Thursday, July 19, 2018

Fall Forecast: An Anti-Leftist Electoral Rout

Margo Heights, right, holds a megaphone to broadcast the live announcement by President Donald Trump of his choice of federal appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the president's second nominee to the Supreme Court, during a protest Monday, July 9, 2018, in Seattle. The protest was held by the group Refuse Fascism. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)
The angry demonstrators at the Supreme Court didn’t know, and didn’t much care, who Trump’s nominee was. They knew they were against him, as they are against everything Trump wants to do. Perhaps they also know they are losing most of the political fights, and are on the verge of following their McGovernite predecessors into the trash bin of American political history.
If I had to predict near-term American politics, I’d forecast an anti-leftist electoral rout this fall, with a nasty period of infighting and restructuring of the Democrat Party to follow. To be sure, it’s a very volatile world and lots of unexpected things can take place, but for the moment the Dems look like big-time losers.  It seems that the leftist takeovers of the media and the education system are running out of steam. I’ll not be astonished at violence in the streets over the Kavanaugh nomination, but I don’t think it will lead to mass protests of the sort that accompanied the McGovern disaster. Worst of all for the Dems and their “intellectual” fellow-travelers, their distortion of the history of the past couple of centuries has caught up with them, and they are now speaking and writing on behalf of the modern world’s biggest losers.
It’s astonishing to see so many Democratic leaders proclaim their enthusiasm for “democratic socialism,” a doctrine that has never produced a successful American political movement, any more than it has produced a durable political/economic system anywhere in the modern world.
This is the payoff for the leftist domination of the media, schools and colleges: an elite of anti-American and pro-socialist grads who do not know much about history or about how the world actually works. The Obama administration was dominated by these types. You could see it in the many errors of fact in presidential statements and speeches, most certainly including the much-touted Cairo address.
Predictably, it failed, as most investors in the U.S. stock market will sadly tell you, or as any of the millions of refugees and migrants will testify. If the lefties looked, they could see that their doctrines—largely 19th century doctrines at that—no longer applied to the real world. Relegated to corners of the society, they could only retain power and prestige by attacking their opponents. We call it “the politics of personal destruction,” but it is more than that. It entails the creation of an imaginary world, where their doctrines can be advanced. Orwell provided the best description in “1984”:
Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.
This stratagem is evident in the many fanciful accusation against Judge Kavanaugh, in the tireless smears of President Trump, and in the insistence of FBI official Peter Strzok that despite the considerable evidence to the contrary, he and his cohorts were not engaged in a political operation to “save the country” from a Trump presidency.
For those who care about real espionage, it is also a fundamental element in Russian disinformation campaigns against the United States. The Soviets knew that if they could control our understanding of the past, they could more easily manipulate our present and future behavior. If we were serious about Russian meddling in our affairs, we’d look carefully at their manipulation of our schools, universities, media and political class.
It’s not easy to undo all this damage to American minds. Restoring a semblance of accuracy to scholarly endeavors takes a long time, and we’ve certainly lost at least a large part of a generation now living in an Orwellian universe. Those of our political and intellectual leaders capable of providing proper models are old and getting older, and their energy will decline.
A tough situation.
If you’re looking for Russian meddling…
Can’t win an honest debate. Only solution is silence us.

U.S. CO2 Levels Drop Again — So Why Aren’t Green Groups Rejoicing?


The new report, based on U.S. data, shows clearly the U.S. continuing downward trend.
“The U.S. emitted 15.6 metric tons of CO2 per person in 1950,” wrote the Daily Caller. “After rising for decades, it’s declined in recent years to 15.8 metric tons per person in 2017, the lowest measured levels in 67 years.”
That’s right. 67 years. Green groups and leftist climate extremists should be exulting. The U.S. has found a way to produce more GDP — making all of us better off — with less energy.
Meanwhile, Europe has imposed massive economy-deadening regulations on its economies in order to reduce CO2 output. How has that worked?
Last year, European output of CO2 rose 1.5%, while U.S. output fell 0.5%. For the record, the disaster predicted when President Trump left the Paris climate agreement and rejected draconian EPA restrictions on power plants hasn’t materialized. On the contrary, the U.S. model has been shown to be superior.
This isn’t the first time we’ve reported the ongoing decline in U.S. CO2. And if current trends hold, it won’t be the last. And, to be sure, it is a long-term trend. . . .
Question: Over the same period, how did the rest of the world do? Emissions rose by 21% to 6.04 billion metric tons over the 12 years, mostly due to booming economic growth in India and China, where coal-fired energy output continues to expand.
The truth, and it’s proven by the hard data, is that CO2 made in the USA will not choke the world to death or cause it to massively overheat. And you can thank capitalism for that.

Well, they’re not going to do that. The thing to remember is, environmentalism is the excuse for the policies they champion, not the reason.

Congress Renews Push to Designate Muslim Brotherhood as Terror Group

Congress Renews Push to Designate Muslim Brotherhood as Terror Group

Rep. DeSantis: 'The Muslim Brotherhood is a malevolent force, and American policy needs to reflect this truth'

Supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood
Supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood / Getty Images
BY:   Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are renewing a years-long push to designate the international Muslim Brotherhood organization as a terrorist organization due to its support for terror organizations that threaten U.S. security interests across the globe, according to conversations with U.S. officials spearheading the effort.
The congressional effort to target the Muslim Brotherhood will kick off early Wednesday, when lawmakers on the House's Subcommittee on National Security gather for a hearing to "examine the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates pose to the United States and its interests and how to most effectively counter it, including potential next steps for U.S. policy," according to the committee.
The hearing is expected to set the stage for Congress to follow through on efforts that begun in 2015 to convince the Obama administration to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror group following its violent, and eventually failed, takeover in Egypt.
The State Department has opposed formal designation of the Brotherhood for some time due to efforts by the Obama administration to make diplomatic overtures to the group, particularly during its coup in Egypt. Although the Trump administration has designated various offshoots of the Brotherhood as global terror groups, the organization as a whole has escaped U.S. scrutiny.
Rep. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.), the National Security Subcommittee's chair, told the Washington Free Beacon that U.S. policy has failed to address the Brotherhood's radical behavior and support for terror groups. Multiple countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, have already designated the Brotherhood as a terror group.
"The Muslim Brotherhood is a malevolent force, and American policy needs to reflect this truth," DeSantis told the Free Beacon. "Designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization is overdue."
Key U.S. allies such as Turkey and Qatar continue to work alongside the Muslim Brotherhood, sparking concern among lawmakers such as DeSantis who view these countries as working at a crossroads with the Trump administration as it works to eradicate radical forces in the Middle East.
"The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical Islamist organization that has generated a network of affiliates in over 70 countries," the House committee notes on its website promoting the upcoming hearing.
In addition to hearing from Muslim Brotherhood experts on the group's ongoing support for radical terror groups, lawmakers participating in the hearing will keep a close eye on exposing the roles that both Qatar and Turkey play in bolstering the group's radical ideology, according to those briefed on the hearing.
While the Trump administration, as early as January 2017, indicated that it was considering a terror designation for the entire Muslim Brotherhood, little action has been taken, motivating Congress to lead the charge.
Past efforts to designate the Muslim Brotherhood failed to gain traction during the Obama administration due to its explicit policy of working with the group in Egypt, a policy that was met with much protest in the region.
U.S. Muslim advocacy organizations such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, have galvanized their supporters to oppose a Muslim Brotherhood designation.
In early 2017, groups affiliated with CAIR and its supporters launched a series of attacks on Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), who, at the time, was pushing his own effort to formally designate the Brotherhood as a terror entity.

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

MSNBC Floats Conspiracy That Republicans Ignored Election-Meddling Concerns While In Russia

MSNBC Floats Conspiracy That Republicans Ignored Election-Meddling Concerns While In Russia

Rachel Maddow is the guest today, Wednesday, March 22, 2017 on ABC's 'The View.'
Photo by Heidi Gutman/ABC via Getty Images
Last week a group of Republican legislators traveled to Russia to meet with lawmakers on a host of issues. But if one was to watch MSNBC – specifically, Rachel Maddow’s program – they would walk away thinking the Republicans didn’t bring up election meddling or Russia’s invasion of Crimea.
On July 3, Maddow used her eponymous program, which is second only to Sean Hannity in number of average viewers, to falsely suggest the GOP lawmakers didn’t even bring up these hot-button topics during their four-hour meeting with Russian lawmakers.
"[Russian parliament] has also been bragging about how the Americans haven’t raised any real complaints at all; not on Crimea, not on them messing with the election … uh, it’s been awesome," Maddow said. "That is not how these things usually go."
Maddow then brought on a guest, former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, to agree with her that it was “disappointing” that the GOP delegation didn’t discuss tough issues with Russian lawmakers.
On Maddow’s MSNBC blog, Steve Benen published a piece two days later making the same claim, and included two paragraphs from a Washington Post article that quoted Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), who attended the meeting, as saying: “I’m not here today to accuse Russia of this or that or so forth.” From that quote, Benen made the claim that Republicans didn’t discuss Russia’s election meddling or its invasion of Crimea.
“Did the Americans make the trip to take a firm stand against our attackers? Hardly. They had no interest in confronting Russian officials over their election interference, preferring instead to let bygones be bygone,” Benen wrote. “There was no reason for the delegation to be partisan, but it was. There was no reason for these Republicans to give the Kremlin a pass on its misdeeds, but they did. There was no reason for the GOP lawmakers to exclude election meddling and the fate of Crimea from their discussions, but they did that, too.”
Had Benen continued to read the Post article, he would have seen that both of those topics were discussed. Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-LA) also attended the talks and told the Post that the meetings were “damn frank, very, very, very frank, no holds barred.” He also said he “asked our friends in Russia not to interfere in our elections this year” and “to exit Ukraine and allow Ukraine to self-determine.” He added that Crimea and Syria were also discussed.
My former Washington Examiner colleague Byron York spoke to other Republicanswho were in Russia who also said the election and Crimea were discussed at length.
"We really hammered, especially, on the election meddling," Sen. John Thune (R-SD) told York. "We got into Syria, we got into Ukraine, we got a little bit into nuclear weapons issues, but by and large, I would say without question the issue we hit the hardest was the issue of election meddling."
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) told York the Russian officials pushed back on the topic of election meddling.
"I wasn't expecting anybody to confess anything, and of course they didn't," Johnson told York. "They just pushed back. They said you guys do way worse than we have done."
Other media outlets reported at the time of the delegation that the election and Crimea were discussed. The Associated Press began its report on the meeting by writing: "Visiting U.S. senators on Wednesday urged Russia not to meddle in the U.S. midterm election in November if it wants to improve strained bilateral ties." NPR began its report similarly.
Yet here was MSNBC’s biggest star claiming otherwise. Russian lawmakers did speak positively about the meeting, but never said such important issues were not brought up.
Vyacheslav Nikonov, a member of the Russian assembly, told the Post the meeting with Republicans "was one of the easiest ones in my life." He said the issue of election meddling "was raised in general form." Sergey Kislyak (the former Russian ambassador to the U.S. who led to Michael Flynn’s resignation) said the Republicans’ willingness to come to Russia was "probably good confirmation of a readiness to start a dialogue – something that we lacked for a long time."
The extent to which the matters were discussed – or the heatedness of the discussions – may not be known, but what is known is that the election and Crimea were brought up during this trip, contrary to what MSNBC claims.

SUMANTRA MAITRA: No, Trump Is Not To Blame For NATO’s Chaos, Nor For Breaking Up The Liberal Order.

SUMANTRA MAITRA: No, Trump Is Not To Blame For NATO’s Chaos, Nor For Breaking Up The Liberal Order.
NATO is a mess — and that’s nothing new:
NATO enlargement post-Cold War was essentially a push from the liberal internationalist lobby within the Clinton administration, led by Madeleine Albright and backed by the German leaders like Volker Rühe. Evidence suggests there was significant academic opposition to NATO expansion during that time, including from the father of the strategy of Cold War containment, George F Kennan. He said NATO expansion would end up being the greatest blunder of our times.
There still remains a significant academic as well as strategic opposition to further NATO expansion, as almost everyone in the strategic community foresaw that an inexorable push of frontiers towards a former superpower like Russia would not only invite an understandable military backlash but install a hardline regime with a siege mentality within a former adversary.
Also, the cost-benefit analysis of providing an American taxpayer-funded security umbrella to corrupt, violent smaller countries not only is a heavy and needless burden based on a flawed strategy but encourages those smaller countries to risk conflict assuming that American cavalry is just around the hills.
However, the current ongoing debate on NATO funding is not that. It is not new, either. One of the strongest speeches against NATO was from former Defense Secretary Robert Gates in 2011. He highlighted, almost prophetically, that if NATO leaders failed to immediately increase their funding and improve hardware, retention, and deployment capabilities, future American presidents would find it hard to justify to the electorate why they should pay for rich countries like Germany to have bloated social security programs, and not invest more in their submarine fleet or air force. Incidentally, Germany has only four serviceable Typhoons in the Luftwaffe and has refused to increase its NATO budget.
Ideally, after winning the Cold War, NATO should have thrown itself one hell of a victory party, then promptly disbanded. The former member states could have maintained close military relations in a strictly de facto entente cordiale, but a defensive alliance with no external enemy is a contradiction in terms. That contradiction, plus unwise expansion into Eastern Europe, have given us the worst possible outcome: Provoking Russia while encouraging allied free-ridership.

ANALYSIS: TRUE. #PermitPatty Showcases the Dangers of Overregulation.

ANALYSIS: TRUE. #PermitPatty Showcases the Dangers of Overregulation.
The real face of overregulation has been in the news in recent weeks, after bystanders called the police on three young people in different states for peaceful behavior. The incidents serve as a reminder that an overly broad “rule,” even if rarely enforced, can be weaponized at any time. Such rules can serve to empower pettiness and bigotry that otherwise might have been limited to rude speech.
The three incidents all went viral, from the pathetic marijuana-corporation executive who called the police on an eight-year-old girl for the “crime” of “illegally selling water without a permit” on a hot summer day, to the neighbor who called the police on a 12-year-old for his summer lawn-mowing business, to the 16-year-old boy who was cuffed and arrested in Charleston, S.C., for selling palmetto roses (a longstanding Charleston tradition). Luckily, the police did not act on the complaints in the first two cases — but the very fact that people feel empowered to call the police over harmless behavior shows the pernicious reach of the regulatory regime. In each of these cases, the regulations in question were the sort justified on health-and-safety grounds.
And in all three cases, the children were black. These regulations may not have been written with race in mind, like those of the hallowed Progressive Era were, but the fact remains that this all-encompassing regulatory regime allows racists to act on their prejudice with force. Those who oppose bigotry, and yet support high levels of regulation with good intentions, ought to bear in mind that enforcement often falls upon those who are already marginalized, as we have also seen with drug and gun laws.
Never agitate for a government power you wouldn’t trust your political opponents to wield — because someday they will.

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

CLAIM: Democrats ignore the left at their peril. Midwesterners aren’t scared of socialism — they’re hungry for it.

CLAIM: Democrats ignore the left at their peril. Midwesterners aren’t scared of socialism — they’re hungry for it.
I’m a 29-year-old member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) who was elected to the Chicago City Council in 2015. I ran on an unabashed platform of fighting for this city’s working class: fully funding public schools, opposing privatization, ending corporate welfare, preserving and expanding affordable housing and reopening shuttered health clinics. And I wasn’t afraid to call out the corporate-friendly Democrats who continue to cut vital social services while giving handouts to corporations and the wealthy.
The same has been true outside of major urban areas as well. Last year, in Rock Island, Illinois, millennial diesel mechanic and democratic socialist Dylan Parker won election to the city council on a broad platform for the many and not the few that included equitable economic development and universal broadband internet access.
Indeed, this hunger for anti-corporate, anti-establishment politics is spreading throughout the Midwest. You can see it in the massive growth of the Democratic Socialists of America — currently boasting over 44,000 members. Ocasio-Cortez and I are both members of DSA, which has seen chapters spring up everywhere from Indianapolis and Cincinnati to Des Moines, Iowa and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. My own chapter in Chicago now has over 1,500 members.
The Democratic establishment may not want to acknowledge the growing popularity of the party’s left flank and its agenda of fighting for real social, racial and economic justice. But if they hope to win, it’s time they embrace it. If they don’t, we’ll take them head-on.
Blue-on-Blue infighting is always fun to watch. But when a major portion of a major party is ready to embrace ever-increasing statism, it isn’t a sign of political or cultural health.



I posted the indictments obtained against 12 Russian military intelligence officers by the Special Counsel this past Friday here. This morning Maria Bartiromo interviewed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes about the indictments (video below). Nunes cited the March 22 Intelligence Committee Report on Russian Active Measures that was released the following month and posted online in redacted form. He also cited the Wall Street Journal editorial “After the Strzok stonewall.” I found the interview of interest and thought many readers would as well.
In the editorial, the Journal calls for declassification of the following documents (all quotations are from the editorial):
• FISA applications: “Justice and the FBI made one application and three renewals for warrants against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. The text of those applications would show the degree to which the FBI relied on the dossier compiled by Christopher Steele at the request of Fusion GPS. They would also show how honest FBI and Justice were with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that approves warrants.”
• Woods procedures documents: “The FBI is required to vet and support the facts its presents to a FISA court when it seeks a warrant to eavesdrop on a U.S. citizen. These rules are known as Woods procedures, and releasing sections of this Woods file would show the extent to which the FBI verified the dossier or other evidence it used as its justification to listen to Trump campaign aides. More broadly, Mr. Trump should declassify any document that demonstrates what the FBI and Justice knew about the provenance and accuracy of the Fusion-Steele dossier.”
• 302s: “These forms include information taken from the notes FBI agents make while interviewing a source or subject. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley last week asked Justice to declassify the 302s for 12 separate FBI interviews with Mr. Ohr concerning his contacts with Mr. Steele. Declassifying other 302s related to the subjects in this probe (including former Trump aides George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn ) would reveal what the FBI was told, who provided what information, and how much came from politically motivated sources.”
• 1023s: “These are the equivalent of 302s for counterintelligence, and they document FBI debriefings with informants or sources. Mr. Trump should declassify these and other documents showing interaction between the FBI and Mr. Steele, Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, Fusion backer Dan Jones, informant Stefan Halper, or anyone the FBI used to keep tabs on the Trump campaign. These documents would reveal the extent and dates of the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign.”

Don's Tuesday Column

            THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson   Red Bluff Daily News   7/17/2018
Numbers: gun self-defense, Trump hate
A couple of statistics came out that speak to prominent issues before Americans. The first, which you can find by searching “More People Use a Gun in Self-Defense Each Year Than Die in Car Accidents,” by Mark W. Smith, asks the reader to put into perspective the anathema displayed whenever the “right” people become gun-violence victims. The second, “Rap Sheet: ***305*** Acts of Media-Approved Violence and Harassment Against Trump Supporters,” by John Nolte of, is a running tally with names, dates and descriptions of despicable acts of violent politically-motivated incivility. It includes the attempted murder of Republican congressmen by a “Bernie Sanders supporter” at a baseball practice.

An aside for consideration: The progressive left uses the term “intersectionality” to try to tie every issue, complaint and cause together into a supposed narrative. Racism (all white people are guilty), sexism (all men likewise), injustice (economic because white men run everything and keep women and minorities “down”; environmental because white men cause harm to “Mother Earth”), and sexual (only heterosexuality and traditional male/female relations—enforced by, again, white men—are condemnable).

Perhaps our side can likewise tie numerous issues together as a means of identifying the single motivating drive separating us, the normal side of America, and them, the seemingly unified progressive left (no longer “liberal” in any traditional sense of respect for personal liberty). For us, freedom (to live our lives and conduct our economic and social affairs while causing no harm to fellow citizens); civil discourse (again, the freedom to express ourselves personally, socially and politically without fear or retribution); and respect (for those freedoms and for our own and America’s traditions and values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution)—are all paramount.

The modern left simply refuses to respect and ultimately allow our freedoms to exist above the requirements by the left for subservience and obeisance to the values and policies flowing from the above-listed progressive agenda. Hence, whenever their preferred victim groups suffer from gun violence, the media and political arms of the leftist movement jump at the chance to force us to focus only on their perspective: The guns are at fault and all who own and use them legally must surrender, and denigrate, our rights to peaceably support our ownership and use of firearms.

We can see, from California to New York, the irrational and hysterical response that manifests in poorly-crafted, ill-informed and absolutely counterproductive laws designed only to infringe on gun owners, gun sellers, ammunition acquisition and firearms manufacturing. They say that they accept our right to own and use guns (only because the Supreme Court so ruled, which can be changed with the addition of leftist justices), but it’s those socially irresponsible sellers and manufacturers that need to be reined in. Even that supposedly-accepted personal right is infringed on by attempts to force us to carry exorbitant liability insurance, impose storage methods that render our self-defense moot, and assess taxes that put the common hand gun, as a means of self-defense for those of modest income, out of reach.

How else but as part of diabolical plot to disarm us should we look at a city like Los Angeles making it illegal to possess a (fill-in-the-name) kind of gun, an overreach so ludicrous as to make vast numbers of citizens into criminals for simply driving through L.A. I reminded myself of that fact when I consulted a once-indispensable street map showing how it is physically impossible to go anywhere, particularly on freeways transiting the many individual incorporated areas not called Los Angeles, without being subject to its laws.

Courts may have put the law on hold but it shows how gun laws are disconnected from reality. I know a court put on hold a silly-but-horrible law requiring a background check for the purchase of ammunition. Just consider the pointlessness of enacting yet another law to ostensibly keep criminals from buying bullets, which will simply force them to use girlfriends, etc. to acquire bullets for their illegally-acquired firearms. Would law-abiding California gun owners have become criminals when buying bullets in other states?

Mr. Smith’s column is an excerpt from “Duped: How the Anti-gun Lobby Exploits the Parkland School Shooting—and How Gun Owners Can fight Back.” He begins, “Millions of people protect themselves and their families with guns every day in the United States.” With over 300 million legally-owned guns, that seems reasonable. On the low end of defensive gun use, just take the Justice Department’s own statistics, which say that almost 70,000 times a year (67,740) someone protects themselves or someone with a gun. A 2013 CDC study put that number between 500,000 and 3 million; a National Crime Victimization Survey cited 108,000. “The most comprehensive study ever conducted was a 1995 survey” by Gary Kleck that “reported between 2.1 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year. Do anti-gunners care?

Lastly, put the number, “305 acts of violence and harassment against Trump supporters,” in context. Have there been hundreds of acts of violence and harassment directed at racial or religious minorities? There probably have been and they would all be condemnable: If some anti-Semite grabbed a yarmulke off the head of an observant Jew, it would be outrageous; if a Jewish man felt personally unsafe to wear a yarmulke due to threats from Muslims, likewise. If a “gay pride” advocate had his or her “rainbow” cap or sign ripped from them by a hateful person, we would all condemn it.

And yet “MAGA (Make America Great Again)” hats, shirts, stickers, and signs have been physically taken from Trump supporters with hardly a peep of protest from the left. The list starts with “Nov. 19, 2015: ‘Black Lives Matter’ Activist Calls for Donald Trump’s Assassination” and “Jan. 5, 2016: Jewish Trump supporter’s Trump sign vandalized with Nazi images.” The list goes on for 8 sickening, single-spaced pages.

Monday, July 16, 2018



On July 9, Sen. Kamala Harris tweeted:
Two decades after Brown v. Board, I was only the second class to integrate at Berkeley public schools. Without that decision, I likely would not have become a lawyer and eventually be elected a Senator from California.
That’s the power a Supreme Court Justice holds.
Harris’ election to the Senate is one of the lesser reasons to celebrate Brown v. Board. Moreover, it’s far from clear that Harris wouldn’t have become a lawyer without attending an integrated public school. Plenty of African-Americans became lawyers without having that benefit.
But is it even true that Harris was in only the second class to integrate at Berkeley public schools? Based on an examination of old yearbooks from Berkeley High, Freida Powers reports that classrooms at Berkeley High were already integrated in 1963, a year before Harris was born.
Maybe Harris meant that she was part of only the second integrated class to proceed all the way from kindergarten through high school in Berkeley. But even if that’s true, and it seems implausible given the early integration of the high school, it’s ludicrous to suggest that attending a segregated kindergarten would have prevented her from becoming a lawyer and Senator.
No one can deny the power of the Supreme Court. Harris doesn’t need to embellish a personal story to demonstrate it.
Nor can anyone deny that Brown v. Board was a momentous decision. However, its impact has been overrated.
Given the way American was moving in the years following that 1954 Supreme Court decision, it’s difficult to believe that Berkeley, California would not have integrated its public schools by time Harris entered public school — some time around 1969, five years after Congress passed the sweeping Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The black students pictured in the 1963 year book may have been beneficiaries of Brown v. Board. Kamala Harris almost certainly was not.
Some compare Harris to Barack Obama. They seem, at least, to have in common a penchant for false or misleading statements about their background.



Yascha Mounk of Harvard University, who numbers among the liberal thinkers overwrought about populism and Donald Trump (Mounk is the author of The People Vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It), has posted on Twitter a list of “Ten Commandments of Liberal Inquiry” by Bertrand Russell from way back in 1951. Back in those days, intelligent liberalism meant Reinhold Niebuhr, Lionel Trilling, Isaiah Berlin, and even Arthur Schlesinger (at least in his best book, The Vital Center). Hard to find many of their stature and respect on the left today. Instead we get former Enron adviser and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman.
Anyway, here from ThreadApp are Russell’s Ten Commandments, and count up how many have been completely abandoned today (especially by the climatistas, the sufferers of Trump Derangement Syndrome, campus leftists, and media outlets like The Atlantic and Business Insider):
In 1951, Bertrand Russell took to the @nytimes to argue that the best answer to fanaticism was a calm search for truth. His Ten Commandments of Liberal Inquiry could not be more relevant today.
(Number 6 will blow your mind! 😉 )
1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
2. Do not think it worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
3. Never try to discourage thinking, for you are sure to succeed.
4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
9. Be scrupulously truthful, even when truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.
One of the greatest dangers, as Russell saw it, was that “the man who has any doubts” would be “despised.” But liberalism, he argued, “is not so much a creed and a disposition.” It involves tolerance for what you believe to be others’ errors.
They don’t make liberals like they used to. I’d say most of today’s liberals are 0 for 10 on this list.