The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
North Korea: To nuke or not to nuke
by Erik Rush
.
Top Headlines
Repealing liar-nObamaCare without replacement fails in Senate with 45-55 vote. (The Washington Free Beacon)
Here are the six Republican senators who flip-flopped on liar-nObamaCare repeal. (Washington Examiner)
Texas booms (+3.9%) as California flatlines (0.1%); Mining, manufacturing drive growth. (CNS News)
Apple supplier Foxconn announces $10 billion investment in Wisconsin and up to 13,000 jobs. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)
Rep. Steve Scalise discharged from the hospital; enters rehab. (Townhall)
ICE chief considers smuggling charges against leaders of illegal immigrant "sanctuaries." (The Washington Times)
Trump administration files brief claiming discrimination law does not protect LGBT workers from bias. (Washington Examiner)
Trump picks Sam Brownback as international religious freedom ambassador. (The Washington Free Beacon)
State actors are likely behind recent ransomware attacks. (The Daily Signal)
General: North Korean ICBM test was "game changer." (The Washington Free Beacon)
Policy: Republicans can't afford to blow health care reform. (Washington Examiner)
Policy: Infrastructure spending must justify itself. (Real Clear Policy) ~The Patriot Post
.
.
This American Town is Now
FULLY Under Sharia Law
by William Smith
{gopthedailydose.com} ~ As we witness the demise of many European nations under waves of Muslim immigration, it would be a mistake to think that could never happen in America... The following video shows that, thanks to the policies of Barack liar-nObama, at least one American town is already completely under Sharia Law. And it won’t be the last if we don’t start supporting President Trump’s immigration policies. It’s not about ending immigration. It’s about making sure those we do let in are prepared to integrate with American society and culture, NOT TRY TO OVERTHROW IT. https://gopthedailydose.com/2017/07/27/this-american-town-is-now-fully-under-sharia-law-everyone-needs-to-see-this/
.
Is Turkey Becoming Another Iran?
by Uzay Bulut
{meforum.org} ~ Turkey has recently been in the news for various developments that include, among other matters, its record number of jailed journalists, the destruction of Kurdish towns and forced displacement of thousands of Kurds... the dismissal or suspension of thousands of government employees for political reasons, the arrest of thousands of citizens for allegedly "organizing" last year's failed coup, the creeping conversion of the Hagia Sophia Basilica-museum into a mosque, and the seizure of Assyrian Christian lands, churches and cemeteries by the government. One additional trend begging the media's attention is the determined Islamization of the Turkish educational system. Here is a short list of some of the latest developments in Turkish schools and their curricula:... http://www.meforum.org/6837/is-turkey-becoming-another-iran?utm_source=Middle+East+Forum&utm_campaign=22f85a51f5-bulut_uzay_2017_07_26&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_086cfd423c-22f85a51f5-33703665&goal=0_086cfd423c-22f85a51f5-33703665by Uzay Bulut
.
UN Ambassador Nikki Haley Says U.S.
Talking With China About Sanctions on North Korea
by Warren Mass
{thenewamerican.com} ~ The U.S. ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley said on July 25 that talks between the United States and the government of China aimed at gaining China’s support for UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea are progressing... The United States ratcheted up its call for sanctions following the Pyongyang regime’s July 4 missile launch and gave China a draft resolution to consider. However, some Americans — including former U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) — believe that imposing sanctions on our adversaries does not work. “We’re constantly in touch with China.... Things are moving but it's still too early to tell how far they’ll move,” Reuters quoted Haley’s comments. The ambassador added that she was pleased with China's initial response to the U.S. proposal because it showed "seriousness."... https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/26573-un-ambassador-nikki-haley-says-u-s-talking-with-china-about-sanctions-on-north-korea.
Steve Bannon has a shadow press
office It may violate federal law
by Christina Wilkie
{publicintegrity.org} ~ In an arrangement prominent ethics experts say is without precedent and potentially illegal, the White House is referring questions for senior presidential adviser Stephen K. Bannon to an outside public relations agent... whose firm says she is working for free. Alexandra Preate, a 46-year-old New Yorker and veteran Republican media strategist, describes herself as Bannon's "personal spokesperson." But she also collaborates with other White House officials on public messaging and responses to press inquiries. It was Preate who responded when the Center for Public Integrity recently asked the White House Press Office questions about Bannon. The unorthodox setup means Bannon, Trump's chief strategist, is potentially violating the Antideficiency Act, which provides that federal employees "may not accept voluntary services for the government or employ personal services exceeding that authorized by law."... https://www.publicintegrity.org/2017/07/27/21014/steve-bannon-has-shadow-press-office-it-may-violate-federal-law?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=watchdog&utm_medium=publici-email&utm_source=Watchdog&utm_campaign=fa27806193-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_06_11&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ffd1d0160d-fa27806193-100318285&mc_cid=fa27806193&mc_eid=19f9d76dda.
Conway Hints Priebus Leaker
“Using Press As Shiv To The Ribs”
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Kellyanne Conway joined the Fox and Friends cast to discuss the situation with Anthony Scaramucci’s financial disclosure forms... who might be responsible, the leak problem in general and tensions between Scaramucci and Reince Priebus in particular. They recap a tweet sent out by Scaramucci in which he stated, “In light of the lead of my financial disclosure information, which is a felony, I will be contacting the FBI and the DOJ #swamp @Reince45.” Ainsley Earhardt asks why the last reference to Priebus was included in the tweet. Conway says she’s has discussions with both Scaramucci and President Trump that morning on the matter, saying, “We just have to cut down on people thinking it’s cute and it makes them popular and it somehow enhances their resume and their portfolio for later on, to curry favor with folks who are more interested in covering the style and not the substance here.”... http://rickwells.us/conway-hints-priebus-leaker-using-press-shiv-ribs/
.
.
{wnd.com} ~ Obviously, one of the most pressing foreign-policy issues facing President Trump’s administration concerns North Korea. Questions of how far the fat, hedonistic little hamster who currently runs that nation will go toward the acquisition of strategic nuclear weapons and what he might do with them are certainly of grave import and must be addressed in the soberest and most judicious manner.
Those who are either old enough to recall or well-read enough are aware that the issue of nuclear proliferation in North Korea is not particular to Kim Jong-un the fat, hedonistic little hamster; it has been an ongoing concern of every American president since the Reagan era. This week, a noted expert on North Korea said the regime of Kim Jong-un is a scant year and a half away from development of a nuclear missile that would be capable of reaching the continental United States.
So what’s the United States to do?
As I have previously stated, tactical nuclear strikes by the U.S. against North Korea would decisively mitigate any nuclear threat posed by that nation. While this would obviously result in an inordinately large loss of life, the employment of nuclear weapons by the U.S. against Japan resulted in an inordinately large loss of life – but this had been weighed against grim casualty projections based on information available at the time.
In the face of the above argument, some would counter that in the case of America’s only other nuclear deployments, we were officially at war with Japan at the time, and the rationale of using nuclear weapons had been examined in the soberest and most prudent manner. We are not at war with North Korea, which would effectively negate any such comparison.
Conversely, and based on information we have available now, there are experts who have gone on record indicating that times have changed sufficiently to cancel out the above counter argument, and that future historians will see little difference between the actions taken against the aggressors of our age and officially designated combatants of, say, World War II. The dynamic of the West’s efforts against Islamic militants, which involves a less structured concept of aggressors and combatants, quite handily supports this practical change in the paradigm of modern warfare, and tangentially, the ethics employed in conducting warfare.
In considering such severe measures as tactical nuclear strikes against North Korea in order to neutralize the potential threat of that nation executing nuclear strikes against the United States, the Trump administration would of course have to consider the public perception attendant to that. The specter of hundreds of thousands or millions of North Koreans suffering the aftermath of a nuclear attack would certainly be cited and probably embellished by the establishment press and domestic subversives as reason for avoiding such action at all cost. Then, there would be the ensuing outcry from those at home who consider any action that the U.S. takes to preserve an upper hand in foreign policy as imperialistic.
One must also realize that many in the U.S. did consider the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as barbaric in 1945; in fact, it wound up being fodder for American communist propaganda for decades afterward. Unfortunately, the influence of such narrow thinking has vastly proliferated since the Cold War era, thus imparting misplaced sympathies upon the American populace. In reality, we may be weighing hundreds of thousands or millions of North Koreans suffering the aftermath of a U.S. nuclear strike against hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans suffering the aftermath of a North Korean nuclear strike.
The question then arises: Are tactical nuclear strikes truly the only options open to the most powerful nation on Earth which the U.S. still remains? Obviously not, but our diplomatic and even our military options have been stultified by the influence of leftist and globalist politics; even targeted conventional military strikes against North Korea with the objective of neutralizing her ability to project nuclear weapons would be met with outrage at home, and would have to be circumspectly considered and deftly justified to our citizens and the world.
– North Korean Foreign Ministry, July 25, 2017
In weighing these factors, one must certainly consider moral imperatives. In so doing, it is important to pragmatically consider our morality versus that of the North Korean regime. Those who have followed the progress of North Korea’s nuclear pursuits will no doubt be familiar with the belligerent, tribalist invective and bluster typically employed by Kim and his surrogates. There are also the bizarre and chilling state-sponsored media productions North Korea has released, which dramatize their annihilation of America with nuclear weapons. One would be monumentally foolish not to presume that these are indicative of their potential for rash action and barbarism.
In the end, of course, it will be the wisdom and prudence of those in the Trump administration that determine the outcome of this crisis in the short term, regardless of the methods employed. Given the lack of wisdom and prudence employed by previous administrations, however, long-term outcomes will remain equally uncertain for some time to come.
North Korea: To nuke or not to nuke
by Erik Rush
{wnd.com} ~ Obviously, one of the most pressing foreign-policy issues facing President Trump’s administration concerns North Korea. Questions of how far the fat, hedonistic little hamster who currently runs that nation will go toward the acquisition of strategic nuclear weapons and what he might do with them are certainly of grave import and must be addressed in the soberest and most judicious manner.
Those who are either old enough to recall or well-read enough are aware that the issue of nuclear proliferation in North Korea is not particular to Kim Jong-un the fat, hedonistic little hamster; it has been an ongoing concern of every American president since the Reagan era. This week, a noted expert on North Korea said the regime of Kim Jong-un is a scant year and a half away from development of a nuclear missile that would be capable of reaching the continental United States.
So what’s the United States to do?
As I have previously stated, tactical nuclear strikes by the U.S. against North Korea would decisively mitigate any nuclear threat posed by that nation. While this would obviously result in an inordinately large loss of life, the employment of nuclear weapons by the U.S. against Japan resulted in an inordinately large loss of life – but this had been weighed against grim casualty projections based on information available at the time.
In the face of the above argument, some would counter that in the case of America’s only other nuclear deployments, we were officially at war with Japan at the time, and the rationale of using nuclear weapons had been examined in the soberest and most prudent manner. We are not at war with North Korea, which would effectively negate any such comparison.
Conversely, and based on information we have available now, there are experts who have gone on record indicating that times have changed sufficiently to cancel out the above counter argument, and that future historians will see little difference between the actions taken against the aggressors of our age and officially designated combatants of, say, World War II. The dynamic of the West’s efforts against Islamic militants, which involves a less structured concept of aggressors and combatants, quite handily supports this practical change in the paradigm of modern warfare, and tangentially, the ethics employed in conducting warfare.
In considering such severe measures as tactical nuclear strikes against North Korea in order to neutralize the potential threat of that nation executing nuclear strikes against the United States, the Trump administration would of course have to consider the public perception attendant to that. The specter of hundreds of thousands or millions of North Koreans suffering the aftermath of a nuclear attack would certainly be cited and probably embellished by the establishment press and domestic subversives as reason for avoiding such action at all cost. Then, there would be the ensuing outcry from those at home who consider any action that the U.S. takes to preserve an upper hand in foreign policy as imperialistic.
One must also realize that many in the U.S. did consider the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as barbaric in 1945; in fact, it wound up being fodder for American communist propaganda for decades afterward. Unfortunately, the influence of such narrow thinking has vastly proliferated since the Cold War era, thus imparting misplaced sympathies upon the American populace. In reality, we may be weighing hundreds of thousands or millions of North Koreans suffering the aftermath of a U.S. nuclear strike against hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans suffering the aftermath of a North Korean nuclear strike.
The question then arises: Are tactical nuclear strikes truly the only options open to the most powerful nation on Earth which the U.S. still remains? Obviously not, but our diplomatic and even our military options have been stultified by the influence of leftist and globalist politics; even targeted conventional military strikes against North Korea with the objective of neutralizing her ability to project nuclear weapons would be met with outrage at home, and would have to be circumspectly considered and deftly justified to our citizens and the world.
– North Korean Foreign Ministry, July 25, 2017
In weighing these factors, one must certainly consider moral imperatives. In so doing, it is important to pragmatically consider our morality versus that of the North Korean regime. Those who have followed the progress of North Korea’s nuclear pursuits will no doubt be familiar with the belligerent, tribalist invective and bluster typically employed by Kim and his surrogates. There are also the bizarre and chilling state-sponsored media productions North Korea has released, which dramatize their annihilation of America with nuclear weapons. One would be monumentally foolish not to presume that these are indicative of their potential for rash action and barbarism.
In the end, of course, it will be the wisdom and prudence of those in the Trump administration that determine the outcome of this crisis in the short term, regardless of the methods employed. Given the lack of wisdom and prudence employed by previous administrations, however, long-term outcomes will remain equally uncertain for some time to come.
Comments