The Media Tries In Vain

There was a bomb blast on a London subway this morning.  A great many people were hurt, but thankfully, no one was killed.  The bomb was in a white container that was in the shape of a bucket.  The London police announced that they are treating this as a terrorist attack.  So what is the media response?  The first article I saw is one that just came out at Yahoo News that says that the London bomb "might be" a terrorist attack.  In other words, despite there being a terror attack, Yahoo News is trying to question that being the case.

So let's take a step back and consider if this was an accident.  Hmm....  The white container had a batch of explosives and a detonator in it according to the police.  The detonator went off, but it failed to ignite the main body of explosives.  There is no way that this was anything other than a bomb.  If it's a bomb on the subway, what else could it be besides a terrorist attack?  Was this just a school project that a nine-year-old was bringing for the science fair?  Maybe it was a gardener who was on his way to work after whipping up a bomb to remove a stubborn tree stump.  No, it was a terrorist's bomb.

Why would the media label this as something other than a terrorist attack?  Why spread misinformation about a terror attack?  The days of not using the words "Islamic terrorism" may be over at the White House, but for parts of the media, that position lives on.  It's just ridiculous.

Tonight's Riot In Berkeley

Ben Shapiro is supposed to speak tonight in Berkeley California.  That surely means that there will be a riot thrown by Antifa.  Shapiro, after all, will speak out in favor of freedoms like free speech.  Antifa only favors freedom for its members to speak; everyone else is just supposed to keep his or her mouth shut and obey.

If there is an Antifa riot tonight, I hope that the police actually arrest the rioters.  I realize that may be a false hope, but it would be quite refreshing if the ideals of America were actually supported for once. 

Here It Comes: Missile North Korea

The North Koreans launched another ballistic missile that flew directly over Japan.  The course of the missile was such that Japan sounded alarm sirens in Hokaido and even warned citizens not to tough anything that looks like debris from the missile.  Ultimately, the missile landed in the sea after crossing Japan's northernmost region.

Kim Jung Un is playing a dangerous game.  A few days ago, he threatened to launch nuclear weapons at Japan, and then he pulled today's stunt.  I assume that the Japanese government knew quickly that the missile would overfly the country rather than hitting anything on the ground.  Nevertheless, an officer with a jumpy trigger finger could easily have taken steps to try to bring down that missile.  Even worse, Japan could have launched its own missiles (non-nuclear) at the launch site in North Korea.  The Japanese certainly would be justified to do just that.  One can only speculate whether or not such a response would have started another war in Korea.

The world is really on the edge of a cliff and the NK's are pushing to get us over the edge.  Were Kim and the NK's to launch an attack on South Korea or Japan, there's really no doubt that the USA would respond with a major counterattack that would both end Kim's regime and perhaps the entire North Korean state.  Hopefully, something will happen so that Kim is removed from power and things return to a more peaceful outlook.

Who Did It Best?

Here are two different courses taken by countries with regard to the threat of nuclear proliferation.

Case 1:  Over twenty years ago, Iraq under Saddam Hussein built a nuclear reactor with assistance from North Korea.  It was to be the centerpiece of the Iraqi push to get nuclear weapons.  Israel discussed with the USA the intolerable nature of a nuclear Iraq, particularly since those nukes would surely be aimed at the Jewish state.  Washington advised patience and using the international community and the UN to stop the Iraqi program.  The Israelis refused to wait.  Instead, Israeli air force jets flew all the way to Iraq and attacked and destroyed the Iraqi reactor just before it was to go into operation.  That ended the Iraqi nuclear program.

Case 2:  Ten years ago, Syria under Bashir Assad built a facility with North Korean and Iranian assistance.  The facility was designed for production of a Syrian nuclear weapons.  The Israelis discussed with the USA the intolerable nature of a nuclear Syria, particularly since Israel would be the target of bombs acquired by Syria.  Washington advised patience and using the international community to stop the Syrian program.  The Israelis refused to wait.  They would not gamble with their own survival.  Instead, Israeli air force jets attacked the Syrian facility and destroyed it.  The attack also took out many of the foreign advisors as well.  That ended the Syrian nuclear program.

Case 3:  For the last decade or more Iran worked on building nuclear weapons.  Because of the distance of the facilities from Israel, the Israelis were not able to attack those facilities without American help.  Washington advised patience and using the international community to dissuade Iran from developing nukes.  The American course was followed, mainly because the Israelis could not act alone.  The end result was the nuclear agreement with Iran.  The Iranians got $150 billion and the end of sanctions in exchange for agreeing to a delay in the development of nuclear weapons.  In another eight years, however, Iran will be able to develop nukes in a matter of one or two months and it will do so in accordance with the agreement.  The Iranian nuclear program is alive and well.  The world is at risk as a result.

Case 4:  North Korea has worked for a long time to develop nuclear bombs and ICBMs capable of carrying those bombs.  The USA under president Clinton made a deal with the NK's that they would stop their nuclear program in exchange for substantial cash payments and other aid.  America furnished the cash and assistance, but the NK's kept building their bombs in secret.  About ten years ago, the NK's exploded their first a-bomb.  Even when it was disclosed that the North Koreans had lied and broken the agreement, the USA tried international action to prevent North Korea from continuing its nuclear program.  Under president Obama, America did nothing at all but gave that inaction a name to make it sound like a real approach to the problem.  It was called "strategic patience".  Now the NK's have many nuclear bombs and they are about to have fully functional ICBMs capable of reaching the USA.  Iran has been helping in the effort.  It's only a matter of weeks or maybe months before America and the world is faced with the reality of a full North Korean nuclear force.

So which of these coursed make sense?  Do you like the Israeli approach in Cases 1 and 2?  Do you prefer the American approach in Cases 3 and 4?  I guess the answer depends on whether or not you like the idea of being nuked by our enemies.  Those with suicidal tendencies ought to gravitate to the American approach.

Here's What Actually Happened

Judicial Watch released its latest batch of emails obtained from the State Department which came from Huma Abedin's records.  They include a large number of Hillary Clinton's emails which Hillary somehow never turned over to the State Department when she claimed to be giving all work related ones.  It's now something like 700 emails of this sort that have been found by reviewing Abedin's records.  The latest batch also shows all sorts of sensitive national security information being sent via an unsecured email system.  It is yet another indication of violations of law by Abedin and Clinton.  Then there are also pay for play schemes for big donors to the Clinton Foundation discussed in the emails.

It's staggering that after all this time there are still new revelations coming with regard to Hillary's emails.  I'm not going to review all the items in the latest batch of emails.  Here's the link if you would like to get more info.  Suffice to say that there is enough here to warrant indictment of both Clinton and Abedin.

Next time Hillary speaks on What Happened, someone might point these emails out to her and tell her that they are what happened.

The Usual Nonsense -- 2

That didn't take long.  We now know who was telling the truth about last night's meeting between President Trump and Democrat leaders Schumer and Pelosi.  I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Schumer and Pelosi.

This morning, the White House made clear that there had been no deal with the Democrats.  President Trump tweeted about there being no deal.  He also said the wall construction would continue.  About 11:00, Pelosi and Schumer issued a statement to the media saying that the White House description of the meeting was correct.  Then they said that "as we said last night" there was no final deal made with the President.  The problem, of course, is that is not what they said last night. 

Now we know that at last night's meeting, there was general agreement that legislation would be pushed to legalize the people covered by DACA.  (We knew that before the meeting.)  There was also agreement that there would be border security measures included in the legislation covering the DACA people.  There may also have been agreement by the Democrats that they would not ultimately block construction of the funding for the border wall (that's what Trump says.) 

That's a very different set of facts from what the media reported and what Schumer and Pelosi first said.  Oh well, another day, another lie from the Democrats.  Can't they ever stop?

The Usual Nonsense that Always Seems to Happen

President Trump held a dinner meeting with Schumer and Pelosi yesterday.  On the subject of DACA, it's truly unclear what happened.  The Democrats came out of the meeting and announced that DACA would be reinstated by appropriate legislation that also would fund and authorize major border security moves.  They also said that a border wall would not be part of that deal although the President would still push for a wall in other legislation.  The President said that there was no agreement of this sort.  So the question now has become who to believe.

It's a tough question to answer.  Both President Trump and Nancy Pelosi often say things that are untrue or inexact.  It seems that they are intentionally telling lies, although Trump clearly speaks in what ought to be described as "loose language".  Schumer is not inexact at all, but he frequently lies.  That means that we have three unreliable witnesses and have to decide which ones to believe.

Why would the Democrats lie?  Clearly, having President Trump abandon the wall would be a major blow to his base.  Trump ran strongly on the idea of a wall, and for him to abandon it would upset many of his voters.  For the Democrats to say that he did that, even if he did not, could cause major upset with those voters.

Why would Trump lie?  The President could have had another of those times when he said something that he really did not want to say on further reflection.  Giving up the wall in just a single meeting with the Democrats would be such a moment.

Could it be that neither is lying?  Sure.  Trump may have said something that Pelosi took to be agreement but which Trump did not mean that way.  It could all be a misunderstanding.  I doubt it though.

We will see soon how this plays out.  My gut tells me that Schumer and Pelosi are at fault, but admittedly that is my normal inclination.  Still, since the only ones with a big up side for being dishonest here are Pelosi and Schumer.  They always go for the up side no matter what the truth.