Pushing and Shoving in the South China Sea Tom Lewis

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/11/pushing-shoving-south-china-sea/

Warships pushing and shoving in the South China Sea might be nothing to worry about in the short term, but what implications do such incidents have for the area, including countries further abroad such as Australia?

Aggressive naval manoeuvring between the warships of nations who don’t like each other is nothing new. A standard tactic is to deliberately plot a collision course, and then, if you’re the aggressor, change speed or course by a few knots or degrees and just miss your opponent. Crossing his bow then dumping garbage over the stern of your ship so he has to steam through it is another one.

These doings might seem silly but they have a method in their madness. Forcing your opponent to back down is pushing him onto the back foot, as boxers say. Warfare is won by aggression, something warriors learn in the Principles of War. And being a successful aggressor heightens morale on your side, another imperative if you want to win.

The recent shoving between the US destroyer Decatur and the Chinese Luyang-class destroyer Lanzhou was not nearly as fraught as it might have been. These manoeuvres can quickly escalate—if both nations want them to—to fire-control radars “lighting up” their target; missiles and guns being trained towards the potential enemy, and in the more physical sense, one vessel refusing to back down from contact. Having your ship “T-boned” might involve costly damage, injuries, even loss of life, but it shows your ship, and by implication your nation, is not in a mood to back down.

It needs to be understood, though, that such aggressive manoeuvring is almost always done with the full knowledge of the senior command of the navies involved, and from there the political structure above them.

Evaluating Paul Manafort’s Alleged Violation of His Plea Agreement By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/evaluating-paul-manaforts-alleged-violation-of-his-plea-agreement/

Keep your eye on the pardon dynamic.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office has informed a federal court that Paul Manafort violated his plea agreement by repeatedly lying to investigators. Prosecutors thus consider the agreement null and void and have asked the court to set a sentencing date immediately.

The alleged breach was outlined in a brief submission to district judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington, and reported by the New York Times Monday evening. The submission by Andrew Weissmann and other lawyers on Mueller’s team does not describe Manafort’s allegedly false statements, other than to say that they involve “a variety of subject matters.” Prosecutors are planning to file a sentencing memorandum “that sets forth the nature of the defendant’s crimes and lies, including those after signing the plea agreement.”

In the submission, prosecutors acknowledge that Manafort “believes he has provided truthful information and does not agree with the government’s characterization or that he has breached the agreement.”

On the surface, it doesn’t seem that Manafort’s dispute can get him very far. But when we look closer, we realize that this is about more than a plea; it is about a pardon.

When it comes to claimed breaches of a plea agreement, the prosecutor holds the dominant position. Defendants who plead guilty and agree to cooperate, as Manafort did on the day before his Washington trial was to begin, do so with the understanding that the value of the cooperation is the prosecutor’s call. If the prosecutor decides the information provided is not useful — or, worse, that the defendant has lied — the defendant does not get to withdraw his guilty plea. Further, if the prosecutor decides the defendant has breached the agreement, the government is under no obligation to support reductions in sentence that the defendant hoped to achieve by entering the agreement.

‘I am Israel’s best friend,’ Czech president tells Israeli Knesset

http://www.israelhayom.com/2018/11/27/i-am-israels-best-friend-czech-president-says-in-address-to-knesset/
SHALOM CZECH MATE….RSK
In first ever speech to legislative body by a Czech leader, Milos Zeman blasts EU for hosting Palestinian terrorists • “If we betray Israel, we betray ourselves,” he says • Jerusalem Affairs Minister Elkin presents Zeman with Protector of Jerusalem Award.

In what was the first ever address by a Czech leader to Israel’s legislative body, President Milos Zeman sent a message of “solidarity with Israel and the Jewish people” to the Knesset on Monday.

Among those in attendance at the historic speech were President Reuven Rivlin, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein.

The Joint Arab List boycotted Zeman’s address in light of his statements recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and questioning the need for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Zeman brought a smile to the faces of many in attendance when he said, “Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu said the Czech Republic is Israel’s best friend in Europe. I wonder, why only Europe? Anyway, I am the best friend of Israel in my whole country.”

Zeman said he hoped Tuesday’s dedication of the Czech House, a diplomatic mission set to focus on cultural exchange, in Jerusalem would lead to the relocation of the Czech Embassy to the city.

“I am no dictator, unfortunately, but I promise I will do my best,” he quipped.

In November, Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis said Prague would not break with EU policy on the status of Jerusalem.

Visiting Chadian president announces country to renew diplomatic ties with Israel

http://www.israelhayom.com/2018/11/27/visiting-chadian-president-announces-country-to-renew-diplomatic-ties-with-israel/

On historic Israel visit, Chadian President Idriss Déby stresses that move to renew diplomatic ties with Jerusalem in coming weeks does not mean country will ignore Palestinian cause • “We have no problem with Abbas or the Palestinians,” Déby says.

Visiting Chadian President Idriss Déby has announced he plans to renew diplomatic relations with Israel in the coming weeks.

In an interview with i24News, Déby stressed the move did not mean Chad would ignore the Palestinian cause.

Asked why he did not plan to hold meetings in Ramallah while in the region, Déby replied, “I am a former soldier and I fought wars. I know the price of war. I don’t wish it on any people in any country.

He said, “We came here this time with an exact plan because we have not had diplomatic relations with Israel since 1972, and the aim was to renew these relations.

Calling Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas “a friend,” Déby said, “We have no problem with Abbas or the Palestinians. He [Abbas] is our friend and participated in all the African union committees.”

Déby noted that “the world is changing before our eyes. Crises and wars we knew are changing as well. We don’t wish them on today’s generation or future generations. There’s a time for war and a time for peace. Our message is global to all leaders. Chad doesn’t presume to speak for black Africa. Chad comes to renew bilateral diplomatic relations.

How Did Shane End Up? By Victor Davis Hanson

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/outsiders-trump-shane-save-the-day-but-are-ostracized/

The gunslinging outsider saved the vulnerable farmers, but they didn’t love him for it.

In director George Stevens’s classic 1953 Western, Shane, a mysterious stranger and gunfighter in buckskin with a violent past, rides into the middle of the late-1880s Wyoming range wars between cattle barons and homestead farmers. The community-minded farmers may have the law on their side, but the open-range cattlemen have the money and the gun-toting cowboys.

Shane enters the mess but decides to settle down, incognito, with a farm family, shed his past as a hired killer, and begin leading a settled and honest frontier life.

Almost immediately, however, he senses his tragic predicament. The West is not yet so civilized. The farmers, the future of civilization, hardly possess the gun-fighting ability to survive against the ruthless cattlemen and their hired guns.

So a reformed Shane is insidiously brought into the fray, as he figures out how to aid his new hosts while, at least at first, playing by their rules of civilized behavior.

Shane ultimately accepts that his second chance life is not sustainable. He learns that his newfound friends, the sodbusters, lack the skills to survive against Wilson, the cattlemen’s psychopathic hired killer.

Sensing that there’s no solution to his dilemma, Shane finally puts on his killer clothes again, straps on his six-gun, and kills Wilson and the brutal ringleaders of the cattlemen.

NOW WATCH: ‘McConnell Rejects Vote On Bill To Protect Mueller’

Stevens’s movie gives us the familiar paradox of the ostracized outsider and savior in tragic literature and film (The Magnificent Seven, The Searchers, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, High Plains Drifter, Pale Rider . . . ). Although they hesitate to say so, the farmers, if they are to survive, must rely on the very antithesis of their own idealistic commitment to law, order, the settled life, and the way of the future. Shane himself wants to reject gunslinging and stay civilized.

But to do so would mean that Shane’s newfound friends would be killed or driven off by the cattlemen, and their farms returned to the open range — they don’t have the skills to win a range war against cowboys and hired guns. Yet by picking up his gun and going outside the law to take down the evildoers, Shane himself —apparently a former Confederate, Yankee-hating hired gun — loses his recent claim on civilized life.

Even the very farmers whom he will save are uncomfortable with the idea that Shane is willing to shoot someone to save them. Or as one self-righteous farmer puts it when Shane warns the sodbusters about the dangers of the cattlemen’s hired gun, Wilson, “I don’t want no part of gunslinging. Murder’s a better name.” Shane himself appears impatient with gradual change and seems to believe that he alone, not the distant law, can stop the murderous bullies.

The movie ends in classic tragic-hero fashion: Shane rides into cattlemen’s town alone, wins his gunfights, is wounded, and finally rides off alone into the stormy Grand Tetons — content that he rid the farmers’ valley of the hired guns. The means he used to save the sodbusters are precisely those that must have no place in an agrarian world that, thanks to him, is now peaceful. Only a small boy, Joey, will yell out, “Shane! Come back!”

Stevens leaves the exact fate of Shane is doubt — at least sort of. We do not know the true extent of his wounds. And where will he end up on the trail? As a gunfighter, he can never settle down in the turn-of-the-century, civilizing West that no longer has a place for either him or his enemies.

Or, as Shane puts it at the end of the movie to Joey, the son of his farming hosts:

A man has to be what he is. . . . Can’t break the mold. There’s no living with a killing. There’s no going back from one. Right or wrong, it’s a brand. A brand sticks. There’s no going back.

The Invaders and Their Allies By Pedro Gonzalez

https://amgreatness.com/2018/11/27/the-i

There is a war on for hearts and minds of Americans, and it began long before the first shots were fired on Sunday along the United States-Mexico border, when federal agents deployed tear gas against aggressive foreign nationals attempting to force their way into our country.

But the media coverage of the border skirmish is more telling of the nature of this conflict than canisters of lachrymator. There are three news clippings that might illustrate this point.

CNN, to start, placed scrambling Central American “families with young children” in the limelight of the clash, yet didn’t show those same people hurling large stones in the direction of American law enforcement, many of whom presumably have families with young children, too.

ABC News, on the other hand, didn’t mention at all that foreign nationals endangered federal agents. “Children were screaming and coughing in the mayhem” that, if one were to read nothing but ABC’s “The Latest,” would seem to have been induced spasmodically by trigger-happy Border Patrol—who, for what it’s worth, are mostly Latino.

The worst offender was perhaps the Associated Press. Making no mention of projectile attacks by foreign nationals directed at Americans, the AP quoted one Honduran to keep the narrative slanted favorably toward would-be illegal aliens. “We ran, but when you run the gas asphyxiates you more,” Ana Zuniga told the AP “while cradling her 3-year-old daughter Valery in her arms.”

What sort of mother would attempt to penetrate a heavily guarded border as part of a violent mob with a toddler in arm? Likely the same that lined up for paychecks from unknown benefactors along with their children in order to participate in this debacle. But who paid them is not so important as the fact that they accepted the payment, and some have since charged headlong against Mexican and now American law enforcement with their children by their side. Mercenaries, then, not “migrants” come our way. Are these the “family values” we want to import?

Under cover of media spin designed to tug at heartstrings, opportunistic outrage from progressives was as predictable as the clash itself.

In the lead up to this incident, progressive politicos and pundits were preoccupied with what they believed was President Trump’s inappropriate use of the word “invasion” to describe thousands of people marching toward our border, under the banner that they would “rather die fighting” than be denied entry to the United States.

Conservatives, Don’t Quit Twitter By Julie Kelly

https://amgreatness.com/2018/11/26/conservatives

If you are someone on the political Right who might quit Twitter because it just banned Jesse Kelly, here’s my plea: Don’t.

After the shocking news spread Sunday night that Twitter had deplatormed the conservative influencer for unknown reasons, some conservatives are threatening to leave the social media site. Glenn Reynolds, a.k.a. Instapundit, a law professor and writer who runs a news aggregate site, deactivated his Twitter account hours after Kelly (no relation) was banned. Other critical voices on the Right, including Salena Zito and Mollie Hemingway, said they might follow suit.

I understand why Salena and Mollie would consider leaving Twitter. They’ve both been subjected to bullying and harassment on the platform—even by people who purport to be on the same political side as they are. Anonymous troll accounts quickly can spread vile and hurtful comments about you and your family. Twitter is not a place for the faint of heart.

There’s no doubt that taking a break from Twitter is good for the soul and disposition: Anyone who uses it regularly is aware of how much it can influence your mood. And one ill-advised tweet can not only ruin your day, but your career.

Post-2016 Twitter is a far more hostile place than it was before Donald Trump was elected. Republican lawmakers have been shadowbanned on Twitter, and the company even indulged a petition drive to banish President Trump from the site. Founder Jack Dorsey faced harsh questioning from congressional Republicans earlier this year about his company’s anti-conservative bias.

But, despite its flaws,the reality is that Twitter is ground zero in our ongoing political war. Having utterly failed to infiltrate the country’s one-sided media behemoth, or hold news organizations responsible in any way for their egregious political bias and dishonesty, the Right has no choice but to fight back on Twitter. And for now, there is no other serious alternative or legitimate replacement in the offing.

It is the only public forum where you can instantly call out a journalist for lousy news coverage or condemn a politician for bad behavior. In just the past week, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) had to walk back his tweet threatening to use nuclear weapons against disobedient gun owners, and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) had to delete a tweet that suggested the use of tear gas at the southern border violated international laws on chemical weapons. Without Twitter, those ridiculous comments would have gone unanswered.

Dodging a Very Long Vacation in Dubai Another Westerner mistakes the UAE for a free country. Bruce Bawer

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272041/dodging-very-long-vacation-dubai-bruce-bawer

Quick quiz. What do these universities have in common: New York University, London Business School, Michigan State University, Middlesex University, Murdoch University (Australia), Heriot-Watt University (Scotland), the Rochester Institute of Technology, the University of Birmingham, the University of Bradford, the University of Exeter, the University of South Wales, City University London, and the University of West London?

Answer: they all have branches in the United Arab Emirates. This is a perfect set-up for the petroleum millionaires of the Persian Gulf, who want their sons to have American or British degrees but who may not want them to be exposed to the haram aspects of life in the U.S. or U.K. It’s thus also a perfect set-up for the universities themselves, because these oil sheikhs can afford whatever price these universities charge them to educate their little darlings.

A few decades ago, the idea of establishing branches of Western universities in a country like the UAE would be considered ethically problematic. No free speech, no free press, no due process, and all that. Premarital sex and the drinking of alcohol are punishable by flogging. The penalty for adultery and apostasy is death by stoning.

Fortunately for the American and British universities in question, these drawbacks are more than balanced out by the huge piles of cash that are in it for them. In any event, as you know, it’s politically incorrect – Islamophobic, in fact – to get too worked up about sharia law. And nowhere are people more determined not to be politically incorrect or Islamophobic than at your typical American or British university.

How American Fracking Changes the World Low energy prices enhance U.S. power at the expense of Moscow and Tehran. By Walter Russell Mead

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-american-fracking-changes-the-world-1543276935

The most important news in world politics this month isn’t about diplomacy. Bigger than Brexit, more consequential than presidential tweetstorms, the American shale revolution is rapidly reshaping the global balance of power as energy prices plummet.

Until recently, observers expected American energy production to reach a plateau. A lack of pipeline capacity was expected to constrain output in the Permian Basin through 2020. Instead, shippers found ways to use existing pipelines more efficiently, and new pipelines were constructed faster than expected. U.S. crude-oil production is expected to average 12.1 million barrels a day in 2019, 28% higher than in 2017. Surging production has roiled world energy markets.

The biggest loser is Iran. Shale has been pummeling Tehran for some time. The economic benefits Iran hoped to gain from President Obama’s nuclear deal were largely offset by the sharp 2016 fall in the price of oil. Now the pesky Permian is blighting Iranian hopes again. Rising American output made it easier for the U.S. to slap tough sanctions on Iran without risking a sharp rise in world energy prices. Low prices also reduce Iran’s income from the oil it still manages to sell.

The next biggest loser is Russia. Oil is a key revenue source for the Kremlin. But the shale boom doesn’t only pick Vladimir Putin’s pocket; it also attacks his foreign-policy strategy.

Russia wants to control the world oil price and use that power to boost its diplomatic weight. Mr. Putin has two ways to influence the price of oil. The first is to increase geopolitical tensions. If threatening Ukraine or bombing Syria spooks traders and jacks up energy prices, Russia has a better hand in negotiations with Europe and the U.S.

Mr. Putin’s second option is to cooperate with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries on price fixing. Building a closer relationship with Saudi Arabia over their common interest in inflated oil prices might loosen the kingdom’s U.S. ties and generate lucrative commercial and arms deals for the Kremlin.

Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC wins the prize for the stupidest comment on the border assault By Thomas Lifson

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/11/andrea_mitchell_of_msnbc_wins_the_prize_for_the_stupidest_comment_on_the_border_assault.html

There is a lot of competition, but one Trump-hater stands out for utter, implausible, easily refuted inanity in attempting to demonize opposition to the organized attempt to force our southern border open to anyone who wants to come here and sign up for the rich subsidies and benefits offered to poor people.

Congratulations to Andrea Mitchell: You have now earned your place in broadcast history with the claim that calling the mob intent on violating our border a “caravan” demonizes them. If you don’t believe me, watch this video excerpt from her MSNBC show. She makes the idiotic claim at 1:00 minute into the segment.