HOMELAND SECURITY Comments turned off

Global Zero and Its Nuclear Globaloney by Peter Huessy

Posted By on October 16th, 2018

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13124/global-zero-baloney

According to the Princeton University disarmament group, Global Zero, an agreement on “No First Use” would be in a new treaty — one in which everyone “sincerely vows” never to use nuclear weapons first.

If warheads were actually removed from both submarine- and silo-based missiles, however, it would take months to put them back on the missiles, assuming the storage facilities used for the warheads were not destroyed in a preemptive Russian or Chinese attack. Talk about painting a bull’s-eye on your nuclear forces.

The Princeton University disarmament group, Global Zero, has released a new 107-page report — “The End of Nuclear Warfighting: Moving to a Deterrence-Only Posture” — that calls for the unilateral disarmament of more than two-thirds of the US nuclear deterrent and the adoption of a Chinese deterrent strategy including placing most US warheads in storage bunkers far removed from the missiles that could carry them.

The report’s conclusions are as follows:
US Deterrent Policy

China and Russia have no incentive to attack the United States, so the US can cut in half its nuclear arsenal — unilaterally — as the US no longer has to worry about the size of the Russian nuclear arsenal in measuring its own deterrent.

A reserve fleet of 40 nuclear bombers, but not readily available for use, is proposed, as opposed to the 75 B52 and 100 B21 bombers for both conventional and nuclear missions in the Trump administration plan. Bomber weapons would be kept in storage only to be used in emergencies.

The US target list to be destroyed in a hypothetical retaliatory strike should only be Russian industry and leadership, including electrical facilities, banking and communications, with 50% of the targets able to be destroyed with conventional weapons and cyber-attacks, further eliminating the need for nuclear weapons.

No Russian conventional or nuclear military targets need to be destroyed. As Russian infrastructure does not “move,” there is no need to destroy it quickly.

Global Zero says the US should unilaterally adopt China’s nuclear strategy, with most of America’s nuclear warheads not on alert but stored elsewhere; a deterrent of no more than 200-300 warheads deployed and in reserve (compared to 3,800 today); and a posture of no first use of such weapons.

Global Zero advocates a submarine-based MONAD deterrent, as opposed to the current US three-legged Triad of bombers, submarines and land-based missiles. Only 260 warheads would be at sea under this deterrence-only plan; at first, total deployed warheads would be 5 submarines x 16 missiles x 8 warheads per missile — or 640 warheads, but then declining after that to under 300.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

What Multiculturalism Hides by Jan Keller

Posted By on October 16th, 2018

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13128/multiculturalism

Prof. Jan Keller is a Czech Social Democrat Member of the European Parliament, sociologist, analyst, commentator and author of more than 30 books, including Sociology of the Organization and Bureaucracy (2007) or The Three Social Worlds (2011). He studied at the universities of Bordeaux (1985), Aix-en-Provence (1988) and Sorbonne (1992) in Paris. He has lectured sociology at the University of Lille, Poitiers, Trento, Lodz and Barcelona.This article is based on a speech delivered at the seminar, “Is Mass Immigration a Condition for Prosperity of Europe?” held by the Institute Vaclav Klaus in Prague on March 19, 2015 and is published here with the kind permission of the author. It was translated into English by Josef Zbořil.

The policy of multiculturalism, which emphasizes the benefits of cultural diversity for society and the state, is an example of the exploitation of others based on a fantasy of virtue. Those at whom the sweet talk of multiculturalism is aimed, can see that it has done nothing to improve their lot, and are now realizing that their future is bleak.

If we bring in highly qualified immigrants to our workforce, we would be taking away from poorer countries the best they have to offer, and the situation in those countries will further deteriorate. The result will be an even greater flow of unskilled migrants escaping those countries.

The proponents of the new multiculturalism want to share their welfare states with masses of refugees who — through no fault of their own — will be unable to participate in financing themselves for a long time to come.

Multiculturalism is not a manifestation of Europe’s generosity, or some noble embodiment of love and truth. Multiculturalism is what remains after mass migration reveals itself as a threat, rather than a benefit, to the economies of European countries.

Take, for instance, the example of France. After the Second World War, when France underwent a boom of economic growth, waves of migration were viewed favorably: there were many job opportunities for unskilled and medium-skilled laborers, and the native French population aspired to work in the tertiary sector, which offered more qualified, better-paid jobs. From the end of the war until the mid-1970s, foreign workers tended to come to France temporarily, without their families, and return to their countries of origin. These workers were generally recruited from former French colonies to do menial and low-paying jobs — not in order to enrich the culture of the host country.

At the end of the 1970s, that situation changed. Foreign workers began coming to France with their families and also having children after arriving in the country. At the same time, however, there were changes in the economy that ended up leaving descendants of the recruited workers hopeless. While their parents had experienced some upward mobility, they themselves — even those with a higher level of education than their parents — were left with fewer job opportunities and became a surplus on the labor market; they also did not have another place to go. In other words, they had been born in a country that suddenly had nothing to offer. The only thing that the government could come up with was a rationale for the dire situation — a mission for these children of migrants: that they should enrich themselves culturally in the country to which their parents had migrated. This new policy of multiculturalism, which emphasizes the benefits of cultural diversity for society and the state, is an example of the exploitation of others based on a fantasy of virtue. Those at whom the sweet talk of multiculturalism is aimed, can see that it has done nothing to improve their lot, and are now realizing that their future is bleak.

POLITICS Comments turned off

ELECTIONS ARE COMING: ARIZONA-MARTHA McSALLY FOR SENATE

Posted By on October 16th, 2018

Kyrsten Sinema Promoted a Terrorist Lawyer By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/kyrsten-sinema-promoted-a-terrorist-lawyer/

Don’t buy the Arizona Senate candidate’s excuses.

Last week it emerged that, in 2003, Democratic Senate hopeful Kyrsten Sinema had promoted campus appearances by Lynne Stewart, a radical lawyer, while Stewart was being prosecuted for providing material support to terrorism. Having been called out on this, Sinema has distorted basic facts of the case.

Sinema represents Arizona’s 9th district in the House and is locked in a tight race against Martha McSally, who represents the state’s 2nd district, for the Senate seat being vacated by Republican Jeff Flake.

As it happens, Ms. Stewart, who died in 2017, was my main adversary in the 1995 terrorism prosecution of her client, Omar Abdel Rahman, better known as the “Blind Sheikh.” Abdel Rahman (who also died in 2017, just a few weeks before Stewart) was the jihadist whom Stewart was convicted of abetting; she helped him communicate with his murderous Egyptian terrorist organization from the American prison where he was serving a life sentence.

I am thus in a position to counter Representative Sinema’s misrepresentations about her advocacy on Stewart’s behalf.

A leading light of the notoriously jihadist-friendly lawyer left, Sinema now portrays herself as a moderate progressive. To the contrary, her political activism began when she co-founded a “social justice” organization, Local to Global Justice, while studying law at Arizona State University. In that connection, Sinema urged people in what Fox News describes as a “now-closed Yahoo group” to attend two 2003 events at which Stewart was the featured speaker.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Cherokee nation rains on Elizabeth Warren’s parade By Monica Showalter

Posted By on October 16th, 2018

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/cherokee_nation_rains_on_elizabeth_warrens_parade.html

Elizabeth Warren was doing a victory dance about her DNA test showing “strong evidence” she may have 1/1,024 or 0.09 percent Native American lineage. In hot pursuit, she called on President Trump to “pay up” with his $1 million offer to the charity of her choice for taking the DNA test he said he would toss to her at a future presidential debate, earlier. As the network press admiringly gushed about the whole “gotcha,” she was convinced she had him cornered.

Well, sorry – that debate hasn’t happened yet, and now it’s doubtful that it ever will, because Warren is hearing from the leaders of the Cherokee nation.

Here is their astonishing rebuke to her for what they rightly view as a shabby little publicity stunt at their expense:

A Cherokee Nation official rebuked Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts after a DNA test report published Monday asserted there is evidence to “strong support” Warren’s claim to have Native American ancestors.

Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. called the test cited by Warren’s report “useless” in determining tribal citizenship and alleged she was “undermining tribal interests” with her “continued claims of tribal heritage.”

“A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America,” Hoskin said in a statement.

“Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong[,]” Hoskin added. “It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its [sic] legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven.”

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

We’re All Native Americans Now Elizabeth Warren demonstrates the folly of identity politics.

Posted By on October 16th, 2018

https://www.wsj.com/articles/were-all-native-americans-now-1539645420

Any doubt that Elizabeth Warren plans to run for President ended Monday when the Massachusetts Senator released a DNA analysis indicating that she probably does have some trace of distant Native American ancestry.

The former Harvard professor went so far as to unveil a website and video featuring an analysis by Stanford professor Carlos Bustamante, who said that while Ms. Warren is mainly European she likely has some Native American ancestry “in the range of 6-10 generations ago.”

This makes her between 1/64th and 1/1024th Native American, which barely spares her the humiliation of not having any after she had listed herself as Native American on federal forms filed by Harvard and Penn law schools where she had worked. On the other hand, she also looks silly for making so much of so little. As Americans are learning as the costs of genetic testing fall, nearly all of us have multiple ethnic and racial backgrounds. Ms. Warren tried to make an identity politics virtue of a genetic banality.

Credit on this point goes to Donald Trump, who mocked Ms. Warren’s genetic boast and no doubt prompted her to get the truth out before the 2020 campaign begins. Ms. Warren now says Mr. Trump should make good on his boast to write a $1 million check to charity if Ms. Warren proved she had Native American blood.

Write the check, Donald. You’ll look gracious, and you’ll have an amusing talking point and photograph that will last the entire 2020 campaign.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Democrats Abandon the Constitution The Kavanaugh battle lost, they claim the Electoral College, Senate and judiciary are illegitimate. 738 Comments By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey

Posted By on October 16th, 2018

https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-abandon-the-constitution-1539645364

Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court has sparked a firestorm of outrage and recrimination on the left. Some attacks seem aimed at intimidating the justices into supporting progressive causes. “The Court must now prove—through its work—that it is worthy of the nation’s trust,” Eric Holder, President Obama’s attorney general, tweeted Oct. 6.

Yet the attacks go beyond ideology. Detractors of Justice Kavanaugh and President Trump are denouncing the Constitution itself and the core elements of America’s governmental structure:

• The Electoral College. Mr. Trump’s opponents claim he is an illegitimate president because Hillary Clinton “won the popular vote.” One commentator even asked “what kind of nation allows the loser of a national election to become president.” The complaint that the Electoral College is undemocratic is nothing new. The Framers designed it that way. They created a republican form of government, not a pure democracy, and adopted various antimajoritarian measures to keep the “demos” in check.

The Electoral College could be eliminated by amending the Constitution. But proposing an amendment requires two-thirds votes in both houses of Congress, and the legislatures of three-fourths, or 38, of the states would have to ratify it.

• The Senate. The complaint here is that the 50 senators who voted in Justice Kavanaugh’s favor “represent” fewer people than the 48 who voted against him. But senators represent states, not people.

Equal Senate representation for the states was a key part of the Connecticut Compromise, along with House seats apportioned by population. The compromise persuaded large and small states alike to accept the new Constitution. It was so fundamental that Article V of the Constitution—which spells out the amendment procedure—provides that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” That means an amendment changing the structure of the Senate would require ratification by all 50 states.

• Judicial independence. Commentators who disapprove of the Supreme Court’s composition have urged, as one law professor put it, “shrinking the power of the courts to overrun our citizens’ democratic decisions.” Some suggest limiting and staggering the justices’ terms so that a vacancy would come up every other year, ensuring that the court follows the election returns. That could be achieved via constitutional amendment, but it would go against the Framers’ wisdom. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78, life tenure for judges is “the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws.”

Some of Justice Kavanaugh’s detractors have demanded that if Democrats take the House next month, they open an investigation into the sex-crime allegations Senate Democrats failed to substantiate. But although Congress has wide oversight powers with respect to the executive branch, it has no such oversight authority over the judiciary. The only way the House can legitimately investigate a sitting judge is in an impeachment proceeding.

And Justice Kavanaugh cannot be impeached for conduct before his promotion to the Supreme Court. Article III provides that judges “hold their Offices during good Behavior,” so that a judge can be removed only for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” committed during his term in office. CONTINUE AT SITE

ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

TIME OUT: OCTOBER 6 TO OCTOBER 17

Posted By on October 5th, 2018

I will be on vacation….rsk

ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

What Did Brett Kavanaugh Do at the Junior Prom? by David C. Stolinsky ****

Posted By on October 5th, 2018

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13084/brett-kavanaugh-nomination

One can have complete sympathy for someone who underwent the trauma of experiencing attempted sexual assault, but the fishy timing and discrepancies of this reported incident make it hard not to ask what unprovable and undefendable allegations will the next character assassin toss out. Hard-drug use? Child abuse? How pervasive and surreal are such fact-challenged defamations going to get?
According to a report by Congressman Louie Gohmert, Senator Ted Stevens “was not only completely innocent of the manufactured case against him, he was an honest and honorable man. Under Director Mueller’s overriding supervision, the wrongdoer who helped manufacture the case stayed on and the whistleblower was punished.”
Back where I come from, officials investigate crimes that can be named and that have occurred; they do not go around trying to manufacture them. Back where I come from, officials investigate crimes to discover who committed them; they do not investigate people to see if they can come up with one.
I come from America. It is a nice place to visit, but it is a really great place to live. One day I hope to live there again. A good way to make that day come sooner is to end the government’s framing people, and presumptions of guilt. Ending politically motivated prosecutions, criminal conspiracies to overthrow a duly elected president, and ending criminal abuse of power might also help.

Was it the junior prom or just a high-school party? Was Christine Blasey Ford, who says she was the victim of Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assault, 15 or 16 years old at the time? Were there four boys present during the incident, as in the notes of Blasey Ford’s therapist, or two, as she says now? Did Kavanaugh’s friend, Mark Judge, who strongly denies the incident, participate? Was it even Kavanaugh who participated, or perhaps someone who looked like him? Why did the alleged victim wait 35 years (or was it 36) to come forward? Why did Senator Dianne Feinstein refer the complaint to the FBI, which has no jurisdiction?

EDUCATION Comments turned off

A Georgetown Professor’s Castrating Rage The face of leftist academic hate. John Perazzo

Posted By on October 5th, 2018

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271530/georgetown-professors-castrating-rage-john-perazzo

Taking her place among the gaggle of leftists who have felt compelled to broadcast their opinions regarding the sexual-abuse allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, Georgetown University Associate Professor Carol Christine Fair has weighed in on the matter numerous times in recent days. By any measure, Fair ranks as one of the more overtly angry and unrestrained of Kavanaugh’s critics.

Professor Fair’s reflexive rage may stem, in part, from the tragic fact that in her youth, as she has previously disclosed, she was repeatedly molested by an uncle for about a decade. When Christine Blasey Ford went public with her unsubstantiated, uncorroborated allegation about an event from 36 years ago, Fair promptly used her Twitter and Tumblr accounts to characterize Judge Kavanaugh as a “rapist” and “perjurer,” and to depict Republicans generally as “a fu**ing death cult” of “filthy swine” who are “pro-rape, pro-pederasty, pro-perjury, pro-corruption, pro-Russian hacking, pro-child trafficking, pro-white male supremacy, pro-VERY-late-term abortion of children with AR-15’s.” She also characterized Trump voters as “Trumpanzees,” and she described their pro-Trump “MAGA” hats as “socially-acceptable Klan hoods.”

After watching Republican senators defend Kavanaugh in the televised hearing last week, Fair tweeted: “Look at [this] chorus of entitled white men. All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes.”

Fair later told the website Heavy.com: “This [Trump] regime is hell-bent upon disenfranchising women, POC [people of color], non-Christians, LGBTQI and empowering a larger role for corruption in our governance…. This is only the beginning of fascism in America.”

ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

Believe all women… unless they accuse the Left. Daniel Greenfield

Posted By on October 5th, 2018

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271538/nobody-believes-all-women-daniel-greenfield

fter Christine Blasey Ford’s confused testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Bumble took out full page ads in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal in its trademark black, white and yellow, “Believe Women”.

Probably not a good idea with a dating app accused by some users of fooling them with fake profiles.

Nobody believes all women. The Democrats certainly don’t. Just ask the two women who accused Keith Ellison, the DNC’s number two, of domestic abuse. A Minnesota poll showed that 42% of Republicans believed Ellison’s latest accuser, while only 5% of Democrats did. 71% of Minnesota Democrats didn’t think Al Franken should resign even when the line of accusers stretched out the door and then some.

Democrats are more likely to believe female accusers in the abstract, not when they have political skin in the game. That’s why fewer Democrats were willing to believe the allegations against Al Franken than against Bill Clinton, even though there were far more Franken witnesses and even a photo. Bill Clinton was yesterday’s news, while Franken, like Ellison, was a current progressive champion.

The willingness of more Democrats to believe Bill Clinton’s accusers isn’t evolution, it’s hypocrisy.

Democrats covered for Bill Clinton as long as the Clintons were a viable political dynasty. Only when Hillary went down in flames, and Bill Clinton seemed to spend most of his time playing with balloons, was it safe to start believing the same women they had been ridiculing and demeaning all these years.

And maybe when Keith Ellison retires to practice corporate law or plant bombs in synagogues, the Democrats will finally come around to believing the women who have accused him of abusing them.

Local Democrats are also less likely to believe the women accusing their own politicians than national Democrats are. The left supports #BelieveAllWomen in the abstract, but not when it hits home.