[GP] James Kallstrom, former Assistant Director of the FBI, went on with Judge Jeanine Pirro to discuss the latest announced FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton.
Kallstrom says he thinks "something big is going to happen."
James Kallstrom: I think there’s something happening. People are asking me what is this about. I think something big is going to happen. I don’t know what it is. It’s just my gut feeling. I think so.
Judge Jeanine: So he wouldn’t have come out unless he knew it was coming out?
James Kallstrom: Well, I think he couldn’t hold onto it any longer. OK. Because who knows? Maybe the locals would have stepped in on this.
#5
He'll better find something substantial or he'll be out of a job pretty soon.
Emails not from Hillary
Emails not found on her server
Doesn't even know yet what the content of the emails is?
This could backfire big time.
It looks like Comey blew it in June and he is blowing it now.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
10/30/2016 6:28 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I'm thinking this is all Kabuki.
He'll (or someone will) announce that there was nothing damaging to HRC sometime before next weekend.
All the furor by the elite left is coordinated.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
10/30/2016 9:05 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I think they've found direct evidence that Huma is a foreign intelligence asset and was passing all kinds of information on to her handlers.
I think it is a major espionage blowup and the Democrats including Lynch and the POTUS knew about this a long time ago and let it run.
There were suggestions that the Clinton Corruption LLC has many of the top democrats on the take and combined with a major intelligence blowup, I think we know from this why the Iranians were able to negotiate with such confidence and why Kerry was constantly blindsided by their demands...they knew what the US was after before he did.
#8
Besoeker, "Weiner is cooperating with the FBI in the Clinton email investigation. Because he is cooperating no warrant was needed to access his computer, which was shared at times by Abedin."
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
10/30/2016 13:38 Comments ||
Top||
#9
From Wikipedia:
Section 2703 (18 U.S.C. § 2703) of the SCA describes the conditions under which the government is able to compel an ISP to disclose "customer or subscriber" content and non-content information for each of these types of service:[8]
Electronic communication service. If an unopened email has been in storage for 180 days or less, the government must obtain a search warrant. There has been debate over the status of opened emails in storage for 180 days or less, which may fall in this category or the "remote computing service" category.[3]
Remote computing service. If a communication has been in storage for more than 180 days or is held "solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services" the government can use a search warrant, or, alternatively, a subpoena or a "specific and articulable facts" court order (called a 2703(d) order) combined with prior notice to compel disclosure. Prior notice can be delayed for up to 90 days if it would jeopardize an investigation. Historically, opened or downloaded email held for 180 days or less has fallen in this category, on the grounds that it is held "solely for the purpose of storage."[3]
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/30/2016 13:46 Comments ||
Top||
#11
The issue is complicated because the computer is considered to belong to Anthony Weiner, her estranged husband, and the case may raise spousal privilege legal protections for Abedin.
Government lawyers hope to secure the warrant to permit investigators to review thousands of emails on a computer Abedin shared with Weiner, officials said.
The new search warrant is needed because the existing authorization, covered by a subpoena, related only to the ongoing investigation of Weiner, who is accused of having sexually explicit communications with an underage girl.
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/30/2016 13:56 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I'll bet that the U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara out of NYC turned up overwhelming evidence of felonies in his investigation of the Clinton Foundation and that it opened a can of worms that led to other things such as the Weiner/Abedin computer. He presented this info to Comey and Comey was painted into a corner and had no choice but to do something. That led to the CYA letter to Congress. Just conjecture at this point.
The Hillary Clinton e-mail server was merely a distraction from the Clinton Foundation and most of
Washington, D.C. is in up to their necks in what could be the biggest scandal of all times. This inside info comes from someone claiming to be a high level FBI analyst whose job was to look at the records, with his notes added. The smoking gun is about to arrive and there are “a lot of people involved”. To save everyone time, what follows here are the choice bits. Looks like Trump and Putin hold some of the cards. This could be the most interesting election ever.
There is intense pressure within the FBI for us not to indict Hillary. I am posting from a position of
near anonymity and enough plausible deniability to evade prosecution, as we have all been given gag orders. There is enough for Hillary and the entire government to be brought down. People do not realize how enormous this whole situation actually is. Whether she will be indicted or not depends on how much info about others involved gets out, and there are a lot of people involved. The real point of interest is the Clinton Foundation, not the e-mail server. We received the server from Benghazi, then from the server we found data on the Clinton Foundation. Then we realized the situation is much worse than previously thought.
Super Classified Materials on the Clinton Email Server: Hillary had Special Access Programs on her server, which if made public, would literally cause an uprising and possibly foreign declarations of war. A Special Access Program is an intelligence program classified above top-secret. These programs are supposed to be held on closed servers at secret locations. The only way to get one is if you are specifically read on to a program, have a need to know, then you must physically go to a location and pass through several layers of security to even look at the program. A good example in non-classified terms would be the locations and operations of our intelligence operatives around the globe, or our missile silo locations.
A Bigger Problem than Hillary: Killing Hillary would not cause this problem to go away. The problem is with the Clinton Foundation as I mentioned, which you should just imagine as a massive spider web of connections and money laundering, implicating hundreds of high-level people. Though I do not have a high opinion of Hillary, she is just a piece -albeit a big piece – of this massive storm. Legal is asking preliminary questions about whether or not she has been coached (she has) and setting up the general line of questioning. I am a high level analyst though, so my job is only to look at her records.
The Department of Justice is most likely looking to save itself. Find everyone involved in the Clinton Foundation, from its donors to its Board of Directors, and imagine they are all implicated. The entire Federal Government is involved. My opinion is the entire government is guilty of treason, which is why Hillary's death would not cease the investigation or prevent further scandals. Many, many people are involved. There already is evidence enough to indict.
FBI Director Comey has been trying to stall because he does not want to face the Clinton Machine, as well as the rest of Washington D.C. But this case would explode into a million other cases if fully brought to light, & then we would be one agency competing against the entire government and a hoard of other interests. It is a very tense an uncomfortable position. What Attorney General Loretta Lynch is saying is she will accept whatever they do and make her determination as she will. Nothing about her responsibilities has changed, she is simply trying to keep her hide intact.
Foreign Powers Have Some of the Documents; Russia Will Probably Leak All Info they Have. Foreign powers are in possession of some of the documents we have analyzed, because they were hacked from the Clinton server. The leaks will have to be made in a non-transparent fashion. If we recommend, we literally hand over documentation implying the entire government is involved in treason at the highest levels and everyone is about to duck and cover, as well as some sensitive details of Special Access Programs which would obliterate national security. I am not sure, but some of my war strategy buddies are estimating a high probability that Russia will leak all of the info they have to the world, since Clinton wants to go to war with them and they have no desire to be in conflict with the U.S. If we do not recommend, it will look like a cover-up and Trump will use the perception to bolster his message. I did work in PsyOps once, and Trump’s use of confirmation bias is legendary.
Bill Clinton Will Likely Die This Year. If Trump Wins, Hillary Goes to Jail. Everything is Corrupt, Even
Trump is Dirty. The entire government is corrupt. No one is clean. We have our hands tied. My message to you and everyone on this board is do not get distracted by Clinton’s e-mails. Focus on the Foundation. All of the nightmarish truth is there. The e-mails will pale in comparison. I do not know of Trump’s record, but from the case he definitely knew to limit his exposure and make it only look like a donation.
A Multitude of Scandals. Saudi Arabia visits & donates to the Clinton Foundation. Russian Uranium fiasco. Hillary and the Israel lobby, the Council on Foreign Relations. AIPAC. The list is endless. Three Choices – Could Crash Everything. I will put it to you this way: You have three choices, A) turn over all of the information to the Department of Justice, make public a recommendation, the truth comes out, the entire world realizes how much the U.S. is meddling in foreign affairs and we go to war, the civilian population realizes how much foreign money influences our government, and a civil war begins. B) cherry-pick the data to implicate the people already in the eye of public opinion, so the chips fall on the heads of a select few and the whole system does not crash. C) do nothing and watch the unstable political climate to gauge how you will respond. I am confident if Trump wins Hillary will be going to jail and that is why THEY won't allow that to happen at any costs.The Problem is the Entire Government.
FBI Director Comey will likely resign in any case. FBI is being very quiet for a reason; most of us want to keep our jobs. Snowden has nothing to do with any of this. Obama & Hillary do hate each other. Hillary hates black people & Obama dislikes recklessness. The problem is with the entire government. Hillary is just one component of that government.
Hillary Sold Safe Access Programs to Overseas “Donors”. All I can tell you about the Safe Access Programs is Hillary had them, & she did not have proper authority to have any of them. They were leaked to her by someone, & she did sell them to overseas donors. Possessing them alone makes her guilty of treason. Obama is loosely tied to the Clinton Foundation, but much more tied in with the same people who donate to the Clinton Foundation. Russian borders, Ukraine, everywhere NATO is, the South China Sea, the Philippines, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Africa. George Soros is at the heart of all of this. If it comes down to it, I would fight.
But most of us are of the opinion that Hillary will not be president, and having Trump in office makes our job that much easier. But right now we have to carefully wade through the mud. As I stated before, Bill Clinton likely wanted Loretta Lynch to focus on the e-mail server & shy away from prosecuting the foundation. MOST OF THIS IS BEYOND THE AVERAGE AMERICANS COMPREHENSION AND THEY ARE COUNTING ON THAT. Needless to say if anyone has any doubts about the validity of the above info it stands to reason that the originator has to conceal his identity. Anyone present at the FBI hearings was sworn to secrecy and leaking any info would at least cost him his job and most likely add some jail time to boot. Worst case scenario, someone probably would put a contract out on him. Most of us know, at least the ones who have paid any attention to politics know that in the past, many who have crossed the Clintons, met an unexplainable early demise...Ron Brown and Vince Foster were no exceptions.
#18
Besoeker, the FBI insider dialog first came up on a blog on July 2, 2016. This was on the same day as Hillary was "interviewed" by the FBI. On July 5, FBI Director Comey said its investigation could not "find a case that would support bringing criminal charges," though there were several areas where Comey made it clear that Clinton and her team mishandled her email. I think Comey testified before the House Oversight committee on July 7th. The fact that the FBI insider dialog occurred before Hillary's FBI interview and much of Comey's revelations about the so-called investigation lends some credence to the insider dialog.
#24
Besoeker et al: The NSA know everything, because they can read every email and see all internet history of everyone including Crooked and her corrupt foundation
#25
TW, I hope you don't think I was implying by my comment that you were "gullible". No, I was imagining you saying, "Here's the Scotch and the cheese plate - let's settle in for the festivities."
It almost appears that the White House Insider has a new gig.
Q: I've got a question for ya, OP. How bad could this actually get? You've mentioned fear of war and revolution. Is there any possibility that Russia or China could fuck us in the fallout?
A: If a civil war broke out, 100% certainty that China and Russia would get involved.
#29
Anon1, I don't believe NSA reads emails, not least because the computing power to read the billions of encrypted emails sent every day doesn't exist.
What they were doing was constructing networks to identify new bad guys by connecting them to known bad guys.
I don't know if they even retain copies to decrypt when they need to. And I think they need a warrant to do that for US citizens.
LGBT activists have a new public enemy number 1: Jordan B. Peterson. Peterson is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto (formerly at Harvard). Peterson insists on choosing his own words (how tyrannical!) and objects to legislation forcing people to refer to LGBT individuals by their chosen pronouns. This is damnable heresy, and activists must denounce him as a "bigot."
"Careless, ideologically-addled legislators are forcing us to use words we did not freely choose," Peterson declared in an op-ed for The Hill. The Canadian professor admitted that there are reasonable restrictions on free speech -- like prohibiting yelling "fire!" in a crowded room. "There is, however, a crucial difference between laws that stop people from saying arguably dangerous words and laws that mandate the use of politically-approved words and phrases."
In other words, Peterson objects to any law forcing people to speak in certain ways. This is a more dangerous limit on freedom than prohibiting a few dangerous forms of speech.
Naturally, social justice warriors (SWJs) can't stand for this. Mobs have gathered to protest his arguments for free speech. At a University of Toronto protest earlier this month, SJWs chanted, "Shame! Shame!" as Peterson attempted to speak. A pair of women (or, should I say womyn?) tampered with a speaker to drown out his words. He was swarmed a day later by queer (their word) and transgender people, who attacked him for refusing to refer to a person as "they/them" as "a matter of respect." OK, so there's way too many for a normal person to remember. How about a catch-all pronoun, such as 'dipshit'?
Peterson is protesting the Canadian Bill C-16, which on first reading seems reasonable enough. It would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to add "gender identity or expression" to the list of protected classes. So what's the problem? "Discrimination" on the basis of "gender identity or expression" includes "misgendering" people -- i.e. referring to them with the "wrong" gender pronoun.
If you want to see what this looks like, the Big Apple provides an example. In May, the New York City Commission on Human Rights declared that refusing to refer to someone by their preferred gender pronoun (from "him and her" to "ze, xe, hir," and many others) is "harassment" and punishable by "civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct." In that case, I want to be referred to as 'Your Majesty'.
HeatStreet published a hilarious video showing just how misunderstood many of the officially protected gender identity terms are (and by extension, how difficult it would be to keep track of everyone's different pronouns). Or, at least, it's hilarious unless you live in the Big Apple and can be fined up to $250,000 for not using one of these words to refer to a particular individual. This is not just arbitrary, it can be quite oppressive.
#1
The language belongs to the people. They developed it over hundreds of years. Suddenly, 'officials' believe they have to power to magically alter it, by threat or force of power. The latter is ample demonstration that tyranny has taken hold.
#2
Tender little snowflakes. I like what the guy said in protest to all this silliness. He insisted on being referred to as "His Majesty." These students have to much free time. They need a little more rigor in the curriculum.
Opinion piece by Todd Starns
The Mainstream Media says Donald Trump and his supporters have hurt their feelings.
CNN's Wolf Blizter unloaded on Kellyanne Conway, Trump's campaign manager -- demanding that they stop heckling journalists.
"He shouldn't be doing that," Blitzer said on CNN. "I mean, can you talk to him? And say to him, 'Mr. Trump, we only have a few days left, and these are hardworking young journalists, they deserve to have some security,' if you will, because of some of those Trump supporters out there, they get pretty nasty with what they're screaming at these young people."
Blitzer actually told her that some of the reporters are scared.
Well, boo-hoo and bless their hearts (as we say back in the South). In my family we say: Touch titty said the kitty cause the milk's all gone!
I'll be sure to muster a bit of sympathy for the terrified and tearful reporters, quivering in their safe spaces in some darkened corner of a Trump venue.
Ms. Conway should've asked for a list of journalists who had been attacked at Trump rallies by Trump supporters. To my knowledge, there are none.
For the record, Trump and his supporters are not heckling at journalists. They're heckling at Clinton's media operatives. True enough
The Mainstream Media is just getting a taste of what they've been doing to Donald Trump and just about every other conservative - not that Trump is much of a conservative
ever since he announced his campaign for the White House.
I'd like to encourage the Mainstream Media to put on their big boy pants and man up. I'm afraid they wet their pants last friday with that FBI Letter.
Listen to my podcast below or on iTunes!
#2
It's beyond their comprehension if civil war were to actually break out, its more than feelings that will be hurt. I suspect the National Mall would make a very viable substitute for the 'Place de Concorde'.
[NYPost] At least President Obama is honest. Or so goes the common perception. He tried, maybe he made mistakes, the other side was mean to him, but through it all, he didn't lie. *SNORT* Just woke up, did ya?
That view got smithereened this week. It was always hard to believe the president's repeated claim that he didn't know his own secretary of state was using an off-the-books e-mail server to avoid public scrutiny, in the process virtually guaranteeing that she would commit multiple felonies by taking classified information into the open.
Now we know Obama was lying. His own aides said so, in e-mails uncovered by WikiLeaks and made public this week.
In March 2015, Obama made the ridiculous claim that he had learned about Clinton's e-mail server "the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports." In fact, not only did he know she was using a private e-mail address for state business, but he had corresponded with her via that address. by a pseudonym as well. "NotaMuslim"...OK, I made that name up, still, why would he use a nickname, and not his own unless he knew it was shady shit?
"We need to clean this up ‐ he has e-mails from her ‐ they do not say state.gov," Cheryl Mills, a top aide, wrote to John Podesta, another senior adviser, on March 7, 2015.
Obama spokesman Josh Earnest did indeed try to "clean this up," two days later, by changing the subject.
"The point that the president was making is not that he didn't know Secretary Clinton's e-mail address ‐ he did ‐ but he was not aware of the details of how that e-mail address and server had been set up, or how Secretary Clinton and her team were planning to comply with the Federal Records Act," Earnest said.
Try that technique on your wife sometime when she finds out you were at a blonde's house when you said you were going to church. "I didn't mean to say I was at Holy Name ‐ I wasn't ‐ but I just want to clarify that I was not aware of what year the church was built."
Despite the sacred sheen of Obama idealism that the media have been struggling to keep polished all these years, our president is an ordinary politician who lies for the same reason other pols do. He thinks whatever means he uses are justified by the ends ‐ his awesome mission to make America a better place.
In promoting ObamaCare, Obama repeatedly and shamelessly lied to the American people: "If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too," he said on June 6, 2009, in one of dozens of similar remarks. Obama knew this was untrue at the time; it was built into the plan that millions would lose the health plans they had.
There is a distinction between lies and political BS.
BS can involve starry-eyed thinking that won't survive acquaintance with reality. Obama might have actually believed himself when he promised "the most transparent administration in history." Today it's obvious that instead, Obama's White House has been "one of the most secretive," as Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan put it.
It wasn't mere B.S. when Obama lied about Benghazi: "We revealed to the American people exactly what we understood at the time," he said on Feb. 2, 2014, though his administration knew the night of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks that they were planned, terrorist acts. On Sept. 16, 2012, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, working from White House-approved talking points, repeatedly blamed the Benghazi attacks on a nonexistent protest over an inflammatory video.
Obama lied about the Fast and Furious operation that allowed some 2,500 firearms to be bought by Mexican drug cartels. One such gun was used to murder US Border Patrol agent Brian Terry: "The Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration," Obama said on Sept. 20, 2012. In fact, the program was launched by Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in October 2009.
Obama lied about immigration: "My position hasn't changed," he said on Nov. 20, 2014, as he announced unilateral executive action to normalize the status of illegal immigrants, a move he had repeatedly and correctly said he lacked the authority to make.
Obama lied about the IRS's targeting of conservatives, even contradicting his own statements that the harassment was "inexcusable" and made him "angry" on May 15, 2013. Less than a year later, when the heat was off, he said there was "not even a smidgen of corruption" and the IRS's vendetta against right-leaning groups was totally excusable as a bureaucratic snafu.
You get the idea; Google "Politifact Obama false" for lots more along the same lines.
Once upon a time, when we were all bedazzled by his freshness, Obama set about saying whatever it took to get elected. Remember when he promised health-care negotiations would be broadcast on C-SPAN, when he said his deeply held religious beliefs meant he couldn't support gay marriage, when he said he would not raise any kind of taxes on families earning less than $250,000?
Faith in him proved enduring. Some of his fanboys insist to this day that Obama is a transcendent figure, a "lightworker."
Nonsense. He’s just another lying politician.
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/30/2016 12:59 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11124 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The pic is sort of an insult to Tricky Dick to associate him with the first or second worst president in American history. Buchanan's edge for do nothing during secession may well evaporate in the next year.
#2
‘If You Like Your Doctor, You Can Keep Your Doctor’
If the MSM would stop shilling for awhile and actually do some honest reporting they might catch on a little more quickly. But then again the Soros money is good.
#3
JohnaQC, the MSM reports what sells in their market. If libertarians & conservatives bought stuff as a result of advertising, then they would matter to the MSM news marketers.
#4
Then there are all those meetings with that felon Creamer, whose position was, according to himself, coordinating anti-Trump dirty tricks for a tax exempt organization, under daily direction from Hillary Clinton.
Creamer, like his crony, Obama is an ex "community organizer". Or is it riot organizer?
[Zero] Democrats are angry. Mainstream media are angry. Clinton campaign members are angry. And all because the director of The FBI dared to enforce the law as he saw fit, with awkward timing for the future warmonger-in-chief's followers.
Clinton campaign head John Podesta lashed out that the FBI chief's letter was "long on innuendo and short on facts," adding that there was "no evidence of wrongdoing, no charge of wrongdoing, and no indication that this was even about Hillary."
And so, The Democratic Coalition Against Trump filed a complaint with the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility on Friday against FBI Director James Comey for interfering in the Presidential election, following the FBI’s decision to open up an investigation into Secretary Clinton’s emails this close to Election Day. Federal employees are forbidden from participating in political activities under the Hatch Act.
[Daily Caller] Wondering if Friday’s stunning announcement about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s emails was bad news for Clinton? Look no further than The Huffington Post.
Given that HuffPo labels Republican nominee Donald Trump a "racist" in every article about him, it isn’t surprising that it’s upset about FBI Director James Comey’s announcement and would seek to downplay or debunk it. But HuffPo went above and beyond, adopting a front page that can only be described as hysterical in tone:
Go to the link to see a screenshot of the meltdown in three colours, three type sizes, two fonts, some ALL CAPS, scare quotes, and exclamation points! They must have been prostrate with exhaustion by the time they were done.
Meanwhile, in a display of auspicious timing, within an hour of Comey’s announcement, HuffPo reporter Ryan Grim tried to drop a bombshell on Trump, posting video he claimed showed Trump "sexually humiliating" a woman during a 2011 speech. But the video itself certainly invites other interpretations.
#2
I enjoyed watching the MSM media running around in a tizzy. They didn't know what to do or say as no one had yet told them what to do or say. They didn't know how to spin it--the Hillary campaign hadn't yet given them their talking points.
[LI] Now that the Weinergate story has broken, how many early voters may wish they could go back and change their votes? We’ll never know and it doesn’t matter because they can’t do it. This is a perfect example of why we shouldn’t have early voting.
The practice has the potential to encourage fraud because campaigns can analyze early voting data and know where they need stronger turnout on election day.
The Wall Street Journal provides a look at how early voting is going so far:
Early Voting Bolsters Hillary Clinton in Key States
Democrat Hillary Clinton appears to have a slight edge over Republican rival Donald Trump in a number of battleground states and among important demographic groups based on an analysis of the millions of votes already cast both at polling places and by absentee ballot.
Mrs. Clinton is seeing positive signs of enthusiasm in such states as Florida and Nevada. She is also seeing strong turnout rates in the early vote from Latinos and women.
But Mr. Trump may have an advantage in the midwestern battlegrounds of Ohio and Iowa, where Democratic voter interest appears to be flagging compared with the 2012 presidential, records show.
According to data compiled by the United States Elections Project and the Associated Press, at least 17 million votes had already been cast as of Friday. Early voting is under way in a number of top-tier battlegrounds including Florida, Nevada, Iowa and North Carolina. Absentee voting has been happening in some form in every state, thanks to laws that require military and overseas ballots to be ready by September.
CNN also reports that early voting is benefiting Hillary:
#1
Can't have a do-over? Can't change your vote? If you are a Dem, you can just go down and vote again. Even if you are a dead Pub, you can vote again so long as you register as a Dem.
[Daily Caller] India and Pakistan each expelled a high-ranking opposing diplomat Thursday amid increasing tensions over the disputed northern territory of Kashmir.
India expelled the Pakistani diplomat on charges of "espionage activities" on India’s security capabilities on the Kashmiri border. Pakistan angrily responded that the charges were "false and unsubstantiated" before itself expelling a member of the Indian High Commission in Islamabad.
Tensions between the two countries skyrocketed after India suppressed a civilian uprising in Kashmir, culminating in the Indian killing of Kashmiri militant leader Burhan Wani. Wani was a major agitator against Indian administration of Kashmir, and frequently posted social media videos calling for violent uprising. His death sparked widespread protests across Kashmir, and was strongly condemned by the Pakistani government.
As angry rhetoric about terrorist sponsorship increased on both sides, a border clash between the two security forces erupted Sept. 17. Islamist militants stormed into an Indian Army base and gunned down 17 Indian soldiers, which the Indian government immediately blamed on Pakistan. "I am deeply disappointed with Pakistan’s continued and direct support to terrorism and terrorist groups," India’s Home Minister Rajnath Singh said on Twitter after the attack.
The Indian government claimed two weeks later Oct. 3 to have conducted "surgical strikes" by special forces across the Pakistani line of control in Kashmir. Indian incursion into Pakistan without prior notice again inflamed tensions to higher levels. The Pakistani government denies any such raid took place.
Experts say Pakistan’s government insists the strikes did not took place, because if they did so they would be forced to respond. "The Pakistani military would be forced to retaliate in the event of a more prominent strike," retired Indian Army Col. Ajai Shukla wrote in a New Delhi paper.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi even pulled out of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation scheduled for November. Modi then went so far as to denounce Pakistan as the "mothership of terrorism" at a Oct. 26 meeting with Russian, Chinese and Brazilian heads of state. Modi’s escalation rhetoric is meant to put pressure on Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to crackdown on terrorist militant groups operating inside his borders.
The problem is Sharif has a limited amount of authority over the Pakistani Army, which is seen as the main sponsor of the militant groups. "Prime Minister Sharif knows better than most that there are limits to how far he can push the army without the army pushing him out the door," he elaborated. Sharif was ousted in a 1999 coup d’état by Pakistani Army Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
The tensions even extend to the cultural realm. Nationalist fervor is sweeping India in the wake of the September attacks, as prominent Indian film directors came out pledging not to hire Pakistani actors, or screen films with Pakistani cast members. Pakistan angrily responded by banning all Indian radio and television shows from the country, despite their widespread popularity.
While nationalist fervor and strong rhetoric is good for Modi domestically, it is amplifying support for the army in Pakistan, according to Myra MacDonald’s, author of "Defeat Is an Orphan: How Pakistan Lost the Great South Asian War."
"When we get to the next terror attack, which is probably only a matter of time, the prime minister has boxed himself in, and he can’t take the route his predecessors did and choose to use solely diplomatic alternatives without some loss of face," Brookings Institution fellow Bruce Riedel told The New York Times Oct. 23.
An aircraft flying roughly twice the speed of sound could take off in New York City and land in Los Angeles in just two hours. The technology to travel at this speed exists, but in 1973 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a complete ban on civil supersonic aviation over all US land and territorial waters, a ban that remains in effect to this day.
The issue is noise. As an airplane reaches the speed of sound (Mach 1 or 660 mph at high altitude, air waves produced at the plane's nose are compressed, generating a shock wave that is known as a sonic boom because of the explosive noise it creates in the planes wake.
The Concorde, the supersonic passenger jet developed in the 1960s by the United Kingdom and France, for example, produced a sonic boom as loud as 135 decibels when it reached land, comparable to the noise level 100 feet from a jet engine. Many decades have passed since the Concorde's milestone transatlantic flight in 1969.
A new generation of supersonic plane designs takes advantage of 50 years of advances in materials science, aerospace engineering, and computer simulation techniques to substantially reduce the loudness of the sonic boom.
In 2012, for example, a team of NASA-funded researchers reported results from wind tunnel tests in which scale model aircraft produced sonic booms perceived to be as quiet as 79 decibels, similar to the noise created by a car passing 10 feet away.
#1
I was at Gatwick when the Concord took off on its last flight. I suppose the guys punched it, but it was magnificent. Standing in the parking lot I was stunned by the shock wave, then deafened by every car alarm it set off.
#4
back in 70s, the worst problem was the noise at take off, not the sonic boom
Posted by: lord garth ||
10/30/2016 10:02 Comments ||
Top||
#5
...and usually the complaints came from neighborhoods that grew up around the airports which were originally on the outskirts of those same cities decades ago.
#6
Had a stopover at JFK on my way to a taxpayer-funded adventure in the early 70's and watched a Concorde take off. Not quite the Vulcan, but beautiful nonetheless.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[GP] James Kallstrom, former Assistant Director of the FBI, went on with Judge Jeanine Pirro to discuss the latest announced FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton.
LGBT activists have a new public enemy number 1: Jordan B. Peterson. Peterson is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto (formerly at Harvard). Peterson insists on choosing his own words (how tyrannical!) and objects to legislation forcing people to refer to LGBT individuals by their chosen pronouns. This is damnable heresy, and activists must denounce him as a "bigot."
[NYPost] At least President Obama is honest. Or so goes the common perception. He tried, maybe he made mistakes, the other side was mean to him, but through it all, he didn't lie.
[Zero] Democrats are angry. Mainstream media are angry. Clinton campaign members are angry. And all because the director of The FBI dared to enforce the law as he saw fit, with awkward timing for the future warmonger-in-chief's followers.
