Monday, April 3, 2017

Disingenuous/Despicable Democrats. Rice Resurfaces? Mrs. Smith.

A view as to why V.P Pence is causing feminist angst.

The author's view may or may not prove insightful or even accurate  but it is a fact feminists are generally angry.  But then, most liberals are usually angry about something.  This drives them to seek answers for others when they can't even find them for themselves.

That said, feminist hypocrisy is both alive and spreading. (See 1 and 1a below.)
Mosques versus churches.  Mosques winning. (See 2 below.)
It now appears  Ms. Rice's name resurfaces and this time she apparently unmasked some Trump officials and then illegally leaked their names to various agencies Perhaps this is why Obama eased the rules in the last few days of his tenure to give her illegal actions a semblance of legitimate cover..

The Intelligence Committee Investigation might be able to move forward unless the Democrats wish to continue as obstructionists.

In the Senate, the Democrats are doing everything they can to make it impossible for Judge Gorsuch to move to The Supreme Court.  They are not doing so because of his rulings but simply because they are upset that their nominee was not allowed a vote when Obama submitted his name.

At some point you would think voters would be fed up with the childish methods the Democrats are employing and rise in anger but the nation is so split  that prospect is a futile bet.

Meanwhile, Gorsuch will be elected and the Senate will change its rules in order for that to happen.

This could also work to Trump's advantage down the road should he have the opportunity to nominate another candidate because he now knows no one he would want will be acceptable so he could go for a more conservative jurist and provide the Demwits with a meal they will  find totally distasteful and yet, it will be shoved down their throats as they are forced to choke on their own intransigence.

In their desire to cut Trump off at the knees the Democrats are showing the rest of the nation how little they care about America. We face difficult choices and they simply want to make them more difficult because they are peeved at having lost the election.
An Israeli Arrow destroys a Syrian missile never envisioned at the time of its design. (See 3 below.)
Poor Mrs. Smith. (See 4 below.)

1)Now We Know Why So Many Feminists Are Humorless, Bitter, and Ugly Hearted

While I was on vacation last week, it became apparent that we now have the answer for why so many American feminists are humorless, bitter, and ugly hearted. The nasty reaction of so many shrill single women who cannot get dates and the beta male footstools for the few who can to Mike Pence prioritizing the sanctity of his marriage explains it all.
Conservative women, it seems, can get ahead without having to take the boss out one on one for drinks, but feminists apparently are incapable of getting ahead in the office without trying to seduce their married male boss at a one-on-one drink fest.
That is the accusation — that women are at a disadvantage in Mike Pence’s office because he won’t go drinking one on one with them. Pay no attention to the fact that this is not true. Pence has always had a number of high profile female employees. On top of that, Pence does not go out with the guys either.
But cue the outrage over Pence valuing fidelity to his wife over letting feminists embarrass themselves.
The thing that made the outrage so spectacular is that the most outraged people are people who do not even respect marriage. The outrage came from a bunch of single, divorced, and adulterous liberals. People who really value their marriage and marital integrity barely batted an eyelash.
In fact, a lot of what is going on here is that the adulterers and feminists outraged by Mike Pence’s private behavior loathe him and his behavior because his behavior shames them. Let’s not kid ourselves. A number of the most outraged are people who have publicly been exposed for adultery. 
 As a friend of mine noted, “in under six months, the American left has pivoted effortlessly from denouncing a man for being a bad husband to denouncing a man for being a good one.”
Again though, now we see why the feminists are so upset. They presume they have to have one on one drinking time with their married boss to get ahead. I’d probably be a shrill, humorless, ugly hearted person too if I thought I had to sleep my way into a better job because otherwise no one would recognize my talent.
Lucky for the women of America, our present Vice President recognizing the talents of his male and female staffers through their work product, not through their private dining.

1a)  Comment: A euphemism for anti-US, anti-Israel and antisemitic bigotry?
There is a certain irony in so many feminists and gay-rights activists refusing to condemn the sexism and homophobia in the Arab world. What do Hamas and the anti-violence group Black Lives Matter have in common? What does Israel have in common with the Ku Klux Klan? What does the Islamic Republic of Iran, which throws gays off rooftops, have in common with gay right activists? What do feminists have in common with radical Islamic sexists who support the honor killing and genital mutilation of women? Nothing of course. Unless you subscribe to the pseudo-academic concept of intersectionality.

Intersectionality – the radical academic theory which holds that all forms of social oppression are inexorably linked – has become a code word for anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Israel and antisemitic bigotry.

Nowhere has adoption of this radical paradigm been more pronounced than on college campuses, where in the name of “identity politics” and “solidarity,” intersectionality has forced artificial coalitions between causes that have nothing to do with each other except a hatred for their fellow students who are “privileged” because they are white, heterosexual, male and especially Jewish.

Students at the University of Illinois (UIC) recently took to social media to express their distress after flyers were plastered around campus calling for the “end of Jewish privilege.”

The flyer stated in bold letters that “ending white privilege starts with ending Jewish privilege.” The posters had outlines of silhouettes with Stars of David printed on their chests and an arrow pointing to them with the accompanying caption “the 1%.”

Although some of the posters identified Black Lives Matter as sponsors, it isn’t clear whether they were distributed by extreme right-wing groups using hard-left antisemitic tropes or by hard Left antisemites. In some respects, it doesn’t really matter because many on the hard Right and hard Left share a disdain for Jews, their nation state and so-called “Jewish privilege.”

The very concept of “privilege” – the idea that white people benefit from certain privileges in Western society, compared to non-whites living in the same social, political and economic environment – has a long and complex history in the United States. The subjugation of black Americans, and other non-whites, is an endemic problem that requires far-reaching legislative and grassroots action. By attributing this domestic social problem to so-called “Jewish privilege,” radicals are engaging in traditional economic antisemitism; attributing far-reaching societal problems to Jewish status, occupation or economic performance.

This practice resembles the vile antisemitic propaganda splashed across Der Spiegel in the 1930s, which blamed Jews – and so-called disproportionate Jewish wealth – for Germany losing WWI and its subsequent economic downturn. Canards about Jews controlling world finances – first promulgated by the Tzarist forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – was antisemitic back then and it is still antisemitic today, whether espoused by the extreme Left or Right. There is no more evidence that Jews are responsible for economic or social inequality in contemporary America than there was that Jews were responsible for any of the other crimes that formed the basis for traditional blood libels. Indeed, Jews disproportionately support racial equality and other liberal causes. Most successful Jews, like most successful people of other religions and ethnicities, earned this success by hard work, not special privilege.

I certainly didn’t begin life with any privilege – indeed, despite finishing first in my class at Yale Law School, I was rejected by all 32 of the law firms to which I applied.

The linking of unrelated “victimizations,” despite their tenuous connections, is reflective of a broader trend in hard-left politics, whereby increasingly, radical activists demand that the demonization of “Zionists” – often used as a euphemism for Jews – be included, indeed featured, in the package of causes that must be embraced by anyone claiming the label of “progressive.”

Lumping seemingly disparate groups under the “umbrella of oppression” leads to the forming of alliances between causes that at best have nothing to do with each other and at worst are adverse to one another’s stated mission. Their only common feature is that in order to join, they must demonize the nation state of the Jewish people.

Some intersectional feminists involved with the recent Women’s March on Washington, for example, purport to be natural allies with anti-Israel Muslim groups that tolerate, if not accept, the “honor killings” and genital mutilation of women.

Similarly, Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) – an organization that calls for “an end to violence against civilians; and peace and justice for all peoples of the Middle East” – invited Rasmea Odeh, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and convicted terrorist, to appear as a speaker at their national conference later this month. The idea of Odeh – a terrorist who quite literally has blood on her hands – speaking for a Jewish organization that claims to propagate peace flies in the face of logic. Fortunately, Odeh is being deported for perjuriously failing to disclose her murder conviction. I guess the peace-loving members of JVP will have to applaud her on Skype.

The following are among many examples of radical leftists conflating unrelated grievances. Consider the linking of the US government’s handling of the Flint water crisis to the “severe” water crisis in Gaza. Black Lives Matter activists have visited Gaza to express solidarity with the terrorist group Hamas, and with Palestinians oppressed by so-called racist Israeli self-defense measures. While Black Lives Matter claims to disavow violence in securing its political objectives, many of its most prominent members are far more eager to criticize the “Israeli genocide of Palestinians” than to criticize Hamas for using rockets to target Israeli civilians.

During a recent interview on PBS’s Charlie Rose program, Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and professor of ethical leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business, had this to say about the conflation of various left-wing causes under the banner of intersectionality: “There is a good kind of identity politics, which is, you know, if black people are being denied rights, let’s fight for their rights, that’s the good kind. But there is a bad kind, which is to train students, train young people to say let’s divide everybody up by their race, gender, other categories.

We’ll assign them moral merit based on their level of privilege [which] is bad, and victimhood is good. Okay, now let’s look at everything through this lens. Israel, the Palestinians are the victims. So therefore, they are the good and the Jews or the Israelis are the bad... All social problems get reduced to this simple framework. I think we are doing them a disservice. I think where actually making students less wise.”

There is a certain irony in so many feminists and gay-rights activists refusing to condemn the sexism and homophobia in the Arab world.

Increasingly, they try to force other progressives to adopt a “No True Scotsman” worldview, in which they are made to feel that to be a “true progressive” one must embrace a wide variety of so-called hard-left causes, regardless of how unrelated they may be – as long as they also condemn Israel.

The essence of antisemitism is the bigoted claim that if there is a problem, then Jews must be its cause. Hitler started by blaming Jews for Germany’s economic downturn. Today, many hard-left activists explicitly or implicitly blame Jews and Zionists for many of the evils of the world. All decent people must join in calling out intersectionality for what it is: a euphemism for anti-American, antisemitic and anti-Israel bigotry. Exposing and condemning “intersectionality” for the bigotry that it represents is critical to ensuring that those repressive extremists who falsely claim the mantle of progressivism are not able to hijack important liberal causes in support of their own bigoted agenda.

RED ALERT: SHOCK – Major City Has 423 New Mosques Opened And 500 Churches Closed

The Gatestone Institute reports Sunday on the striking rate of closures of churches in the United Kingdom’s capital city, a trend mirrored elsewhere in Europe, and the blooming number of mosques that have been established in their stead.
Reporting on the change in religious observation in London, the Gatestone Institute writes:
“London is more Islamic than many Muslim countries put together”, according to Maulana Syed Raza Rizvi, one of the Islamic preachers who now lead “Londonistan”, as the journalist Melanie Phillips has called the English capital. No, Rizvi is not a right-wing extremist. Wole Soyinka, a Nobel Laureate for Literature, was less generous; he called the UK “a cesspit for Islamists”.
“Terrorists can not stand London multiculturalism”, London’s mayor Sadiq Khan said after the recent deadly terror attack at Westminster. The opposite is true: British multiculturalists are feeding Islamic fundamentalism. Above all, Londonistan, with its new 423 mosques, is built on the sad ruins of English Christianity.
The Hyatt United Church was bought by the Egyptian community to be converted to a mosque. St Peter’s Church has been converted into the Madina Mosque. The Brick Lane Mosque was built on a former Methodist church. Not only buildings are converted, but also people. The number of converts to Islam has doubled; often they embrace radical Islam, as with Khalid Masood, the terrorist who struck Westminster.
The Daily Mail published photographs of a church and a mosque a few meters from each other in the heart of London. At the Church of San Giorgio, designed to accommodate 1,230 worshipers, only 12 people gathered to celebrate Mass. At the Church of Santa Maria, there were 20.
The nearby Brune Street Estate mosque has a different problem: overcrowding. Its small room and can contain only 100. On Friday, the faithful must pour into the street to pray. Given the current trends, Christianity in England is becoming a relic, while Islam will be the religion of the future.

Arrow Intercepts a Syrian Missile: Technological, Operational, and Political Aspects

By Uzi Rubin
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Israel’s Arrow recently made its combat debut with the interception of a Syrian anti-aircraft missile. Remarkably, the 1991 vintage Arrow missile defense system managed to track, engage, and destroy a type of target never envisaged during its design. This sent a powerful message that Israel's missile shield is reaching maturity. The political repercussions of the interception raised questions about its advisability, but the repercussions of a non-interception might have been even more severe.
On March 17, 2017, the Israeli public learned that the previous night, the Arrow missile defense system had successfully intercepted a Syrian antiaircraft missile that had been fired against Israel Air Force aircraft engaged in a deep penetration mission inside Syria. This was the operational debut of the Arrow weapon system.
The somewhat laconic announcement by the IDF left unanswered questions. How could Arrow – originally designed to down ballistic missiles – engage an antiaircraft missile? Was the Syrian missile in fact destroyed? Was this an intended interception? What exactly was intercepted? The absence of details was grist to the rumor mill. So was speculation by a leading defense publication that the intercepted weapon was a Syrian SCUD ballistic missile fired in retaliation against the Israeli air attack.
The IDF's disclosure was also an admission. For the first time since the onset of the Syrian civil war, Israel conceded that its Air Force had attacked targets deep within Syria. All previous reports of such attacks had come from international sources.
The admission raised questions about the wisdom of having intercepted the Syrian missile. Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense Ehud Barak was quick to comment the next day that, “Upon reflection, perhaps it was not wise to launch an Arrow missile against an antiaircraft missile” because this “forced us to admit the (Israel Air Force) operation in Syria, due to the fall of the Arrow debris in Jordan.” At the same time, Barak said the event “demonstrated our awesome capability.”
The event had immediate political repercussions. Israel's ambassador in Moscow was summoned by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to explain Israel's action. Syria's ambassador to the UN observed that Israel's freedom of action in Syria was no more, and many Israeli commentators agreed. At the same time, Prime Minister Netanyahu declared that all previous agreements with Russia where still in force.
Three days later, the IDF clarified some of Friday's mysteries. At a press conference, General Zvi Haimovitz, commander of the Israel Air Defense Command, disclosed that Israel's air and missile defense system had designated the Syrian missile – which he identified as a Syrian SA-5 antiaircraft missile – as a threat that was expected to hit Israel in the central Jordan valley district. “There was no question mark or hesitation” about the need to neutralize this threat, and the decision to intercept was taken “in seconds” by the local commander. Haimovitz’s statements confirmed that this had not been an “accidental interception” but a deliberate act that neutralized an imminent danger.
The full-scale development of Arrow started in 1991, and the system achieved initial operational capability in late 2000. It is optimized against medium and long range (in Israeli terms) ballistic missiles. The system comprises early warning and fire control “Green Pine” radars, the “Golden Citron” battle management system, launchers, and two types of interceptor missiles: Arrow 2 for high atmosphere interceptions and Arrow 3 for space interceptions.
The system was extensively tested but did not feature in any of the last decade's wars (the 2006 Lebanon War, Operation Cast Lead in 2009, Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012, and Operation Defensive Shield in 2014). The March 17 interception was thus its first-ever reported combat action.
A video clip recorded from a passing vehicle appears to show that only a single interceptor was launched from somewhere in central Israel. Images released in Jordan the next day showed an object resembling an Arrow missile rocket motor, much damaged by ground impact. From this evidence, it can be deduced that the Arrow system succeeded in destroying a long-range threat arriving from Syria by a single shot – an impressive feat.
But even more impressive is the fact that the destroyed threat was not a ballistic missile but an antiaircraft missile, which was not envisaged as a threat when the system was designed in the early 1990s.
Ballistic and antiaircraft missiles differ in this way: the former are designed to hit stationary targets on the ground, while the latter are designed to hit rapidly moving targets in the air. The disparate missions elicit disparate technical features, not least in their trajectories; hence the difference in the achievability of intercepting them.
While missile defense systems can now be found around the world, no missile defense system dedicated to the interception of antiaircraft missiles has yet been developed. That is because it is more feasible to neutralize them through “soft” defenses like electronic warfare and decoys. The March 17 firing of antiaircraft missiles against IAF planes was not the first such occasion: a previous incident took place in January 2017. In neither case was the Israeli plane hit, indicating that they carried sufficient “soft” defenses to thwart the Syrian missiles.
The air defense system that launched the Syrian missile is dubbed SA-5 by the West and S-200 Vega by Russia. The specific missile used against the IAF was probably the E (for Export) version, which carries a 217 kg warhead.
The S-200 system was developed in the 1960s and became operational in the USSR and among its allies and clients during the 1970s. The system is venerable and by no means ineffective. Its lethality was tragically demonstrated in October 2001 when a Ukrainian SA-5, launched during military exercises, destroyed a Russian airliner over the Black Sea, killing all 78 aboard.
Syria, Iran, and Libya were the Middle Eastern recipients of this weapon. Syria, which received it after the 1982 Lebanon War when its air defenses were largely destroyed by the IAF, was the first country outside the Soviet bloc to possess it. The USSR supplied three batteries that were deployed to permanent bases near Damascus and other priority targets in Syria.
Following the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War in 2011, the SA-5 sites were either abandoned or overrun by insurgents. With the Russian intervention in late 2015, however, a renovation of the Syrian SA-5 batteries was initiated (as conceded by the Russian Minister of Defense in October 2016). The SA-5 battery east of Homs became operational in July 2016, while the SA-5 site in Ghouta, east of Damascus, was retaken from the insurgents three months ago. This explains why no SA-5 missiles were fired at IAF incursions into Syria prior to January 2017.
The SA-5 interceptor is a rather hefty missile. It is initially accelerated by four large, solid rocket boosters, which are discarded three to five seconds after takeoff. Once the boosters are thrown away, the remaining core missile is dimensionally very similar to a SCUD. This core missile is powered by a large liquid propellant rocket motor that accelerates it to 2.5 km per second (nearly eight times the speed of sound).
Western antiaircraft missiles self-destruct automatically if they miss their targets to prevent the falling of live warheads into friendly territory. It is not clear whether the SA-5 has a self-destruct function, and if so, whether it is automatic or is activated by manual command from the ground.
If no self-destruct is activated after a miss, the SA-5 interceptor may well continue its flight in a stable, ballistic trajectory. It will hit the ground at a distance that is determined by its speed and inclination at the moment of rocket motor burnout. At a speed of 2.5 km per second, this distance could be more than 500 km. It stands to reason, though, that the actual range would be shorter, due to the peculiar trajectory and inclination of an antiaircraft missile. Even at a shorter range, the spent missile will be seen by missile defense radars as a ballistic threat.
It appears that what happened in the early hours of Friday, March 17, 2017 was this. An antiaircraft missile fired in a southwesterly direction from one of the renovated Syrian SA-5 sites missed its target, did not self-destruct, and continued to fly in a stable ballistic trajectory towards Israel. It was picked up at a distance by the “Green Pine” radars, its predicted impact point was seen to be within Israeli territory, and it was classified as an imminent threat. The decision to engage it was taken by the local commander as per his orders and the rules of engagement.
The Arrow system functioned properly and engaged the target by a single interceptor that shed its own rocket motor once its fuel was spent, as it was designed to do. The detached motor continued in its own trajectory and hit the ground near the Jordanian city of Irbid. The Arrow then continued its flight and neutralized the threat.
In brief: the Arrow weapons system detected, locked onto, and neutralized a threatening missile of a type never envisaged during its original design. This was a remarkable performance that verified Ehud Barak's “awesome capability” assessment, and broadcast the powerful message that Israel's missile shield has reached maturity.
The interception caused a political stir, which prompted Barak to question its wisdom. It must be recalled that the timeframe for decisions by the local commander whether or not to engage is measured in the tens of seconds. This leaves no time for dialogue with superior officers about the engagement’s advisability. The local commander must make a snap decision based on standing orders and established rules of engagement.
Thus, the question of the wisdom of the March 17 decision to engage is irrelevant. Even if, somehow, time had allowed for a more protracted decision-making process, it is not clear that any other decision would have been taken. The impact of a Syrian-fired, heavy SA-5 warhead might have caused damage and casualties in Israel, with consequences no less significant than – and possibly worse than – those actually incurred.
Once the decision to engage had been made, it became impossible to maintain official silence due to the high visibility of the interception and its capture by the video recording devices of civilians, both here and in Jordan. Still, one wonders why it was necessary to include the IAF attack in Syria in Israel's admission.
Uzi Rubin was founding Director of the Israel Missile Defense Organization, which managed the Arrow program. He is now a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.
4)Subject: Unable to conceive children

The Smiths were unable to conceive children and decided to use a surrogate father to start their family. On the day the proxy father was to arrive, Mr. Smith kissed his wife goodbye and said, 'Well, I'm off now.
The man should be here soon.'   

Half an hour later, just by chance, a door-to-door baby photographer happened to ring the doorbell, hoping to make a sale. 'Good morning, Ma'am', he said, 'I've come to...'  

'Oh, no need to explain, 'Mrs. Smith cut in, embarrassed, 'I've been expecting you.'   
'Have you really?' said the photographer. 'Well, that's good. Did you know babies are my specialty?'  

'Well that's what my husband and I had hoped. Please come in and have a seat!

After a moment she asked, blushing,
'Well, where do we start?'

'Leave everything to me. I usually try two in the bathtub, one on the couch, and perhaps a couple on the bed. And sometimes the living room floor is fun. You can really spread out  there.'

'Bathtub, living room floor? No wonder it didn't work out for Harry and me!'   

'Well, Ma'am, none of us can guarantee a good one every time. But if we try several different positions and I shoot from six or seven angles, I'm sure you'll be pleased with the results.'  

'My, that's a lot!', gasped Mrs. Smith.

'Ma'am, in my line of work a man has to take his time. I'd love to be in and out in five minutes, but I'm sure you'd be disappointed  with  that.'

'Don't I know it,' said Mrs. Smith quietly.

The photographer opened his briefcase and pulled out a portfolio of his baby pictures. 'This was done on the top of a bus,' he said.

'Oh, my gosh!' Mrs. Smith exclaimed,
Grasping at her throat.

'And these twins turned out exceptionally well - when you consider their mother was so difficult to work with.'

'She was difficult?' asked Mrs. Smith.

'Yes, I'm afraid so. I finally had to take her to the park to get the job done right. People were crowding around four and five deep
To get a good look'

'Four and five deep?' said Mrs. Smith,
Her eyes wide with amazement.

'Yes', the photographer replied. 'And for
More than three hours, too. The mother was constantly squealing and yelling - I could hardly concentrate, and when darkness approached I had to rush my shots. Finally, when the squirrels began nibbling on my equipment, I just had to pack it all in.'   

Mrs. Smith leaned forward.
'Do you mean they actually
Chewed on your,'

'It's true, Ma'am, yes.. Well, if you're ready, I'll set-up my tripod and we can
Get to work right away..'


'Oh yes, Ma'am. I need to use a tripod to rest my Canon on. It's much too big to be held in the hand very long.'
Mrs.Smith fainted.

No comments: