South Korean government sources are reporting that North Korea is prepping a fresh round of missile tests ahead of a very public joint American-South Korean naval exercise in the West Pacific this week. Sources are arguing that the launch may include a Hwasong-14 inter-continental ballistic missile which could have a long enough range to reach
South Korean government sources are reporting that North Korea is prepping a fresh round of missile tests ahead of a very public joint American-South Korean naval exercise in the West Pacific this week.
Sources are arguing that the launch may include a Hwasong-14 inter-continental ballistic missile which could have a long enough range to reach Alaska, perhaps even farther.
Previous tests without a nuclear payload reached a theoretical range that could hit as far as Chicago.
It’s just one more case for why the ongoing diplomatic feud with Kim Jong Un’s dictatorship may soon transcend any diplomatic remedy and force the Pentagon into a DEFCON 1 situation.
We’ll keep an eye on it.
Here’s more from France24…
North Korea is believed to be preparing to launch a ballistic missile ahead of an upcoming joint naval drill by the US and South Korea, a news report said Saturday, citing a government source.
The US navy said Friday that a US aircraft carrier will lead the drill in the coming week, a fresh show of force against North Korea as tensions soar over the hermit state’s weapons programme.
The move will likely rile Pyongyang which has previously responded angrily to joint exercises.
The Donga Ilbo daily, quoting a government source, said satellite pictures show ballistic missiles mounted on launchers being transported out of hangars near Pyongyang and in the North Phyongan Province.
US and South Korean military officials suspect the North might be preparing to launch missiles capable of reaching US territory, the newspaper said.
This could be the Hwasong-14 inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM), whose range could extend to Alaska, or Hwasong-12 intermediate-range missiles which Pyongyang threatened to fire towards the US Pacific territory of Guam in August, the report said.
Another possibility is that the North might be preparing to test a new Hwasong-13 ICBM, it added, that has a longer maximum range than the other two missiles and could potentially reach the US West Coast.
To Kill A Mockingbird is considered among the best of American literature.
The classic won the Pulitzer prize in 1961 after only one year from its publishing date, a very rare feat.
Not to be outdone, the movie adaptation of the book a year after that went on to win an Oscar–back when truly good movies won awards.
But apparently, none of that is worth consideration against the backdrop of kids whose feelings are hurt.
According to the Biloxi, Mississippi, School Board, difficult themes and language are inappropriate for eighth-grade school kids.
So they’ve decided to yank the book from the required reading list.
We’re pretty sure next on the chopping block will be War and Peace because there’s too much discussion of war and Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations for its endorsement of profit.
Here’s more from Redstate…
It’s a literary classic found in just about every junior high and high school classroom across America. But one school district is now pulling “To Kill A Mockingbird” from students’ lesson plans for an absolutely insane reason.
The Biloxi School District in Biloxi, Mississippi, said it made the decision this week to no longer have eighth grade students read the book after the school received some “complaints.”
“There is some language in the book that makes people uncomfortable, Kenny Holloway, vice president of the Biloxi School Board, told the Biloxi Sun Herald.
“We can teach the same lesson with other books,” Holloway added.
One Sun Herald reader described the move as “one of the most disturbing examples of censorship I have ever heard, the newspaper reported. The reader said that “the themes in the story humanize all people regardless of their social status, education level, intellect, and of course, race.”
“It would be difficult to find a time when it was more relevant than in days like these,” they added.
“To Kill A Mockingbird” was published in 1960. A year later, in 1961, the book won a Pulitzer prize and the very next year, in 1962, the story was turned into a Oscar-winning movie.
The book chronicles what life in the South was like for black people in the mid 20th century. The literary classic includes the N-word several times and uses the term “negro” on numerous occasions. The Biloxi School District will still allow the book in the library.
Judicial Watch, the non-profit organization that created so much consternation for Hillary Clinton during the email server scandal, is still stirring the pot with more FOIA requests.
This time they’ve nailed the FBI on another instance of apparent obstruction of justice.
After the reportedly happen-stance run-in Bill Clinton had with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request for FBI documents concerning the scandal.
The FBI reported they had nothing, which itself was suspicious.
Then suddenly in a completely separate suit and FOIA filing, the FBI curiously ‘found’ new documents related to the meeting. Hmm, that’s weird.
Stay tuned for more details on what those documents might reveal.
Here’s more from Daily Caller…
The FBI has found 30 pages of documents related to the June 2016 airport tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, even after the bureau claimed to not have any records related to the matter.
FBI lawyers revealed the existence of the records in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, the conservative watchdog group.
The FBI had informed Judicial Watch last October that the bureau did not have any records related to the June 27, 2016 meeting between Clinton and Lynch. That encounter, which occurred on the tarmac at Phoenix’s airport, was significant because it took place while the Justice Department was investigating Hillary Clinton’s potential mishandling of classified information on her private email account.
Though the FBI told Judicial Watch that it did not have records related to the meeting, the Justice Department revealed in response to a separate lawsuit filed by the watchdog that some of its officials had been in contact with FBI officials about the Clinton-Lynch encounter.
In August, the Justice Department released emails showing some of its officials exchanging emails with the FBI regarding the meeting. And in a July 1, 2016, email, Justice Department official Caroline Pokomy told colleagues that “FBI is asking for guidance” on the controversy.
After the release of those documents, the FBI acknowledged that it had possession of some records related to the meeting. The bureau’s attorneys informed Judicial Watch that, “Upon further review, we subsequently determined potentially responsive documents may exist.”
President Trump made good on his promise to decertify the Iran Nuclear Deal yesterday…sort of.
Rather than move with the stroke of his pen like he did on Obamacare, he took a similar strategy as on DACA and demanded members of Congress level massive sanctions on Iran within 60 days.
And if they don’t, he’ll kill the deal himself.
That’s a fairly solid shot across the bow in contrast to the previous administration marked more by appeasement of dictatorships than any other official policy.
What’s more, the move puts liberals in a difficult position either to go along or appear to be complicit in the further nuclearization of a regime hell-bent on destroying Israel.
Here’s more from Redstate…
President Trump announced on Friday that he’ll decertify the horrid Iran nuclear deal, put into place by former horrid President Barrack Obama.
No, he’s not ending the agreement, which would be so much better, but he’s giving Congress 60 days to crackdown on Tehran.
“We will not continue down a path whose predictable conclusion is more violence, more terror and the very real threat of Iran’s nuclear breakout,” Mr. Trump said. “Iran is not living up to the spirit of the deal.”
Calling it a “long overdue step,” the president also said he would be instructing the Treasury Department to sanction Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps over its support of terrorism in the Middle East.
“History has shown the longer we ignore a threat, the more dangerous that threat becomes,” the president said.
Yeah, he’s not wrong.
“As we have seen in North Korea, the longer we ignore a threat, the worse that threat becomes,” he said.
His action will have no immediate impact on the six-nation agreement that calls for Iran to submit to international nuclear inspectors in exchange for lifting of economic sanctions.
“This is purely an internal domestic decision,” said Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson.
“He’s saying we’ll try,” Mr. Tillerson said.
From the “It’s About Time” Files, a State Department spokesperson announced today that the US will be withdrawing its membership from the United Nations Economic, Social, and Cultural Organization.
UNESCO is an arm of the UN that is responsible for a number of programs including aid to economically impoverished nations and similar efforts.
But the group has become increasingly anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian in recent years — much like the UN at large — which represents a red line for the Trump administration.
That overt or thinly veiled anti-Semitism is being perpetuated by the organization without whom the state of Israel wouldn’t exist today is unacceptable.
The more important question is whether and when we should withdraw from the UN entirely.
Funding from the US (i.e. taxpayers) accounts for a disproportionately large percentage of the UN’s budget, yet we’re in near perpetual dogfights with socialist member nations from around the world who have no problem with appeasing dictators whilst peddling their socialism to the third world.
Here’s more from Washington Examiner…
The United States is withdrawing from UNESCO because of what the Trump administration said is a “continuing anti-Israel bias” from the education and science organization.
State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a statement Thursday the U.S. would be pulling out of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization by the end of the year.
“This decision was not taken lightly, and reflects U.S. concerns with mounting arrears at UNESCO, the need for fundamental reform in the organization, and continuing anti-Israel bias at UNESCO,” Nauert said.
The State Department said it plans to “remain engaged” with the organization as a non-member.
This isn’t the first time the U.S. has pulled out of UNESCO.
Former President Ronald Reagan withdrew the U.S. from the organization in 1984, and former President George W. Bush rejoined the cultural group in 2002.
In 2011, the Obama administration cut funding to UNESCO after member states admitted Palestine as a member.
Imagine, if you will, some version of America in the future wherein sons and their fathers demand that the Girl Scouts admit boys to the ranks of cookie purveyors across the nation.
Vitriol and cries of sexist hegemony would abound.
“Is nothing safe from white, male domination?” they would ask.
But those really mean boys should never have a club exclusively for themselves for the development of leadership and character.
That’s discrimination, you see. And the PC police just won’t have any of it.
So they’ve seen fit to ascend their troops to the upper echelons of the century-old organization and transformed it from within.
As of next year, the Boy Scouts will have need of a new name after announcing they’ll be admitting girls to the now co-ed organization.[Insert Gender Preference Here] Scouts of America will soon become just another group for the liberal proselytization of our nation’s youth.
Is nothing sacred?
Here’s more from Fox News…
The Boy Scouts of America announced on Wednesday its plans to admit girls into the Cub Scouts and create a new program for older girls to allow them to earn the highest rank of Eagle Scout, a historic change after years of requests from families and girls.
The change is expected go into effect in 2019. Cub Scout dens, the smallest unit, will become single-gender, either containing all boys or all girls. The larger Cub Scout packs will have the option to welcome both genders if they choose.
“We believe it is critical to evolve how our programs meet the needs of families interested in positive and lifelong experiences for their children,” the Boy Scouts said in a news release.
“We strive to bring what our organization does best – developing character and leadership for young people – to as many families and youth as possible as we help shape the next generation of leaders,” the release stated.
The program for older girls is expected to be announced in 2018 and begin in 2019. Girls will then be able to earn the coveted rank of Eagle Scout.
Until now we’ve been sitting back on the Weinstein scandal not wanting to get mired in the tabloid nature of the story.
But certain elements of the latest revelations finally warrant comment.
According to reports, allegations of harassment and rape by Harvey Weinstein were the subject of a proposed story by Ronan Farrow earlier this year. But NBC decided to spike it.
In fact, these allegations go back a decade or more with numerous leftist media outlets turning it down.
And before the New Yorker finally spilled the ink, there were no signs of comeuppance for the Hollywood sleaze.
That he was able to perpetuate such a highly coordinated campaign of abuse right under the nose of industry poobahs demonstrates both the double-standard and hypocrisy of the big-media left.
Donald Trump was dragged through the mud over his stupid locker room comments, but Harvey Weinstein was given a pass for years on his actual criminal behavior.
It’s interesting how in the world of the pro-woman left, no one wants to admit what everyone knows until finally one of them gives permission.
Then suddenly everyone is a truth-teller. Sickening.
Here’s more from Breitbart…
NBC News passed on a story by contributor Ronan Farrow that it allegedly possessed in August about three separate rape allegations against Harvey Weinstein that eventually appeared in the New Yorker Tuesday, according to a report.
According to the Huffington Post, Farrow’s bombshell Tuesday report — in which three women, including actress Asia Argento, accused the movie mogul of rape — “was in NBC’s hands as recently as August, according to multiple sources both inside and outside the network.”
The Huffington Post reported:
By then, Farrow, an NBC contributor and investigative reporter, had already obtained damning audio of an encounter Weinstein had with a woman, in which Weinstein admits to having groped her… Instead, Farrow’s story — and the audio, from a 2015 New York Police Department sting — appeared Tuesday on the website of The New Yorker.
According to the outlet, NBC had “concerns” with the way Farrow’s story was sourced.
The New Yorker report contained a two-minute audio clip reportedly taken from a 2015 NYPD sting against Weinstein, in which the producer is heard begging a model to enter his hotel room, and appearing to admit to groping women in the past.
After the allegations against Weinstein were made public, Democratic Party politicians, as well as the Democratic National Committee (DNC), have pledged to give away Weinstein’s contributions to charity.
In a statement, the DNC claimed they would give away just $30,000 to left-wing organizations, despite the fact that Weinstein donated nearly $250,000 to the organization since the 1990s.
Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton issued a statement Tuesday on the allegations against Weinstein, five days after the New York Times first published the story about decades of sexual harassment allegations against him. Weinstein hosted a $33,000-per-plate fundraiser for Clinton at his Manhattan home last year, though it was not immediately clear if the former candidate would return or donate any of the money, as other Democratic politicians have done.
“I was shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein,” Clinton said in a statement issued through her spokesman, Nick Merrill. “The behavior described by women coming forward cannot be tolerated. Their courage and the support of others is critical in helping to stop this kind of behavior.”
A number of celebrities also spoke out Tuesday about the allegations against Weinstein, including Meryl Streep, George Clooney, Matt Damon, and Ben Affleck.
In another bombshell report from the New York Times published Tuesday, actresses Angelina Jolie, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Rosanna Arquette, among others, disclosed their own encounters with Weinstein during the early part of their careers.
P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES
LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?
SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.
If ever we needed more evidence that the NFL has finally accepted defeat and caved under pressure, this may be it.
After weeks of meetings between NFL officials, owners and players union reps, it has become clear that the powers that be are increasingly uncomfortable with the prospect of losing more of their fan base and millions of dollars in sales.
That might explain reports that the NFL has quietly changed the league rules to allow punishment of players for not standing during the national anthem.
Several owners and coaches have hinted already that they may pursue that course.
And with the rule change, this could be an opportunity for Trump to declare victory.
Here’s more from Daily Mail…
NFL owners are prepared to meet next week to discuss unilateral changes to league policy concerning players protesting during the national anthem.
In a conference call on Tuesday, chief NFL spokesman Joe Lockhart said owners will consider allowing the players to give their input on the decision, but said the league would not need union approval to implement a change. A large number of NFL players have been protesting police brutality against minorities since 2016 without any punishment from their respective teams or the league itself.
‘I don’t believe that the anthem, per se, is something that needs to be collectively bargained,’ Lockhart said.
The NFL players’ union did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
As it currently reads, the policy says players ‘should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their hand, and refrain from talking’ during the anthem.
However, it stops short of saying players ‘must’ stand.
Beyond the possibility of any overt rule changes, the NFL may have quietly altered the wording of its current policy to give teams the incentive and power to punish protesting players who sit or kneel during the ‘The Star-Spangled Banner.’
Project Veritas recently promised another series of very revealing videos that will bring the mainstream liberal media to its knees.
And today’s release looks to be the beginning.
The hidden camera caught New York Times video editor Nicholas Dudich admitting that he’s on-staff with the paper specifically to not be objective.
Rather his job is to make certain videos disparaging President Trump make it ‘to the front’.
He then went on to detail how he’d go about bringing down the Trump presidency.
If this is just the tip of the iceberg, we’re in for an interesting ride.
Here’s more from Washington Examiner…
An editor with the New York Times’ online video team was caught disparaging President Trump and his family in a video sting by conservative activist James O’Keefe.
In a video published Tuesday online by O’Keefe, Nicholas Dudich, identified as the Times’ audience strategy editor, is seen explaining his role at the news organization and apparently revealing his personal biases against Trump.
“I’d target his businesses, his dumb fuck of a son, Donald Jr., and Eric [Trump],” Dudich says in the edited version of the video. “So they’re running Trump, like, the Trump business. Target that. Get people to boycott going to his hotels. So, a lot of the Trump brands, if you can ruin the Trump brand and you put pressure on his business and you start investigating his business and you shut it down. … He cares about his business more than he cares about being president.”
Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are foaming at the mouth today after the week started off with a shot across the Democrat bow from the White House.
After President Trump’s not-so-public meeting with both on immigration, the takeaway was that he had caved on DACA and would go along with Democrat plans for some sort of amnesty.
But those hopes and dreams were dashed after Trump unveiled his 70-point immigration enforcement plan that includes massive increases in border security — including the wall — more internal enforcement, an end to various modes of visa violations, faux-asylum seeking and much more.
The kicker is that Trump pledged to support a DACA fix from Congress only if these enforcement details are included, which Democrats won’t agree to.
They’ll be just peachy keen with letting any DACA fix crash and burn so they can blame it on Republicans.
Here’s more from Washington Times…
Determined to finally solve illegal immigration, the White House submitted a 70-point enforcement plan to Congress Sunday proposing the stiffest reforms ever offered by an administration — including a massive rewrite of the law in order to eliminate loopholes illegal immigrants have exploited to gain a foothold in the U.S.
The plans, seen by The Washington Times, include President Trump’s calls for a border wall, more deportation agents, a crackdown on sanctuary cities and stricter limits to chain migration — all issues the White House says need to be part of any bill Congress passes to legalize illegal immigrant “Dreamers” currently protected by the Obama-era deportation amnesty known as DACA.
But the plans break serious new ground on the legal front, giving federal agents more leeway to deny illegal immigrants at the border, to arrest and hold them when they’re spotted in the interior, and to deport them more speedily. The goal, the White House said, is to ensure major changes to border security, interior enforcement and the legal immigration system.
“Anything that is done addressing the status of DACA recipients needs to include these three reforms and solve these three problems,” a senior White House official told The Times. “If you don’t solve these problems then you’re not going to have a secure border, you’re not going to have a lawful immigration system and you’re not going to be able to protect American workers.”