”

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Warping American Schools, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of biased education in U.S. schools. 

Much of what used to be objective science curriculum is now devoted to politically-oriented “sustainability” course work.  The National Association of Scholars discussed the role of this on colleges, but the problem has now spread to grammar and high schools as well: “The sustainability movement is a way for people with a hugely unpopular political program to get into positions of influence so that they can advance their cause despite lack of public support… Sustainability advocates assume that no one can legitimately disagree with their message. They therefore have no qualms about imposing their politics on students, faculty, and staff. If someone does disagree, they attack that person’s motives and ignore his actual points…. Sustainability advocates don’t want to just add sustainability to the curriculum; they want to make it “the foundation of all learning and practice in higher education… Sustainability advocates don’t like free markets or personal liberty. They believe markets ignore long-term costs and people typically make bad choices. Instead of liberty, sustainability advocates praise ‘social justice’ and ‘equitable distribution of resources’ as the foundation of a sustainable society… The proponents of sustainability aim to have ‘all students engaged as effective change agents in our sustainability challenges.’ ”

Pew Research found that “only 29% of Americans rated their country’s K-12 education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (known as STEM) as above average or the best in the world. Scientists were even more critical: A companion survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that just 16% called U.S. K-12 STEM education the best or above average; 46%, in contrast, said K-12 STEM in the U.S. was below average.”

According to The 74 site , in 2016 “American teenagers’ math scores on an international test dropped last year, putting the United States in the bottom half among dozens of participating countries. ‘This pattern that we’re seeing in mathematics seems to be sort of consistent with what we’ve seen in previous assessments of mathematics literacy,’ said Peggy Carr, acting director of the National Center for Education Statistics. ‘Everything is just going down across the entire distribution. I think it is something we should keep an eye on as we move forward.’ U.S. students ranked No. 35 in math, down from No. 28 in 2012, among the 60 nations whose students took the Program for International Student Assessment in both 2012 and 2015. PISA is given every three years through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to 15-year-olds around the world, assessing performance in math, reading and science.”

As the Progressive philosophy is rammed into school curriculum, traditional cultural touchstones are forced out. This is followed to an almost ludicrous degree. The Daily Mail  reported last Christmas season that “School officials in Texas are in trouble after putting up a poster “showing a picture of [the character from the Peanuts cartoon] Linus, along with a scrawny Christmas tree and a brief passage that sums up the meaning of the holiday.”

Also omitted in some jurisdictions are concepts as normal as “boy” and “girl.” Matt Walsh, writing for The Blaze  reports “Charlotte public schools have banished the terms “boy” and “girl” from their classrooms. The new transgender-affirming policy allows students to select their own gender and then choose the bathroom (although that part is on hold for now), extracurricular activity, sport, etc., that best fits whatever label they happen to identify with at the moment. Boys will even be permitted to take part in “all-girl” overnight excursions, so long as they become girls for the duration of the trip. Of course, the studious observer might wonder how a boy can identify as a girl if we aren’t allowed to call people girls anymore.”

Progressive perspectives are advocated by some educational commentators.  Peter DeWitt, writing in Education Week, states: “Now that the Supreme Court made their historic decision regarding gay marriage it’s time for LGBT issues and curriculum to be spoken about in schools.”

Progressive school boards have a bizarre inclination, even while many American schools continue to provide disappointing scores in traditional subjects, to inappropriately introduce their strange version of sex education to extremely  young students. In 2013, ABC News reported that “sex education will be coming to Chicago kindergartners within two years as part of an overhaul of the Chicago public schools sexual health program… Under the new policy, the youngest students – the kindergartners – will learn the basics about anatomy, reproduction, healthy relationships and personal safety.”

In addition to denigrating U.S. history and replacing cultural touchstones with sex education, outright political bias has entered the grammar school scene. In 2009, notorious—and creepy—scenes of students being led in songs praising Barack Obama were noted. The trend continues.

On the other hand, in what is becoming a commonplace scene, high school students like Maxine Yeakle, reports the Daily Mail, was threatened with suspension merely for wearing a pro-Trump T-shirt.

American schools have been transformed from an institution designed to produce well educated, capable and knowledgeable students into one dedicated to indoctrinate youth into progressive beliefs.

Warping American Schools

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents a two-part review of how Progressive indoctrination has replaced traditional education in U.S. schools.

America’s grammar and high schools have been hijacked.

If you thought the purpose of its educational system was to teach reading, writing, mathematics, science, English, American History and civics to students, you have not been paying attention.

Gradually, over the past several decades, an agenda of Progressive-oriented social and political goals has replaced academics. The problem is not just being discussed in right-wing journals. Last year, the New York Times—-no bastion of conservative thought—discussed objectives some had to the revised material related to advanced placement American History—and what was omitted.

“Where was John Winthrop’s ‘City Upon a Hill’ speech? Or Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers? Why give more prominence to Chief Little Turtle than to Ben Franklin? [on the other hand] a reference to ‘established colonial elites’ who fueled the ‘independence movement’ had been written in…even liberals scratched their heads over a few descriptions, like calling Ronald Reagan ‘bellicose’ in his dealings with the Soviet Union or describing Manifest Destiny as a belief in ‘white racial superiority’ without also explaining its philosophical mission to spread liberty, democracy and technical innovations…Jane Robbins, a senior fellow at the American Principles Project [argued] that the framework had been ‘scrubbed of American exceptionalism.’”

The omission of America’s attributes is enforced by course materials. The widespread use of a textbook, “A People’s History of the United States” authored by Howard Zinn, a now deceased writer who was an active member of the Communist Party, explicitly provides an anti-U.S. perspective. Eagle Forum  described Zinn’s textbook as “…a very leftwing version of U.S. history, full of multicultural, feminist, and class-war propaganda. It is based on the thesis that America is not a republic but an empire controlled by a few white men. Its heroes are anti-establishment protestors. The book debunks traditional heroes, such as Christopher Columbus and Andrew Jackson, and doesn’t mention great Americans such as Thomas Edison. His book inspires guilt and the belief that success comes only through exploitation. He belittles patriotism, never allowing pride in America. Zinn told one interviewer that his goal in writing this textbook was to start a ‘quiet revolution’ of people taking power from within the institutions.”

A study by the Family Research Council  critiques the Advanced Placement U.S. History Course (APUSH) “The APUSH course work includes no mention of America’s moon landing, Dwight Eisenhower, Martin Luther King Jr., or Benjamin Franklin, among others…Peter wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, calls the new AP U.S. history framework ‘a briefing document on progressive and leftist views of the American past,’ one which ‘weaves together a vaguely Marxist or least materialistic reading of key events with the whole litany of identity group grievances.’ Author Stanley Kurtz, who formerly taught at Harvard and the University of Chicago, joins in this critique, asserting that the College Board is pushing U.S. history as far to the Left as it can get away with, and stating that the APUSH curriculum is a ‘movement of left-leaning historians that aims to internationalize the teaching of American history.’”

In his critique of the liberal education establishment, William J. Dodwell notes: “…in schools and colleges the works and achievements of so-called dead white males have become impolitic.  The left suppresses and revises history to fit its agenda that emphasizes oppression…They virtually ignore the U.S. Constitution or even dismiss it as extremist.  The education establishment embraces collectivism and downplays individual accomplishment lest it pose a challenge to its power.  There is little room for dissent.  Such homogeneous thinking invites tyranny, and educational manipulation sets the stage for that outcome.”

Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich believes that U.S. students need patriotism in their education.  He has urged both elected and appointed officials to review the matter.

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Front Groups Advance Partisan Goals

Several organizations, ostensibly formed for racial, gender, religious or other purposes have created a sense of crisis within the United States since the election of 2016. Many of the concerns expressed are less about ideological dissent or specific issues than they are about merely partisan posturing.

An explanation lies in an examination of the reasons some of these organizations were formed.

In an effort to attract special interest groups, capitalize on those with grievances, and reach out to individuals alienated from party politics, numerous “front” organizations have been developed by the leftist supporters of the Democrat Party. The purpose of this strategy is to criticize centrists, conservatives and Republicans in a manner that seems nonpartisan.

The concept is not new.  The idea dates back to two 1960’s-era radicals, Richard Andrew Cloward and his spouse, Frances Fox Piven.  The investigatory group Discover the Networks describes their work as an attempt to produce “cadres of aggressive organizers” to use “demonstrations to create a climate of militancy…These groups produce ‘Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists.”

Republicans, too, have benefited from independent organizations, but those GOP-favored groups tend to be more focused on the actual issues for which they formed. In contrast, many Democrat-friendly front organizations tend to ignore their proclaimed purpose and concentrate on partisan goals.

This masking of bare-knuckled politics with a veneer of special interest organizations explains the dichotomies apparent in positions and actions that appear contradictory to their stated reasons for existing. Many, on both sides of the ideological divide, have noticed this. The leftist group Counterpunch notes that “The self-labeled Progressive Movement that has arisen over the past decade is primarily one big propaganda campaign serving the political interests of the Democratic Party’s richest one-percent who created it.”

The Women’s March on Washington organization, which produced a large protest event following President Trump’s inauguration, was co-chaired by Linda Sarsour, a staunch advocate for Sharia Law and an apologist for the offensive treatment of females by Muslim extremists.  It has become readily apparent that some organizations allegedly representing women’s interest are simply using gender issues as little more than a smokescreen for their partisan agenda in matters wholly unrelated to women’s rights. There can be little doubt that the most pressing danger facing females today is the abuse, slavery, and murder received at the hands of Islamic extremists.  Reports of the horrors women face are clear, well documented, and abundant. However, as “Hannah,” a courageous Tunisian young woman, a Fulbright scholar and an earnest advocate for equal rights in her homeland stated on the Vernuccio/Novak Report radio program, “No one seems to care for these women.  The so-called ‘sex jihad’ which justifies the treatment of women—especially young girls, as property and the ‘spoils of war’ is virtually ignored by some western organizations that claim to represent women.” (Due to continuing threats on her life by the Moslem Brotherhood, her real name cannot be disclosed.)

The National Catholic Register  provides another example. “…critics have assailed Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG) and Catholics United as front groups for secular progressives by highlighting their connections to each other, the Democratic Party and liberal funding sources…Hacked emails from the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank connected to those groups, and released by WikiLeaks in October, confirmed for many their longtime suspicions that the groups are little more than “astroturf” Catholic organizations planted to sow confusion…John Podesta has created these groups with the intention to elect Democrats,’ said Anne Hendershott, director of the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life…referring to the former director of the Center for American Progress who… [served as] …Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager…Part of that strategy, as purportedly unveiled in the WikiLeaks emails, was to create groups with ‘Catholic’ in their title that would advocate for political issues that align with the Democratic Party platform while advocating for an active government to achieve those ends.

“Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, who has written about CACG and Catholics United for several years, said the 2004 election results moved leaders in the Democratic Party to make inroads with religious voters. In addition to controversial funding sources, the groups are deeply intertwined with each other…“They saw an opportunity to cash in on religious voters on the left,” Donohue told the Register. “My problem is these groups were born in deceit. They are not true membership organizations. If you take away the Soros Foundation, the Arca Foundation, the other big philanthropists on the left, they collapse, because they have no real members of their own.”

The Washington Free Beacon’s Lachlan Markay writes that “Left-wing front groups make anti-Trump money untraceable. ‘Fiscal sponsors’ add layer of opacity to liberal dark money groups fighting Trump nominations. Dark money advocacy groups are required to disclose little about their donors, but two left-wing organizations fighting President Donald Trump’s cabinet nominations are using a tax law loophole to make their finances even more opaque.”

This assists Democrats’ attempt to recover from their loss in the 2016 election.

Absurd Reaction to Trump’s Paris Climate Decision, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of President Trump’s decision on the Paris Climate Treaty.

American compliance to the Paris treaty would have heavily cost U.S. taxpayers and the U.S. economy, without producing any significant environmental benefits. When Obama agreed to the measure, Americans for Tax reform noted:

“Through a litany of regulations stemming from the agreement, Obama has essentially offered up the U.S. economy as a sacrificial lamb to further his own legacy.  Sadly, the agreement will not just hurt the country’s growth as a whole, but will trickle down to low-and-middle income Americans. As a result of the agreement, energy costs will skyrocket, in turn raising the cost of utility bills for families and increasing the costs of consumer goods.

“A recent study by the Heritage Foundation projects that the Paris agreement and resulting policies will increase electricity costs for a family of four between 13 and 20 percent annually. The study also projected American families will see over $20,000 of lost income by year 2035. Such regressive policy hits the nation’s most vulnerable hardest, who ironically are the same people Obama uses to justify the deal.

“The Paris deal is also slated to reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion, and result in an average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs by 2035. Of the 400,000 jobs lost, an estimated 200,000 will be in the manufacturing sector. This means Americans will also see the costs of consumer goods such as electronics, paper products, and apparel increase, inevitably taking more out of household income. With such drastic costs to the U.S., American’s would expect an equally drastic benefit on the other end, yet that is simply not the case. Policies such as those resulting from climate deal would, even with a complete elimination of U.S. carbon emissions, result in less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures.”

A peer-reviewed study by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg  in the Global Policy Journal found that:

  • “The climate impact of all Paris INDC promisesis minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
  • Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nationfulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.
  • US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F)by 2100.
  • EU climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.053°C (0.096°F)by 2100.
  • China climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F)by 2100.
  • The rest of the world’s climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.036°C (0.064°F)by 2100.”

Rendering the over-the top rhetoric all the more irrational are the inherent weaknesses in the treaty. A Popular Science  study states

“…the truth is that the agreement amounts to little more than a gentleman’s handshake. The terms are entirely unenforceable…There’s also no framework that explains how the various countries are going to meet their targets. (What technologies or cuts will they use? This is mostly left up to the imagination, for now.) And it’s unrealistic, given that the global energy supply… is doing so at a dangerously slow pace. To reach the agreement’s goal of holding the average global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, we’ve placed a lot of our bets on unproven, uncommercialized, or yet unknown future tech. This means the climate agreement is banking on blanketing the Earth in renewables and other fossil fuel-free energy sources, while deploying large-scale, emissions reductions technologies. And fast. It’s not going to happen…So really, what the Paris agreement provides humans with is a big psychological nudge. As a species, we tend to not get serious about addressing predicted, preventable problems until they’re directly upon us, and therefore no longer preventable.”

In contrast, opponents of the Paris treaty have praised the decision. Senator James Inhofe stated “I applaud President Trump’s decision to pull out from the Paris Climate Agreement and look forward to continuing to work with him on America’s path towards energy independence.”  The Oklahoma Republican pointed out that “President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement demonstrates what I have said since the Obama administration negotiated our commitments: the Paris Climate Agreement is nothing but empty promises…The President’s decision again proves that this administration is prioritizing the bottom line of hard-working Americans over the agendas of environmental extremists. Trump made this commitment clear with his Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth executive order that begins to unwind the Clean Power Plan – which would have been the primary component of our commitments to the Paris Agreement.   Looking back at the outcome of the Kyoto Protocol, we know that the Paris Agreement was doomed to fail…Nearly half of the 37 countries that ratified and became legally bound to the agreement have failed to meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets, without a single sanction administered as a result. The Paris Agreement, which is contingent on voluntary actions from 196 countries, will be no more successful.”

Absurd Reaction to Trump’s Paris Climate Decision

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents a two-part review of President Trump’s decision on the Paris Climate Treaty.

As expected, the reaction to President Trump’s decision to not comply with the Paris Climate Treaty has resulted in near-hysterical reactions. Legally, the White House was able to withdraw, since the measure, although in reality a treaty, was never sent to the Senate by Obama for ratification as required by the Constitution.

The fact that, even if fully complied with, and even if the measures were completely successful, no appreciable environmental results would have occurred continues to be ignored by those expressing apocalyptic warnings about the Oval Office decision.

CNN  reported “President Donald Trump faced a chorus of global disapproval Friday in the wake of his decision to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement on climate change, with allies and rivals uniting …Some of the fiercest criticism came from Europe, where many leaders had made personal appeals to Trump to stick with an accord backed by 195 nations…German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni put out a joint statement in which they pledged to implement the Paris climate agreement notwithstanding the withdrawal of the US.”

Predictably, media comments have been harsh. The Express  reports that a “Local newspaper Berliner Kurier use the powerful, if not vulgar, headline: “Earth to Trump: F*** you!” on its front page, in response to the US president backing out of the climate change deal.”

The rhetoric is absurd, but typical of the Left’s reaction to any proposals that they don’t agree with. Brian Rogers, writing in realclearenergy  reports that “the Environmentalist Left is now experiencing a total meltdown. ‘World War III is well and truly underway. And we are losing,’ wrote Bill McKibben, founder of the climate activist group, and a key member of the Democrats’ platform committee last year. Indeed, as President Trump and GOP leaders breathe new life into the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, left-wing environmentalists are pushing their anti-fossil fuel ‘Keep it in the Ground’ movement even further out of the mainstream with a proposal, called ‘The Solutions Project.’ Conceived by Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson and endorsed by McKibben and others, The Solutions Project is a plan to move America to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050…What McKibben and his allies fail to tell Americans is that Jacobson’s plan would totally devastate the U.S. economy to the tune of 4 million lost jobs, and would be a land grab the size of North Dakota… “Jacobson buries these details deep in his long report and offers scant analysis or consideration of the costs. He casually notes the project will cost $14.6 trillion – or $429 billion per year if spent equally over the 34 years between now and 2050. Jacobson also waves off the 4 million lost jobs in traditional energy industries by suggesting the U.S. will see a net gain in jobs from wind and solar. What he doesn’t tell readers is that workers in those potential new jobs will make $10,000 a year less on average than those working today in the current energy field.

R Street  notes that “Reducing our impact on the environment is a fundamentally conservative principle. Rather than seeing people as separate from nature, or inherently harmful to the environment, conservatives understand that stewardship of the land honors nature as both bounty and beauty… [However] Ever since the early 1970s, environmentalism has been synonymous with left-wing, big-government policies. From the expanding authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to numerous state and local regulations, the voices of those who revere nature, but are skeptical of expanding regulation, have been lost.”

The Report concludes on Monday