Displaying the most recent of 90925 posts written by

Ruth King

Threats to Power Grid Demand More Vigorous Response By J. Michael Barrett

Security, industry and government officials are increasingly warning that the U.S. electrical power grid faces potential widespread failure from broad-based, systemic threats such as a cyberattack or massive electromagnetic pulse (EMP) disturbance. Indeed, nations as varied as North Korea, Iran, China and Russia have hacked into the U.S power grid. As for EMPs, a senior Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official recently testified before Congress, “EMP can cause widespread disruption and serious damage to electronic devices and networks, including those upon which many critical infrastructures rely.” These so-called “grid-down” risks have yet to be met with the urgency they demand, but time is not on our side.

On the one hand, following growing awareness of the system’s vulnerability to such threats, Duke Energy recently added EMP threats to its emergency plans. Even Congress has gotten engaged by passing EMP-related provisions in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act which, among other actions, directs DHS to include various grid-down scenarios into its planning and exercises.

Yet there has been little progress beyond studies and assessments, many of which conclude that we need more studies and assessments. This is happening even as the potential of conflict this year with Iran and North Korea seems worrisomely high.

If so many authorities agree grid-down cyber and EMP threats are real, why isn’t more being done? The answer, regrettably, lies hidden somewhere in the conflicting roles and responsibilities held by multiple federal, state and local public-sector stakeholders and the thousands of private sector firms that actually run the power grid.

Who sets the standards, who pays for the research, who implements the remedies, and who is liable if they don’t work? The answers, according to most people in each camp, always seems to be the same: “someone else.”

Does Jim Comey Write YA Fiction Or Romance Novels In His Spare Time?By Joy Pullmann

Early reports out the former FBI director’s book indicate a penchant for purple prose and navel-gazing only rivaled by his emo Twitter posts.

Michael Wolff, move over. Early reports out about former FBI Director James Comey’s book indicate a penchant for purple prose and navel-gazing only rivaled by the “A Higher Loyalty” author’s emo Twitter posts. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the book a week early, and reports it contains gems like the following:

The 6-foot-8 Comey describes Trump as shorter than he expected with a ‘too long’ tie and ‘bright white half-moons’ under his eyes that he suggests came from tanning goggles. He also says he made a conscious effort to check the president’s hand size, saying it was ‘smaller than mine but did not seem unusually so.’

According to the AP, Comey’s book alleges this is how Trump repudiated opposition research allegations Trump had prostitutes urinate on a hotel bed the Obamas had used:

Trump said, ‘I’m a germaphobe. There’s no way I would let people pee on each other around me. No way.’

Comey writes that Trump raised the issue again, unprompted, during their one-on-one dinner at the White House and it bothered the president that there might be even ‘a one percent chance’ his wife might think it was true.

Comey then registers surprise, writing that he thought to himself ‘why his wife would think there was any chance, even a small one, that he had been with prostitutes urinating on each other in a Moscow hotel room.”

Hmm, I don’t know, maybe because the salacious (and later thoroughly discredited) story was all over every media outlet in the country?

The Washington Post reports more hilariously overpsychologized book excerpts, like this one about Attorney General Jeff Sessions: “Sessions just cast his eyes down at the table, and they darted quickly back and forth, side to side. He said nothing. I read in his posture and face a message that he would not be able to help me.”

Is this “Twilight”? Weirdly backwards fan fiction?

ANTISEMITISM AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

When members of Columbia’s Students Supporting Israel campus group set up a memorial booth on April 11th, for Holocaust Remembrance Day, honoring the 6 million Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis, the memorial was disrupted by the screaming chants of anti-Israel protesters.

The table for the commemoration of Holocaust Memorial Day had testimonials from Holocaust survivors as well as memorial candles laid out. After an hour in which Jewish students shared the stories of holocaust survivors, a large group of anti-Israel protests gathered across the plaza from the SSI table.

INCIDENT REPORT

Students Supporting Israel at Columbia University
Incident Report on Harassment and Violations of University
Policies and State and Federal Rules by the Students for
Justice in Palestine (SJP)

As one of the nation’s most prestigious institutions of higher
education, Columbia University has an obligation both to its
students, and faculty constituency as well as the broader American
academic community to foster and protect nuanced and
constructive dialogue on complicated issues affecting New York, America and the world.
Unfortunately, groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP)
and Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) have monopolized the conversation on
campus relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict and have systematically maligned, harassed and
silenced groups like Students Supporting Israel (SSI) and other pro-Israel voices on campus, who
provide alternative — and critically important — views on these issues, in clear violation of their
rights under both Columbia rules and regulations, and U.S. law.

ANTISEMITISM THEN AND NOW

http://edgar1981.blogspot.com.au/2018/04/nazis-then-and-now.html

Michael Kile Climate Change on Trial

There is mounting pressure on warmist researchers to come up with arguments, if not evidence, that will stand up in court. As climate models continue to get it wrong, often spectacularly so, the carpetbaggers’ various lawsuits are in dire jeopardy, but that doesn’t mean they won’t stop trying

With the international political, financial and reputational stakes so high, it was only a matter of time before climate change appeared in the dock, handcuffed to its partner in prognostication, the dodgy discipline of extreme weather attribution.

Attribution, n., the art of evaluating the relative contributions of multiple causal factors to a change or an event, according to one’s prejudices.

To make sense of the climate change scene today, it is best to begin with the end game: the orthodoxy’s search for an argument, however abstruse, that will stand up in court. It needs one sufficiently “robust” to ensure developed countries—still effectively on trial in the United Nations, where a protracted “loss and damages” claim awaits resolution—and fossil fuel companies are legally liable to pay multi-billion-dollar “climate reparations” to the alleged victims of “carbon pollution”, be they in the developing world or in the path of a natural disaster.

Indeed, the credibility of the “relatively young science” of extreme weather attribution, the legitimacy of its ambition to “tease out the influence of human-caused climate change from other factors”, the whole alarmist movement and fate of the UN’s Green Climate Fund, all crucially depend on delivering such a legal argument.

How did we get to this point? When the climate change meme was planted successfully in the collective mind a decade ago as the most serious existential threat facing humankind, the orthodoxy wanted it to stay there. A sense of public anxiety had to be maintained, despite the risk of apocalypse fatigue syndrome.

So it created an Attribution of Climate-related Events (ACE) initiative. The international research agenda gradually shifted to the tricky territory of extreme weather attribution.

ACE’s first workshop was held on January 26, 2009, in Boulder, Colorado, at the Pei-designed National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Mesa Lab. Attendees included Myles Allen (Oxford University), Martin Hoerling (NOAA, USA), Peter Stott (UK Met Office, Hadley Centre), Kevin Trenberth (NCAR) and David Karoly (University of Melbourne). Its objective was to:

develop a conceptual framework for attribution activities to be elevated in priority and visibility, leading to substantial increases in resources (funds, people, computers) and both a research activity and a framework for an “operational” activity, that sets forth a goal of providing a lot more concrete information in near real time about what has happened and why in weather and climate.

European Immigration: Nuns Out, Terrorists In by Douglas Murray

When the same Home Office that forbade Sister Ban even to enter the country discovered that the young male Iraqi was in Britain, he explained clearly that he had been trained by ISIS. He told the Home Office officials that the group had trained him to kill. The Home Office promptly found him a place to live and study, and treated him as the minor he said he was but most likely was not. He subsequently told a teacher that he had “a duty to hate Britain”.

Last year the Institute of St Anselm (a Catholic training institute for priests and nuns, based in Kent) closed its doors because of problems it had getting the Home Office to grant visa applications for foreign students. One nun last year was apparently denied entry to the UK because she did not have a personal bank account.

So, those who flee ISIS are turned away, while those who are trained by ISIS are welcome.

The behaviour of government departments in charge of immigration and asylum across Europe repeatedly demonstrate the truth of the late Robert Conquest’s maxim — his “third law of politics” — that the simplest way to explain the behaviour of any bureaucratic organisation “is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies”.

Last week it was reported in the Catholic Herald that a nun who was driven out of the town of Qaraqosh, on the Nineveh plains in Iraq, has been forbidden to visit her ill sister in the United Kingdom. Sister Ban Madleen was among those Christians who were forced to flee the largest Christian town in the area when ISIS entered it in 2014. She was among the thousands of Christians who fled the approaching jihadists and found refuge in Iraqi Kurdistan. There, she set up kindergartens to look after the children of other refugees who had also sought sanctuary in the Kurdish areas. A letter, seen by the Catholic Herald, from the UK Visa and Immigration division at the UK Home Office, stated that Sister Ban had not given evidence of her earnings as a kindergarten principal or shown enough evidence that her order of nuns would fund her visit.

The UK Home Office noted that Sister Ban had previously travelled to the UK and had on those occasions always complied with the terms of her visa. However, the Home Office pointed out that her visa was issued seven years ago, in 2011, and noted her lack of recent travel to the UK. It shows no understanding of why her recent travel might have been limited. Such as the possibility that events such as the rise of ISIS, the attempted annihilation of Iraq’s Christian community and that community’s quasi-Biblical flight to safety in the Kurdish regions might explain the nun’s otherwise inexplicable absence from the UK?

Erdogan’s Twisted Visions Who he sees as terrorists and freedom fighters. Joseph Puder

The international reaction to Hamas’ provocative “March of Return” had its predictable voices mired in typical hypocrisy. The European Union (EU), and the Human Rights Watch (HRW) called for “an independent and transparent investigation” into Israel’s use of live ammunition to quell the rioting. The United Nations (UN), that “paragon of virtue,” called for an emergency Security Council meeting with the aim of condemning Israel. France called on Israel to “show restraint.” The most blatant attack on Israel came from Turkey’s dictator Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He called Israel’s Prime Minister “a terrorist.”

The EU seems to be interested in investigations only when Israel is involved and when the victims are Palestinians. That is not the case when Israelis are murdered by Palestinian terrorists. The UN, beholden to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is its most powerful component in the General Assembly and other UN institutions, is clearly a biased party. The UN has habitually devoted the lion’s share of its proceedings to condemn Israel. Nikki Haley, U.S. ambassador to the UN observed (12/10/2017): “The UN has outrageously been of the world’s foremost centers of hostility towards Israel.”

Turkey’s President Erdogan exceeded all others in his hypocritical righteous indignation. At a Saturday speech (April 1, 2018) in Istanbul, Erdogan declared: “I strongly condemn the Israeli government over its inhumane attack.” He was referring to the Hamas organized riot called the “March of Return,” in which 15 Palestinians died in clashes with Israeli soldiers. Erdogan added on his social media page, “Israel will get trapped under the oppression it inflicts in Palestine. We will continue to support our Palestinian sisters and brothers in their rightful cause until the very end.”

The following day, Erdogan continued his attack, this time on Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally, calling him “a terrorist.” In a televised speech in Adana, Southern Turkey, he shouted “Hey Netanyahu! You are an occupier. And it is as an occupier that you are on those lands. At the same time you are a terrorist.” Reuters quoted Erdogan the same day as saying (referring to Israel)

“You are a terrorist state. It is known what you have done in Gaza and what you have done in Jerusalem. You have no one that likes you in the world.” This last remark revealed Erdogan’s anti-Semitic disposition.

Shock and Awe in Windsor, Ontario Two cases that highlight the dark side of diversity. Lloyd Billingsley

“Wow! Are you ever nice and tight!”

It sounded like dialogue from some porn video, but the speaker was Dr. Bassam El-Tatari, a physician in Windsor, Ontario. The doctor was addressing one of his Canadian patients during a vaginal exam.

“I was shocked,” the woman told reporters. “I immediately started looking for another doctor.” So did six other patients, who say that the doctor, whose full name is Bassam Mohamed Khalil Darwish El-Tatari, kissed female patients on the lips, squeezed their breasts, played with nipples, and showed excessive interest in women’s vaginal areas.

This activity recalls Dr. Syed K. Zaidi, 41, of Granite Bay, California, a wealthy community near Sacramento. As several of his patients noted, the eager Dr. Zaidi liked to cup their naked buttocks, squeeze their breasts, and show a surge of attention during vaginal examinations. Even so, the California Medical Board did not lift Zaidi’s license and settled instead for five years probation. So far, Canadian authorities are taking sterner measures with Dr. Bassam El-Tatari.

Allegations dating back to 2009 have landed him in court on charges of sexual assault. One woman told the court “I never let him do another female exam again,” and three other victims have testified. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has allowed El-Tatari to retain his medical license but barred him from being alone with patients. The doctor, who trained in the Czech Republic, will face disciplinary hearings that could result in the loss of his license to practice medicine. As this plays out, a much more serious case has yet to reach the courtroom.

In October of 2017, Habibullah Ahmad, 21, attacked Anne Widholm as she strolled on the Ganatchio trail in Windsor, Ontario. The 75-year-old grandmother suffered “the worst skull fractures I’ve seen in my 12 years here in Windsor,” as neurosurgeon Dr. Balraj Jhawar told reporters. The victim’s lacerated scalp, bruised face and fractured neck vertebrae were “among the most brutal things I’ve seen in my career.” The attack, Dr. Jr. Jhawar said, “is not just another assault,” but represents “a new, dark side of Windsor that we can’t let propagate.”

ISRAEL AND ANNE FRANK’S JEWISHNESS The deeper meaning behind the distortion of the Holocaust victim’s legacy. Caroline Glick

On the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, the New Israel Fund announced it signed a partnership agreement with Anne Frank Fonds, the foundation Anne Frank’s father, Otto Frank, established in 1963 to administer the profits from the sales of her diary.

Frank’s diary has sold more than 30 million copies in 60 languages since it was first published in 1947. Its sales and global reach make it the most famous book authored by a Jew aside from the Bible.

The New Israel Fund’s deal with the Anne Frank Foundation is a symbolic expression of the existential struggle being waged in the Jewish world today. That struggle pits the government of Israel against much of the American Jewish leadership. It pits Israel’s public against the justices of the Supreme Court. It pits IDF line soldiers and commanders against the General Staff.

The effective merger of the New Israel Fund with the Anne Frank Foundation is the latest chapter in the theft of Anne Frank’s legacy, which began in the 1950s.

In 1952, a Jewish-American journalist named Meir Levin discovered The Diary of Anne Frank in French translation. Levin recognized that her diary was the ideal vehicle for telling the story of the genocide of European Jewry to the American public.

Frank was a Westernized Jew. Her family wasn’t religious. They were cosmopolitan German Jews who decamped to Amsterdam in 1933 when the Nazis rose to power, and immediately fit right in.

But for the Nazi occupation of Holland in 1940, Anne would likely never have received any Jewish education. But when the Dutch collaborationist government implemented the Nazi race laws, and expelled all Jewish children from public schools, in 1941 her parents were compelled to enroll her in a Jewish school.

The Media’s War on Freedom of the Press The free press is a threat, read about it in the mainstream media. Daniel Greenfield

” The free press is a threat to freedom of the press, read about it in the mainstream media.”

The media took a brief break from its campaign against the Sinclair Media Group to go after the National Enquirer. The two don’t have anything in common except the perception of being pro-Trump.

In the good old days, going after rival media outlets meant writing nasty things about them. But these days the media doesn’t write nasty things for the sake of writing them. It writes nasty things to get someone fired, investigated or imprisoned. And that’s what its Sinclair and Enquirer stories are about.

CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times had wasted barrels of ink and pixels, to warn that Trump’s criticism of their media outlets represented a grave threat to the First Amendment.

And what better way to protect the First Amendment than by destroying it?

In its story about the FBI raid on Trump’s lawyer, the Times managed to suggest that the Enquirer’s support for the President of the United States might strip it of its First Amendment protection.

The Times tells its readers that the “federal inquiry” poses “thorny questions about A.M.I.’s First Amendment protections, and whether its record in supporting Mr. Trump somehow opens the door to scrutiny usually reserved for political organizations.”

That’s a thorny question alright. And there’s plenty more thorns where that one came from.

In ’08, the New York Times published an op-ed by Obama, but rejected McCain’s response. It just published an editorial titled, “Watch Out, Ted Cruz. Beto is Coming” which appears to have no purpose other than to help Beto O’Rourke raise money from New York Times readers.

The Times has a sharp thorn. So sharp it could punch a hole in it and the entire mainstream media.