Nine Causes of Scientific Decline in American Academia

American Thinker

By Leo Goldstein, February 25, 2017

People frequently write about academic political bias but rarely about the degradation of academic scientific capacities. Nevertheless, the signs of this degradation are everywhere. One example is embracing the pseudo-science of climate alarmism. The degree of enthusiasm has varied from Caltech’s tacit approval to the full-throat fervor of Harvard University president Dr. Drew Gilpin Faust. Another sign is a chronic failure of the $300 billion-dollar-a-year post-secondary educational system to produce enough computer specialists. Lastly, there’s the academia’s failure to distance itself from the Union of Concerned Scientists (Disclosure: the author has a pending lawsuit against the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Ford Foundation and other defendants.) and the ongoing “Bill Nye the Science Guy” media hoax.

Continue reading →

Love for dogs and children makes people kinder

Andy Seliverstoff is a 58-year-old professional photographer from
St. Petersburg, Russia.
Andy Seliverstoff is a 58-year-old professional photographer from St. Petersburg, Russia.
Andy Seliverstoff / Via

Understand the Supreme Court like never before

From The Washington Examiner, by Dr. Larry P. Arnn, 01/24/2017 –

Dear Fellow American,

President Trump is going to leave his mark on the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition to Justice Scalia’s replacement, it is likely that another seat will be vacated during his term.

Donald Trump’s nominees could keep the court split or they could tip the court back toward limited constitutional government for an entire generation. An opportunity exists to undo the Progressive judicial activism that has undermined our Constitution the past century. This court’s docket will certainly include controversial issues–such as Obamacare and immigration–and Donald Trump’s nominees will play an important role in the direction of our country.

Continue reading →

The Armed Citizen

From, February, 2017 –

Armed Citizen.jpgFor more from the NRA’s Armed Citizen –









































Exclusive: Few Rogue Border Agents Resist Trump Policies

2017-02-18 (3).png

Union leader says some stations continue to follow Obama ‘catch and release’ directives

PoliZette, February 17, 2017

by Brendan Kirby | Updated 17 Feb 2017 at 4:59 PM

Some border patrol stations have been slow to carry out President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement executive order and instead have continued former President Barack Obama’s “catch-and-release” policies, according to a union official.

Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, told LifeZette that he raised concerns Thursday with U.S. Border Patrol Chief Ronald Vitiello. He said he is confident that issue soon will be corrected.

“We’re still walking people out the door. The catch-and-release policy is still in place in some sectors.”

But Judd said as recently as Thursday, some border patrol stations were still releasing border-jumpers, often without even issuing notices to appear in immigration court hearings. Obama’s policy was to release anyone claiming to have been living continuously in the United States since before Jan. 1, 2014, if they did not have criminal records or active warrants.

“We’re still walking people out the door,” Judd said. “The catch-and-release policy is still in place in some sectors.”

Judd said it was a minority of sectors that have been resisting Trump’s new directives. He laid the blame at the feet of U.S. Border Patrol managers, not front-line officers.

“This is not the administration’s fault. This is Border Patrol’s fault,” he said. “It varies from sector to sector. Some sectors still are operating under the Obama administration’s policies. And that’s troubling … It’s just been very willy-nilly.”

“Lapse in Vetting” To Blame for Letting Syrian Refugees with Terrorist Ties Into U.S.
Dozens of Syrian refugees in the U.S. may have ties to terrorism and the Department of Homeland Security is downplaying it.

Asked about the status of Trump’s marching orders, Customs and Border Protection spokesman Carlos Diaz wrote in an email to LifeZette, “CBP has worked towards implementing the measures mandated by the Executive Orders since they were signed.”

Judd said some managers have been waiting for specific written guidelines to filter down from the Department of Homeland Security. He said he considers that unnecessary since the president’s executive order is crystal clear. He said anyone apprehended by border patrol agents should be turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities. That agency and immigration judges are charged with deciding whether someone should be deported.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, said she was not aware that the president’s executive order had not been fully implemented three weeks after he issued it.

“It actually surprises me. But if that’s the case, certainly the administration is going to need to look into that if they’re going to be undermined,” she said. “That’s got to be nipped in the bud.”

Vaughan, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer, said it often takes time for new policies to be fully embraced. This especially is true during the transition from one administration to the next, she said, because the outgoing administration often has promoted managers who agree with its policy goals.

She noted that Obama, himself, faced bumps in the road on the way to implementing enforcement directives mandating a lighter hand. She said union officials enforced the letter of their collective bargaining agreement requiring training before new policies are adopted.

“It’s not unusual for people who are in disagreement with change to dig in their heels and take a stand,” she said. “I certainly saw that at the State Department where implementation of law and policies could differ based on the views of different managers and different posts.”

Joseph Guzzardi, a spokesman for Californians for Population Stabilization, said it was disappointing that some border patrol officials appear not be onboard with the new policies.

“It would be surprising to me because Border Patrol has been hugely in support of Trump when he ran,” he said. “I have been down to the border and talked to Border Patrol agents and got the clear impression that they were eager to enforce immigration law.”

Judd said he expects a “compete change” after his conversation with Vitiello but added that the policies already should be fully implemented.

“It should not have had to be me who informed him,” he said.




Trump Touts Suppressors as ‘Safety Equipment’ for Gun Owners

As Texas & U.S. Law Shield have previously reported, advocates of hearing protection want to pursue new legislation to make suppressors easier to buy, and a key backer is Donald Trump, Jr.

“It’s about safety,” Trump Jr. explains in the video interview above recorded last September with the founder of SilencerCo Joshua Waldron. “It’s a health issue, frankly.”

“Anyone who has ever worried about hearing loss from shooting might want to lend their ears to this cause!” said  Emily Taylor, an attorney at the Houston law firm of Walker & Byington.

Now the issue is advancing on several fronts.

Continue reading →

Andrew Jackson Portrait Now Hangs in Oval Office. Here’s What He Said About Draining the Swamp.

Jarrett Stepman / / January 25, 2017

Andrew Jackson was the seventh president of the United States and a proponent of “rotation in office.” (Photo: Pictures From History/Newscom)

There is an old quotation that history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.

For Americans, who have a unique and exceptional heritage, it is important that we remember the lessons of our past and engage with the first principles and ideas that have come before us.

Just prior to his inauguration, President Donald Trump compared his movement to the one that brought Andrew Jackson to the White House in the early 19th century. And on Wednesday, he followed up on this commitment and will reportedly hang a portrait of Jackson in the Oval Office.

Continue reading →

Rep. John Ratcliffe: Fighting the ‘fourth branch of government’


Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, brought his prosecutorial and national security expertise to Washington. (CQ Roll Call via AP Images)


Rep. John Ratcliffe: Fighting the ‘fourth branch of government’ | Washington Examiner

Rep. John Ratcliffe is waging a two-front war: deterring cyberattacks and cutting government regulation. The latter, according to the second term Texas Republican, has become the fourth branch of government.

It’s the driving force behind the Separation of Powers Restoration Act, which should shift the power to determine ambiguous laws away from federal agencies to back to the judicial branch

“The Separation of Powers Restoration Act we introduced is really about constitutional boundaries,” Ratcliffe told the Washington Examiner. “What I have witnessed, particularly in the last eight years, is the expansion and growth of Article II, the executive branch. So I made it a priority for me, a focus for me and my time in Congress to help restore constitutional boundaries and authority, particularly as a member of Congress.”

Ratcliffe, a former small town mayor, was appointed by President George W. Bush as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Texas, where he focused on counterterrorism and national security.

After knocking off veteran Rep. John Hall in the Republican primary in 2014, Ratcliffe brought his prosecutorial and national security expertise to Washington. He now leads the House Homeland Security Committee’s cybersecurity subcommittee.

Washington Examiner: Tell us about your interest in cybersecurity.

Ratcliffe: From my perspective, national security has been a big part of my life before and the preamble to the Constitution says that the primary role of the federal government is to provide for the common defense. Increasingly, people are now seeing that cybersecurity is national security and that I’m of the opinion that while border security is important … the simple truth is that we’re being invaded millions of times a day through our digital borders and those invasions are posing a greater threat to Americans right now than anybody coming across our Southern border. We’re only going to be a world super power if we maintain a position as the world’s cyber superpower. Increasingly, there are certain countries that will never be able to compete with the United States from a kinetic, firepower standpoint. Like North Korea will never have as many ships or planes that are as good as what we’re able to generate here. But cyber is the great equalizer and some of the most dangerous people in the world are 18 years old in places like Moscow or around the world where they can impact the lives of Americans from half a world away in a few seconds and a few keystrokes. And so until we improve our cyber defenses, from a national security standpoint, we will be vulnerable. It’s a great challenge, but I also see it as a great opportunity to essentially move the needle in the direction of all Americans, Republicans and Democrats, would agree we need to move.

Washington Examiner: What is something that Congress can send to President Trump quickly to help on this front?

Ratcliffe: Last Congress we passed the Cyber Security Information Sharing Act, which allows for the sharing of cyberthreat indicators … between government and industry. That’s a good foundation to build upon. Things like the [Office of Personnel Management] breach or hacks of the IRS … underscore that federal networks, the dot gov, is still not secure, so one of things that we’ll be focusing on … is to help secure federal networks, specifically the dot gov from those kinds of intrusions.

GOP congressman disappointed by Trump's TPP decision, but encouraged by regulation cuts
Also from the Washington Examiner

GOP congressman disappointed by Trump’s TPP decision, but encouraged by regulation cuts

He warned Trump to get out of campaign mode

01/23/17 10:40 AM

I’m also interested in developing a more robust cyber workforce. One of the challenges we have is that we don’t have enough folks with cyber expertise to fill all of the positions that are cybersecurity related either in the private sector or the federal government. So we need to build a more robust cyber workforce.

I had legislation last Congress that will also focus on the sharing between the federal government with our state and local partners, particularly as it relates to law enforcement. [TV shows] like CSI, it’s always that strand of hair or drop of blood that is the critical piece of evidence, so as a former prosecutor I can tell you that does happen but it does not happen as frequently as the key piece of information being an email that was sent or an online purchase or geo-location information abut where someone was at a particular point in time. So that is becoming increasingly … the critical evidence that we need to protect and secure, and just like with drops of blood and strands of hair, there is chain of evidence in terms of protecting that and getting it from where it takes place through prosecution and a trial. So I proposed a bill to authorize the National Computer Forensics Institute, where the Secret Service would train law enforcement partners to improve on maintaining the proper chain of evidence for cyber evidence.

Washington Examiner: Do you think the U.S. needs to publicly call out state-sponsored hacks?

Ratcliffe: Attribution is important, not always possible. But with respect to where we have reasonable certainty and attribute a specific cyber event or an attack to another nation-state, my criticism of the Obama administration is that there haven’t been significant consequences or deterrence to having that bad behavior happen again. I frankly don’t care whether or not it occurs publicly, it is a bigger issue that there is accountability that takes place. And I can state with certainty that there have been a number of instances where the president has essentially allowed nation-states to engage in cyber events that have been attributed to them and he has not punished that bad behavior. Whether it’s out in the public sphere is a different issue and sometimes there are policy reasons why you don’t want that taking place. But again there has to be deterrence to that type of activity and that’s where I think that, I’m hopeful, that President Trump will enforce the red lines that he puts out there, whereas President Obama clearly has been criticized by many on both sides of the aisle for not doing so.

Washington Examiner: Does the U.S. need to impose more sanctions on Russia?

Trump speaks with Egyptian president el-Sisi
Also from the Washington Examiner

Trump speaks with Egyptian president el-Sisi

El-Sisi has praised Trump in the past.

01/23/17 10:31 AM

Ratcliffe: There are so many people, both members of Congress and members of the media, that are conflating the issues right now as it pertains to Russia and their cyber action and activities. I am of the very certain opinion that Russia engages in cyber hacking of U.S. interests and other foreign interests with regularity and I think that the current president has not acted quickly enough or strongly enough to deter that type of behavior. But I think a lot of this discussion we are having right now is that people are conflating Russian hacking with the presidential election. I can state with certainty that Russian hacking did not impact our election infrastructure. What worries me is there is so much conflation of those issues right now, I’m just trying to be careful … before we determine what are the appropriate sanctions with respect to Russia. Until I get the full picture [from intelligence briefings], I’m not going to say that we need to expand the current sanctions that are in place. But I am in favor of sanctioning any nation-state that acts badly in the cyber realm with respect to U.S. interests.

We’re behind the curve. Our cyber defenses are not up to speed with the cyber tools for the bad actors that are out there, whether they are nation-state, criminal syndicates, terrorists or garden variety hacktivists that just want to make a statement.

Washington Examiner: What can we do about Islamic State and other terrorists’ use of the Internet and social media to recruit, communicate with each other and plan attacks?

Ratcliffe: We have to have a more dedicated, cohesive strategy than I think we’ve seen in the current administration and this is where I’m eager to visit with incoming [Homeland Security John] Kelly about improving and refining our efforts.

Washington Examiner: Tell us about your interest in regulatory reform.

Ratcliffe: I really think the federal government’s role should be limited by the Constitution … like providing for the common defense. A lot of this regulatory reform is really an issue about Article I, about Congress standing up for itself and not letting any individual branch become too powerful. The Separation of Powers Restoration Act we introduced is really about constitutional boundaries. What I have witnessed, particularly in the last eight years, is the expansion and growth of Article II, the executive branch. So I made it a priority for me, a focus for me and my time in Congress to help restore constitutional boundaries and authority, particularly as a member of Congress. You see all of these things about congressional approval ratings and what I say is people would respect Congress more if it respected itself enough to stand up for its constitutional authority. We’re essentially letting the executive branch do whatever it wants and circumvent the will of the people through its duly elected individual representatives in the House and Senate.

The Constitution clearly provides for three branches of government, not four, so whatever my tenure is in Congress, a great deal of my focus will be on essentially dismantling a fourth branch of government that I think our founders never intended and is not referenced in our Constitution.

Washington Examiner: Why are bills like yours and others addressing regulation necessary?

Ratcliffe: Congress has a role to write better laws with less ambiguity. Part of the process is when you pass a 2,500-page bill into law like Obamacare, it lends itself to bureaucratic meddling. As part of that issue, when Congress is ambiguous, it is clearly set forth that courts are the ones to interpret congressional intent. The 1984 Chevron decision has allowed the regulatory growth and it’s been Republican and Democratic administrations for three decades that have contributed, but we’ve seen a steeper climb in the Obama administration. You can really trace the rise of the regulatory state to that opinion, which is what my bill addresses and corrects.

In America, our justice system is based upon the very basic and fundamental fairness that we all walk into court on equal footing and that one side is not favored over another. Chevron deference clearly flies in the face of that and what you have currently is the deck stacked in favor of the regulators who have written the rules that are being interpreted. And so this is, I think, a giant step toward fixing a problem that has contributed to — not the sole cause of — but the growth of a fourth branch of government and regulatory burdens that I hear more complaints about that than any other issue from my constituents.

Washington Examiner: Does the federal government have a regulatory role to play?

Ratcliffe: Absolutely. This is not to say that regulations aren’t necessary, they absolutely are. And there are regulations that protect American citizens and businesses and if you look at what all of the legislation that we’re talking about, that I propose, it’s not calling for an end to regulation and it’s not really in any way restricting agencies’ ability to play the safe-guarding role that we want them to play. This legislation doesn’t abolish any agencies, but what it does is it holds bureaucrats accountable in a way that they’re not being held accountable currently. And I think everyone should be accountable. Elected officials are accountable at the ballot box. If folks don’t like what I’m doing, they have a chance to vote me out of office. The American people don’t have the ability to get rid of someone working in the basement of the Department of Labor that writes an overtime rule that puts them out of business. So that’s where Congress plays a role with respect to oversight and why we need to correct that.

Washington Examiner: How do Republicans transform from an opposition party to a governing one?

Ratcliffe: I think there will be challenges because I think Republicans sort of famously never agree on what the best plan forward is. One of the good things about our party is we have so many different diverse ideas that sometimes the Democrats simply line up behind one idea and stay in formation regardless of what happens, which serves them to some extent. But I think we are the party of better ideas because people are more willing to voice where they think we should go on an issue but sometimes it’s harder to herd the folks together in one, cohesive direction, so that’s the challenge.

Up until now most Republican bills were essentially a messaging bill or a marker for where we can go. Now the impossible becomes possible. I personally love that dynamic and the pressure that it brings. I like the fact that we don’t have anybody to blame at the end of the day, that there are no excuses, there are no safety nets here, and either we perform and govern as the people have empowered us to do or we don’t. And I think it’s fair. I’ve been telling people, “give us a chance … and if we don’t do the things that we say we are going to do, then hold us accountable.” That’s the way it’s supposed to be and I am frankly excited that that’s the dynamic that we have right now and I hope that my Republican colleagues sort of see the urgency there and that we won’t have anyone to blame. And if we don’t repeal Obamacare and if we don’t rein in the regulatory state and we don’t do tax reform … then people should hold us accountable in a few years at the ballot box.

Cut a bureaucrat’s pay to $1? Top Dem fears GOP to target federal workers

The top Democrat on the House Rules Committee is hopping mad that Republicans revived a 19th-century rule allowing lawmakers to essentially fire individual civil servants and eliminate entire federal programs when they approved the rules package governing the 115th Congress on a party-line vote earlier this month.

New York Rep. Louise Slaughter said inclusion of the Holman Rule, first approved in 1876, in the package is a way for Republicans to punish federal workers for implementing laws with which they don’t agree.

Continue reading →

Parker County Conservatives to meet January 17th


Tuesday, January 17th.


Continue reading –