Charles Wolf, Jr. Intellectually Honest

Mr. Wolf died in late October, 2016, 92 years old, R.I.P.

He worked for the Rand Corporation for most of his career and called most things right; the strength of the Soviet economy-Japan’s inability to rule the world-the negative effects of the 2009 stimulus, and others.

How did he get it right, by analyzing data without a prejudice towards what he wanted it to say. We need more of that.

Opinions are worthless without data.

Director Comey, Evil or a Saint? Depends on what he does.

FBI Director Comey had a tough decision.  Do his job or play along. He chose the right path, to do his job-or so it appears. Thus the right who trashed him this summer put him on the pedestal the left just ripped him off of. I just hope that the truth comes out, almost seventy and still hoping the truth can come out of D.C.  Pollyanna to the end.

But, from, Jim Geraghty, today.

You have to have a sense of humor to follow politics.

When Comey does what Democrats want him to do, they praise him as Eliot Ness, King Solomon, Frank Serpico, and Jesus all rolled into one. But the moment he follows procedure and brings up topics the Clinton campaign doesn’t want in the news, he’s Torquemada, Captain Queeg, Javert, and Ahab rolled into one. Look, we get it, Democrats, you have absolute faith in Comey’s judgment as long as he’s ruling in your favor. If you guys were less invested in an emotionally convienient narrative where all wisdom and virtue aligns with your political interests of the moment, you would have praised Comey’s summer decision but not put him up on a pedestal.

Instead, they had to insist that no reasonable person could question his summer decision. I mean, it was just in July that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was telling us how independent, thorough, respected, and honest Comey was.

Throughout his long career in law enforcement, the independence of FBI chief James Comey has rarely been questioned. Comey is a well-respected Republican who served as George W. Bush’s Deputy Attorney General. And when President Obama tapped him to serve as Director of the FBI, he was confirmed by a 93-1 vote.

Donna Brazile — now the Democratic National Committee chair — said that attacking James Comey’s decision was attacking the rule of law itself.

Since Donna Brazile blocked me last night when I pointed out her former words, here’s a screenshot of her Tweet.




900 more “men of color” dead in 2016 vs. 2015

From the WSJ, 10/24/16, “The Myth of the Racist Cop” by Heather MacDonald.

The BLM movement shouts that policing is “biased and violent and unfair.” In certain instances, a rarity, statistically insignificant overall, (But certainly not to those who are affected) that is true. It is also true that violence toward businesses, cops, our citizenry by agitators whose goal is not justice, but vegence-fun-looting-etc. If you believe in non-violent protest as MLK, Ghandi and many others have shown the way, then what has happened is shameful. Many leaders in DC give cover to the BLMers, shame on them.

900 more black men have been killed this year. Most of them have been killed by other black males, not police. If black live really matter, why aren’t we hearing and seeing the same kind of anger and protests about this horrific carnage? Homicides are up 12% nationally, 47% more police officers have been killed this year. Chicago is a battlefield, assaults in Chicago on police are up 100%, 23% up in NYC. These assaults are on officers of all races, genders.

“The BLM narrative about an epidemic of racially based police shootings is false. Four studies published this year showed that if there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites,” says the WSJ article.

As usual, a small minority of people whose motives are insurrection, willful damage and injury get all the headlines.  Calmer heads must prevail so that unfair treatment is investigated and those responsible have consequences for their actions. The media is way too passive not criticizing the lawlessness we have seen over the past couple of years.

Millennial ignorance about Communism; Another indication that our education system is failing our country.

From the Daily Signal

This Is the Percentage of Millennials Who Believe George W. Bush Killed More People Than Stalin

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation released its first “Annual Report on U.S. Attitudes Towards Socialism” Monday. The survey showed a distinct generation gap regarding beliefs about socialism and communism between older and younger Americans.

For example, 80 percent of baby boomers and 91 percent of elderly Americans believe that communism was and still is a problem in the world today, while just 55 percent of millennials say the same.

Just 37 percent of millennials had a “very unfavorable” view of communism, compared to 57 percent of Americans overall. Close to half (45 percent) of Americans aged 16 to 20 said they would vote for a socialist, and 21 percent would vote for a communist.

The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation.  We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed.

When asked their opinion of capitalism, 64 percent of Americans over the age of 65 said they viewed it favorably, compared to just 42 percent of millennials.

The survey also revealed a general lack of historical knowledge, especially among young adults. According to the report, one-third (32 percent) of millennials believed that more people were killed under George W. Bush than under Joseph Stalin.

When millennial respondents were asked about their familiarity with various historical communist figures, 42 percent were unfamiliar with Mao Zedong, 40 percent with Che Guevara, and 33 percent with Vladimir Lenin—three notorious figures in communist regimes. Among millennials familiar with Lenin, 25 percent viewed him favorably.

“It is because of such widespread ignorance about communism that we formed the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which is dedicated to telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” said Lee Edwards, a distinguished fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation and co-founder of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, an organization that seeks to “memorialize, educate, and document the grim history of communism around the world.”

“Ronald Reagan said that ‘freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction,’” he added. “It is the solemn obligation of this generation to educate the rising generation about the manifold victims and crimes of the deadliest ism of the last 100 years—communism.”

The survey was conducted among 2,300 people, with a margin of error of 2.8 percent and a 95 percent level of confidence.

Trump Wasn’t the Only One to Attack the American Order in the Third Debate

Trump Wasn’t the Only One to Attack the American Order Last Night

From national review on line

Read more at:

by CHARLES C. W. COOKE October 20, 2016 12:34 PM @CHARLESCWCOOKE For good reason, an awful lot of today’s post-debate reaction will focus on Trump’s refusal to promise that he’ll accept the results of the election. As Ramesh notes, that moment was “the story of the night” — and deservedly so: I think it’s pretty clear that the story the media will take away from this debate (justifiably) is Trump’s refusal to commit to respecting the outcome of the election. Once again, that is, his message will be the one driving the debate. And once again, his message is not a good one for winning a general election. If his claims that the election is being rigged have any effect on the vote, it will be to depress turnout among supporters of his who believe him.  Whatever Trump’s remark does to the race, it is dangerous in and of itself. The peaceful transfer of power is a key hallmark of the American system, and that Trump couldn’t bring himself to give even a pro forma answer in its favor is absurd. This, as many progressive commentators have noted, is exactly how faith in our institutions is weakened.  But — yes, there’s a but – I can’t help but feel irritated at the on/off nature of journalistic outrage, especially when it comes to the integrity of our constitutional order. As any student of government knows, elections are a key part of what we commonly refer to as “democracy,” but they are not all of it. In liberal democracies — and indeed in republics — we rely upon other institutions to counter-balance simple majority rule. Because it is so well designed, the United States has a host of these: among them the rule of law, separation of powers, a Bill of Rights, a Senate, and so forth. And here’s the thing: They are every bit as important as elections. Without the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, the majority could do whatever it wants to the minority. Without the rule of law, the people’s representatives could act as capriciously as they wished. Without separation of powers, all of the functions of the state would be concentrated in one pair of hands. Elections are crucial to the operation of the American order, of course. But so are all of the other parts. Democracy alone does not a great nation make. I bring this up because, perusing the news this morning, I see outrage only in one direction. Everywhere – really, everywhere – I see complaints about Trump’s abhorrent comments. And that’s fine: We should be outraged. How dare a presidential aspirant in the world’s finest republic behave in the way Trump has. But, outside of a handful of opinion journals, I see nothing about the attacks we heard on the other parts of the system. That’s a real shame. As Damon Linker notes over at The Week: On the Supreme Court, Clinton said, in effect, that she thinks the Court should serve as a second legislative body in which liberals hold a majority of the seats and exercise veto power over the other branches of government. Linker is exactly right. That is precisely what Clinton was saying, and without any shame or hesitation. And, as Jonah writes, this matters a great deal, because it amounts to an attack on the notion of independent law itself: In her first answer of the night, Hillary Clinton was asked about the Supreme Court. She said justices should stand up to the rich and side with the people or some such treacle. It should support the usual favored groups, etc. It should fight big money and the powerful. And so on. Only problem: That’s not what justices are supposed to do. Lest I be misunderstood here, let me make this clear: That Clinton made this case in no way excuses Trump’s disgraceful comments. Not even close. But, by the same token, that Trump made his disgraceful comments in no way excuses Clinton’s. This isn’t an either/or matter. Sure, voters will have to choose just one candidate on Election Day. But the press doesn’t. How hard would it be to explain that there were two extremely worrying moments last night; that both candidates made comments that threaten the American settlement? A similar double-standard applies to discussion of the U.S. Constitution. Last night, Hillary Clinton demonstrated once again that, when it comes to the Second Amendment, she is either ignorant or she is lying. Asked about her criticism of Heller, Clinton said: You mentioned the Heller decision, and what I was saying that you reference, Chris, was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case. Because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was protect toddlers from guns. This is flatly incorrect. Heller, as anyone who has read it knows, revolved around the question of whether the government in Washington, D.C., could legally ban handguns entirely. It had nothing to do with “toddlers.” “Toddlers,” as Sean Davis correctly points out, are not mentioned in the majority opinion, and they are not mentioned in the dissent. Other than in an extremely indirect sense, “toddlers” had nothing to do with the legal question being considered. Hillary then said: But there’s no doubt that I respect the Second Amendment, that I also believe there’s an individual right to bear arms. That is not in conflict with sensible, commonsense regulation. Again, Hillary is either ignorant here, or she is lying. Why? Because a Second Amendment without Heller isn’t a Second Amendment at all. Indeed, absent the affirmation provided by Heller, what would the Second Amendment do exactly? Heller, recall, did not determine the scope of constitutionally permissible regulation, but confirmed that the federal government is permitted to impose neither direct nor indirect prohibitions upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. By taking the position she is, Hillary is not arguing that, say, an “assault weapons” ban falls within the lines, but that a) Americans enjoy an individual right to keep and bear arms, and b) that the government can institute a blanket ban on an entire class of arms and restrict the rest to the vanishing point. This, clearly, is nonsense, akin in nature to arguing that a) Americans have a right to a free press, and b) that the government can shut down all newspapers and impose draconian restrictions upon the operation of news websites. Perhaps because she knows how utterly unsustainable this tack is, Hillary has avoided making the explicit case that the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” (for more on this conspiracy theory, click here). But in practice that is exactly what she is doing. And where’s the outrage? Where are the New York Times op-eds? If Donald Trump were to mischaracterize the foundational cases that underpin the Fourth, Fifth, or Eighth Amendments — and to do so vaguely and dishonestly — we would surely hear about what a threat he represented to liberty. Last year, when Trump first suggested a temporary ban on Muslim immigration, the papers were up in arms. “Constitution!” they cried. “Constitution! Constitution!” That Congress actually enjoys plenary power over the immigration system — and that the courts have confirmed this for 125 years – seemed not to matter. The press thought that the Constitution might be violated, and that was enough. But last night, when Hillary Clinton took square aim at a provision within the Bill of Rights, we have heard nothing about it outside of the Right. The outrage over Trump’s comments is real — he really, really should be admonished. But it’s also highly selective, and given that his opponent, not he, is about to be elected president, that should worry us going forward.

Public Schools, Primary and Secondary

President Obama spoke recently about our country now has the highest high school graduation rate ever, EVER! 80 some odd percent.

Well, figures lie and liars figure.  We also have the lowest overall results in test results against other developed countries ever, EVER! We have been sliding down the scale for awhile, not just in the last seven years.

Does it surprise you that the totality of the situation is neglected by a politician who wants to maintain support with a key electorate? This is true on both sides of the aisle. What is the data? Does it support your fairy tale picture, the Potemkin village of our system to educate our kids?

This last weekend the NAACP voted to stop charter school expansion.  This in the face of protests by organizations within the NAACP. Why, to support the teacher unions of course, not our kids.

Education is one of the keys to our prosperity we are blessed with today. Public education is certainly one of the reasons we are where we are today. Competition in our business system is also one of the reasons we constantly seem to provide jobs and investment opportunities so to grow. We have competition in educating our kids from birth to 5, and from 18 years of age on. We have no competition from 5-18, unless you have money and can send your kids to private school, or the time and ability to home school.

We are killing the system that got us here and the progressive movement is a major part of the killing.

Presidential Character, “..faithfully execute the law and the constitution.”y

OK, two different topics, but they really do have something in common. Steven F Hayward wrote an article that I saw on Intercollegiate Studies Institute,

Our presidents swear:  “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Our military personnel have a similar oath of office.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

Cabinet members oath is: “I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.”

Why all the focus on oaths? Oaths are as old and the recorded history of our species. Oaths were sworn between people before lawyers were invented, and there were consequences for not fulfilling an oath. So who feels that fulfilling an oath is important. Well, have our politicians fulfilled their oaths? Are they defending and protecting the constitution as they SWORE to do? That is part of the essence of character, doing what you saw you will do.  Not saying the oath and then doing what you want.

As Mr. Hayward says in his article, “I intend to transform the United States” violates your oath and is a sign that your character is not something we can depend upon. A statement like, “I intend to lead the Congress towards what I consider is a better United States.” That statement I can support and have respect for even if I disagree with the what he considers to be “better”.

Neither major party candidate today comes close to being a person of character. Both feel they will do whatever it takes to fulfill their own vision of the future, equal pay, N Korea, gun limitations, the wall—it just goes on forever. Neither mentions Congress.  Read the article, it speaks to the fact that Congress is the action body, NOT THE PRESIDENT!!!! We slide towards totalitarianism, fascism, etc. by not holding Congress accountable.

Think about it, please!

Native American Slaveholders

February 3, 2017

An update to the original post. National Review January 23, 2017, “Indian Country” written by Peter Cozzens, a book review by Travis Kavulla.

Worth a read. Some excerpts. “They came on horses and with guns; a martial culture overrunning a more peaceful one unprepared to meet the fight.” The Lakota Souix defeat the Crow, Kiowa Indians. Cozzens details the plains Indians were not the peaceful, rooted natives we seem to get a picture of today. Not that they weren’t treated badly, but the facts are none of are sinless when it comes to how we treat our fellow man.

Some native Americans were wonderful, compassionate folks, Cozzens mentions the Nez Perce, there were others. But, “..mutilation and torture were often a central feature of Indian warfare.”

Let’s look at the facts and try to be honest.

October 15, 2016

Driving through the four corners area my wife and spent a good deal of time on native American land. During tours of places like Sedona we heard current descendants talk of revering the land, treating everyone with respect, etc. All good.

Then at the hotel I read about Yale,  a recent football game with Dartmouth; a historical recollection of the written programs from the early days when their team were called the “Indians.” Horror of all horrors, apologies abound, the AD is thrown into the stocks and the PC police allow students to throw eggs at “It.”  (Not Really).

Three years ago we drove out west along the Lewis and Clark trail, visiting many of the prominent sites and read a lot about Sacajawea. At 12 she was taken, along with her sister, as spoils of war. She was then sold to a French trader who took her as his second wife.She went with the expedition when the trader was hired as a guide and translator. Without her the expedition may never have made it according to many historians. She had her newborn son with her the whole time. Her sister had escaped in the interim and they were reunited when the group made it to the headwaters of the Missouri river near Salmon, Idaho. Upon returning William Clark asked to adopt her son, and was granted the wish.

Most native American tribes practiced this kind of slavery. Most societies practiced this kind of slavery around the world. Our collective consciousness’ began to catch up to us and through faith based people like William Wilberforce the practice of slave trading, and eventually slavery began to end, mostly. It still exists of course in certain parts of the world practiced by certain religious sects and evil people for the sex trade.

One of the first things totalitarian leaders try to do is erase a history they do not like.  The Taliban. Hitler. Mao. All of us have parts of our history we are not proud of, in our own lives and in the lives of our ancestors. Owning up to it, never trying to erase it is what keeps it from happening again. “Never Forget.”

Should we therefore not talk about uncomfortable things, which every society has in their past, or present. That is what the totalitarians of today wish to do. Why, so they can control the future to be as they want it to be without the input of the rest of us. After all, Fascism started out as a “Progressive” movement, lauded by the progressives in our country in the early 20th century.  Hitler praised Margaret Sanger and the eugenicists, he thought they had a good idea going.

Learning from mistakes is the foundation of permanent improvement in most everything we do.

Erasing history at Yale