News crew caught faking a drowning refugee Posted on July 2, 2017 by Eeyore — 18 Comments ↓ News crew caught faking “refugee drowning” footage pic.twitter.com/GvfvaNEpDY — Jack Posobiec ?? (@JackPosobiec) July 1, 2017 Share this:FacebookTwitter
How many news crew does it take to fix a lightbulb?
Non. Unless there is capital in someone being pleased or upset about it.
Wow that could really become a thing!
How many CNN crews does it take to change a lightbulb?
2. One to break the lightbulb that was there and worked, and a second one to find a friend of the cameraman to replace it while filming it as a heroic act by a refugee.
How many CNN crews does it take to change a lightbulb?
None. The entire process was done by green-screen with reporters claiming it was in Saudi Arabia.
Please post alternative answers. This could really catch on!
Threats against lawmakers already higher than all of 2016
By Cristina Marcos – 06/30/17 05:41 PM EDT
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Facebook
564Share to Twitter
The U.S. Capitol Police has investigated close to 1,000 threats directed at lawmakers in the first half of this year, a top House official said in a letter made public Friday.
Paul Irving, the House sergeant at arms, stated that the Capitol Police looked into about 950 threatening messages aimed at members of the House “because of their profile as elected representatives or members of Congress.”
That’s already more than the approximately 902 threatening messages investigated by the Capitol Police in all of 2016.
Illegal Alien Allegedly Tazes, Scalds, Rapes Mom in Front of Children
An illegal alien is one of three teenagers who are accused of scalding a Georgia woman with hot water and raping her in her home near her children.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials confirmed in a statement to the Dustin Inman Society, an anti-illegal immigration organization, that Josue Ramirez is an illegal alien.
Ramirez, 19-years-old, along with 17-year-old Francisco Palencia and an unidentified 15-year-old girl have been arrested after they allegedly broke into a woman’s home and raped her, as FOX 5 Atlanta reported.
According to the victim, Ramirez and Palencia broke into her home and shot her with Tasers, forcing her to her bedroom. When the woman fought the two teens off of her, she ran to be with her children, who were also in the home.
That’s when the 15-year-old girl chased after the woman and allegedly poured two pots of burning hot water onto her, leaving her flailing. Ramirez and Palencia were then able to get the woman into her bedroom again and raped her, the victim said.
Stick a fork in civilization, it is done.
Wombs for men: Astonishing prospect as fertility doctors back operations on NHS so transgender women born as boys can have babies
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4657830/transgender-women-born-boys-babies-NHS-doctors.html#ixzz4lg7okzLp
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Transgender women who were born male should be given womb transplants so that they can have children, leading NHS doctors have told The Mail on Sunday.
And fertility experts say taxpayers should fund such transplants for those who identify as women, on the basis of ‘equality enshrined in law’.
Leading the debate on the controversial procedure is medical ethics lawyer Dr Amel Alghrani, who is pressing for a talks on whether womb transplants for trans-women should be publicly funded.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4657830/transgender-women-born-boys-babies-NHS-doctors.html#ixzz4lg8CCY1C
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Get your goat, you’ve pulled Sick revellers at Oxford toff bash ‘romped with a goat’ during debauched uni party
The grotesque act was said to have happened at the secret summer ball organised by the Piers Gaveston Society
This article reminds me of the reports of the Hellfire Club during the 18th Century, from some of the reports this would have been one of the milder of the decadent acts committed in the club.
This shows danger of destroying the traditional morality, once you start down the very slippery slope of normalizing acts that historically have been considered evil you find you can’t stop with just a few. In the absence of Evil all things are Good.
I am willing to bet that most of the people at the party don’t think they did anything wrong.
S. Korean President: North Korea ‘Most Serious Threat’
South Korean President Moon Jae-In says North Korea’s nuclear weapons build-up is the ‘most serious threat’ facing the U.S. and South Korea.
President Moon made the comments Friday during his first visit to the Capitol since taking office over a month ago.
The South Korean President said he and President Trump do not seek hostilities against North Korea, but the Communist State must pursue nuclear disarmament to guarantee its future welfare.
Moon said dialogue between the countries is ‘wide open’ and that he would be more than willing to reach a peaceful compromise.
“The door to dialogue is wide open. North Korea stands at a crucial crossroads. I sincerely urge Pyongyang to exercise prudence and to seize an opportunity for peace and prosperity. If North Korea makes the right choice I am ready to join them and walk together on this path towards peace and prosperity,” he said.
President Moon Jae-In said the release of three American citizens currently detained in the DPRK would help lay the foundation for that dialogue.
On the other hand, maybe none of our nuclear weapons even work anymore, and all the nations we have extended nuclear retaliatory “power” have just been been suckered into putting all their chips in the basket of a country stupid enough to acquiesce to a nuclear arms testing moratorium as well as strategic arms reduction, leading to the burning of that plutonium in the reactors cores of power reactors.
If we tried to use our nukes, would they work? In my June 2nd Radio Derb I wondered whether our nukes would still work, should we need to use them.
Nuclear war uses nuclear weapons. The U.S.A. stopped making nukes after the Cold War ended a quarter-century ago. The last time we tested a nuke — to make sure that, you know, it, like, worked — was in fact just 25 years ago this coming September.
That brought in a very interesting email from a knowledgeable listener. Slightly edited:
There is a surprisingly candid statement about the ability of the National Nuclear Security Administration to certify the reliability and safety of the existing stockpile of nuclear weapons (about 1,550) in the Nuclear Matters Handbook. [PDF]
Nuclear weapons such as the W87, W88, B-61 (various versions) and B-83 were designed to be absolutely state of the art in terms of yield-weight ratio, using the technology of the 1970s and 1980s. The expected service life of those nuclear weapons was about 20 years, after which they’d be retired and replaced with more modern ones.
Well, that isn’t happening and no one really understands how keeping these weapons past their expected service lives is affecting their reliability — the high explosive surrounding the plutonium pits keep absorbing radiation.
It can be removed and replaced but the high explosive is literally glued to the pit and sometimes cracks when it’s taken off.
There’s also the question of exposing personnel to additional radiation as a result of americium-241 ingrowth in the plutonium core.
And, of course, none of this can be tested. The Nuclear Matters Handbook also mentions some known safety upgrades that cannot be installed, because no one knows how they might affect reliability.
As a minor aside, it has been well over twenty-five years, since the U.S. tested a weapon with a yield in excess of 150 kilotons, so the secondary designs of existing weapons may well be from the 1960s …
Here’s me with a 1964 Chevy Nova.
Here’s a TV set from the same era. Here’s a state-of-the-art 1964 computer — a behemoth with 64K of memory!
… Add to this the fact that there is presently no U.S. capability to remanufacture plutonium pits since the closure of the Rocky Flats plant around 1990. And the tritium component of the gas-boost mechanism of nuclear weapons will eventually have to be replenished with new tritium (tritium has a relatively short radioactive half-life of about 12 years), and the U.S. has no present capability to produce new tritium, since the closure of the Savannah River Plant …
The DoE website implies — though not very clearly — that tritium was still being produced at the Savannah River facility in 2011.
… I assume that other nations with nuclear weapons have a similar problem (except North Korea, which tests), but I don’t know how public they are about it. It’s remotely possible that someone developed an exceptionally long-lived weapon before the cessation of testing, but I’m inclined to doubt anyone thought that far ahead …
Government program … think far ahead … right.
… Another interesting question is whether nations that are increasingly racially/ethnically diverse and unstable should have access to nuclear weapons.
That’s a very interesting question.
So far as the question I opened with is concerned — “If we tried to use our nukes, would they work?” — I’m guessing the answer is “probably not.”
Isn’t that kind of … important? More important than, for example, what James Comey says someone said to him about something Donald Trump said?
What IF the PRC or Russian hand off an old nuclear weapon the NORK for testing and determine that it FAILS in testing? That would mean that they would KNOW the US nuclear weapons is nothing more than a paper palladium that signifies NOTHING in military power.
The US needs to go back into the nuclear testing and manufacture business ASAP.
This can only happen under Trump; all Democrats would follow the BHO line of disarmanent to make us impudent.
We do, we need to rebuild the arsenal of democracy, no matter what the threat the left always disarms western civilization after the last war was won. This is why we keep getting into massive world wars on a regular basis.
Will the US nuclear weapons work? Some probably will but we don’t know how many or which ones.
Time to resume underground testing.
Pat Buchanan: An America First Korea Policy
Patrick J. Buchanan
June 29, 2017, 6:23 pm
“The North Korean regime is causing tremendous problems and is something that has to be dealt with, and probably dealt with rapidly.”
So President Trump told reporters in the Rose Garden this week.
But how this is to be done “rapidly” is not so easy to see.
North Korea has just returned to us Otto Warmbier, a student sentenced to 15 years hard labor for stealing a propaganda poster. Otto came home comatose, and died within days.
Trump’s conundrum: How to keep such a regime from acquiring an ICBM with a nuclear warhead, which Kim Jong Un is determined to do.
Having seen us attack Iraq and Libya, which had no nukes, Kim believes that only nuclear weapons that can hit America can deter America. He appears willing to risk war to achieve his goal.
Trump’s options as he meets South Korean President Moon Jae-in?
First, the decapitation of the Kim dynasty. But the U.S. has been unable to accomplish regime change for the 64 years following the Korean War. And killing Kim could ignite a war.
Then there is a U.S. pre-emptive strike on North Korea’s nuclear sites and missile arsenals. But this would surely mean a war in which Americans on the DMZ would be among the first to die, as thousands of North Korean artillery and mortar tubes fired into the suburbs and city of Seoul, which is as close as Dulles Airport is to the White House.
Asked by Congressman Tim Ryan why we don’t launch a war to end this threat, Defense Secretary James Mattis replied that, while we might “win … at great cost,” such a war would “involve the massive shelling of an ally’s capital … one of the most densely packed cities on earth.”
Seoul has a metro-area population of 25 million.
We are thus approaching a point where we accept North Korea having a nuclear weapon that can reach Seattle, or we attack its strategic arsenal and bring on a war in which millions could die.
What about sanctions?
The only nation that could impose sufficient hardships on North Korea to imperil the regime is China. But China refuses to impose the Draconian sanctions that might destabilize the regime, and might bring Korean refugees flooding into China. And Beijing has no desire to see Kim fall and Korea united under a regime aligned with the United States.
What FDR said of one Caribbean dictator, the Chinese are probably saying of Kim Jong Un, “He may be an SOB, but he’s our SOB.”
Early in his presidency, Trump gave the franchise for dealing with the North Korean threat to Beijing. But his friend Xi Jinping has either failed Trump or declined to deliver.
As for President Moon, he wants to negotiate, to engage the North economically, to invite its athletes to join South Koreans on joint teams for the Winter Olympics in 2018. Moreover, Moon is said to be willing to cut back on joint military exercises with the U.S. and regards the THAAD missile defense we introduced into South Korea as a negotiable item.
China, whose missile launches can be detected by THAAD radar, wants it removed and has so informed South Korea.
Where does this leave us?
We are committed to go to war to defend the South and have 28,000 troops there. But South Korea wants to negotiate with North Korea and is prepared to make concessions to buy peace.
As the nation that would suffer most in any second Korean War, South Korea has the sovereign right to play the hand. But what Seoul considers best for South Korea is not necessarily best for us.
What would be an America First Korean policy?
The U.S. would give Seoul notice that we will, by a date certain, be dissolving our mutual security treaty and restoring our full freedom to decide whether or not to fight in a new Korean War. Given the present risk of war, possibly involving nuclear weapons, it is absurd that we should be obligated to fight what Mattis says would be a “catastrophic” war, because of a treaty negotiated six decades ago by Eisenhower and Dulles.
“The commonest error in politics,” Lord Salisbury reminded us, “is sticking to the carcass of dead policies.”
But we should also tell South Korea that if she desires a nuclear deterrent against an attack by the North, she should build it. Americans should not risk a nuclear war, 8,000 miles away, to defend a South Korea that has 40 times the economy of the North and twice the population.
No vital U.S. interest requires us, in perpetuity, to be willing to go to war to defend South Korea, especially if that war entails the risk of a nuclear attack on U.S. troops or the American homeland.
If the United States did not have a mutual security pact that obligates us to defend South Korea against a nuclear-armed North, would President Trump be seeking to negotiate such a treaty?
The question answers itself.
There are problems with taking the approach he is advising:
1) This would create an arms race in the Far East and Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and possibly the Philippines, Singapore and Indonisia start racing towards a nuclear arsenal. At least two of the first three nations have the capabilities of acheiving that goal in a few years if not months on possibly days or weeks.
2) What happens in the other parts of the world where we do have national interests when our allies see us abandon our friends in the Far East?
3) What will the aggressor nations around the world think when they see us back down to Kim? They would all start working on building nukes so they can back us donw, thus guaranteeing a nuclear war in the future.
4) Also our first strikes would be on the artillery positions that threaten Seoul, yes some would get through but if we back off Kim will probably start shelling Seoul before the South can develop their own nuclear deterrent. He like so many people are looking to what the causalities will be in the future. If we don’t hit the North now the war will be put off for a few years, but the butchers bill right now is enormous, if we wait a few years the butchers bill well be at least one order of magnitude higher.
Solar produces 300 times more toxic waste than nuclear power, and we have no real plan for it
By LU Staff July 1, 2017
Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of electricity generated than nuclear power plants, according to a Thursday report from the pro-nuclear group Environmental Progress (EP).
The report found that solar panels use heavy metals, including lead, chromium and cadmium, which can harm the environment. The hazards of nuclear waste are well known and can be planned for, but very little has been done to mitigate solar waste issues.
“The problem with waste from solar is that it isn’t handled as well as nuclear waste,” Dr. Jeff Terry, a professor of nuclear physics involved in energy research at the Illinois Institute of Technology, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “There are two types of waste from solar. Waste from the manufacturing scene and waste from the solar panel after it has gone through its useful life. There are materials in those that if they leached out, it wouldn’t be good.”
“The report found that solar panels use heavy metals, including lead, chromium and cadmium, which can harm the environment.
This is a misleading statement. Traditional photovoltaic (PV) panels do not use “chromium and cadmium”.
Cadmium, a toxic heavy metal, is used in cadmium telluride (CdTe) thin film solar cells. At present the various thin film technologies (CdTe, CIGS, Amorphous silicon, etc.) are hovering around 10% of market share while traditional silicon based panels (noncrystalline and polysilicon PV) continue to dominate with around 90% of all installations.
Despite their reduced cost, thin film solar panels have a very low efficiency of energy conversion and remain less popular. If that changes, then concerns about heavy metals will become appropriate.
The NYT’s Charles Blow confuses Trump with Obama
By Howard Portnoy July 1, 2017
It’s hard to keep up with the Left in its endless pursuit of Donald Trump’s (a) impeachment, (b) exile, (c) removal for mental incapacity, or (d) all of the above. The rationale that underlies these solutions are as varied as the solutions themselves. One day it’s because he colluded with the Russians, the next because his tweets are mean-spirited and unbecoming the presidency.
In an op-ed published Thursday, The New York Times’s redoubtable Charles Blow invents a whole narrative for why liberals should despise Trump.
The first two paragraphs lay the groundwork for Blow’s premise, but they ultimately reveal more about the author than they do about his subject:
Good job! lol
Nuclear research is alive and well — even in the “open literature.”