Thursday, October 20, 2016
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will seek an explanation from the Philippines for President Rodrigo Duterte's announcement of a "separation" from Washington, the State Department said on Thursday, calling the remarks baffling and at odds with the two countries' close relationship.
Duterte said during a visit to China on Thursday that "America has lost" in military and economic ties with the Philippines and "I announce my separation from the United States."
"We are going to be seeking an explanation of exactly what the president meant when he talked about separation from the U.S.," said State Department spokesman John Kirby. "It's not clear to us exactly what that means in all its ramifications."
(Reporting by Arshad Mohammed and David Alexander; Editing by Doina Chiacu)
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton held a small press gaggle on her campaign plane after Wednesday night’s final presidential debate in Las Vegas.
One reporter asked Clinton about the undercover videos released by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas showing Democratic operatives apparently discussing ways to commit voter fraud and incite violence at Donald Trump rallies.
Clinton brushed off the question and said that she knew nothing about the reports, abruptly ending the press gaggle.
“I know nothing about this. I can’t deal with every one of his conspiracy theories,” Clinton said. “I hope you all have something to eat and drink on the way back to New York.”
The videos resulted in two Democratic operatives being dismissed from their jobs, NPR reported.
Project Veritas, which has carried out several damaging video sting operations, has posted several videos in recent days purporting to show Democratic operatives bragging about inciting violence at Trump’s campaign events, and appearing to detail how they could bus out-of-state supporters in to commit voter fraud.“Once again Donald Trump was ahead of his times,” campaign manager Kellyanne Conway told Fox News Tuesday night. “He’s been talking about this for the last couple days.”One of the operatives, Scott Foval, has been fired from his job at Americans United For Change, according to multiple news outlets.The second, Robert Creamer, has said he’s stepping back from his position at Democracy Partners.
The media's continued support for Communists is appalling. Here it's the Rosenberg's who even by the Soviets records were spy's
Last Sunday, CBS’s 60 Minutes featured a two-segment piece called “The Brothers Rosenberg, on which the two sons of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, Michael and Robert Meeropol, told the story of how it felt when at the ages of seven and three, their parents were arrested and their everyday normal lives seemed to come to an end. The first segment was indeed a moving portrayal of how being the children of Communist spies affected their young lives. “Being the Rosenberg’s children in 1950,” Robert Meeropol put it to Anderson Cooper, “was almost like being Osama bin Laden’s kids here after 9/11.”
The real purpose of the Meeropols, however, was to use the program as part of their campaign to have President Barack Obama officially exonerate their mother and posthumously declare her innocent, just as the New York City Council did on Sept. 28, 2015, the date of Ethel’s 100th birthday. Knowing from the producers what Part I of the report was about, I always feared that after having seen the first segment, anyone who continued watching would view the issue of whether Ethel was guilty not by consideration of all the evidence. Instead, I feared viewers would want to make amends to the sons, and want their mother to be innocent to make the Meeropols feel better and to gain justice.
As co-author of The Rosenberg File with the late Joyce Milton, the producers of the program, Andy Court and his assistant producer Evie Salomon, asked me to participate as the historian most acquainted with the case, and to in effect be the counterpoint for the Meeropols’ claim that their mother, Ethel Rosenberg, was completely innocent.
The program’s producers and their staff worked extremely hard. Indeed, my segment was taped last winter, and they worked for months putting their report together. I and my associates, Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, Steven Usdin, and Mark Kramer gave them a mountain of copies of KGB material from the Vassiliev files, specific KGB messages from the Venona decrypts, and answered many questions that they had. We left no stone unturned in giving them material that proved beyond any doubt that Ethel Rosenberg was indeed guilty of “conspiracy to commit espionage.” None of us believed she should have been executed, and no one on the program, including myself, argued otherwise.
I suggest readers go to various links already on the internet that challenge the 60 Minutes narrative. First, the intelligence expert John Schindler wrote his regular column in The Observer on proof of Ethel’s guilt. He writes: “Regrettably for the Meeropols, they don’t have much in the way of evidence to back up their assertion that their mother was not a Soviet spy.” Schindler then provides the actual documents that point to her guilt. He concludes aptly with these words:
It would be best if the Meeropols accepted that fact and moved on with their lives. It would also be nice if CBS presented this important case in a more historically balanced and truthful fashion.
Next, Scott Johnson at Powerlineblog.com offers statements he solicited from Klehr, Haynes, Usdin, and Kramer. Each of them in turn offer concrete evidence from documents they mention or cite that would have definitively left the average viewer with real evidence which the Meeropols would have been hard-pressed to challenge or tear apart. But these documents were never brought to light, and at times, the narrative even offered contrary statements as the truth, without any evidence to back up the claims.
Usdin sums up the case for Ethel’s guilt:
She met with at least three of the Soviet KGB officers who Julius reported to, served as a “cut out” for communications with a KGB officer on at least one occasion, and she recruited her brother to become an atomic spy. KGB documents indicate that Ethel knew of her husband’s activities, knew he had recruited several of his comrades to spy for Stalin, and that the Soviet intelligence agency trusted Ethel.
Of all the commentators, Mark Kramer had the harshest judgment. He sees the program as a “puff piece” meant to give voice for the Meeropols’ desire to “whitewash” new Soviet evidence about their mother’s guilt. He notes that the sons said nothing they haven’t already said the past few years. He then writes the following about the role I played
When Ron Radosh was finally brought in, he explained well why the Meeropols are dead wrong, but unfortunately the 60 Minutes producers gave him much less time, and they omitted some of his crucial arguments.
Let me pause to inform readers about the many times Andy Court told me, in person or over the phone, that it was their intention to be nuanced and to let both sides be heard so that viewers could judge for themselves who was correct. He emphasized many times how much they appreciated all the material I and my colleagues had sent them; how invaluable it was, and how indebted they were to us. It all sounded fine. But is that what the segments they finally aired accomplished?
Let me take up one point: the issue of the sketch David Greenglass made of the cross section of the Nagasaki bomb and the lens mold used, which were released at the trial. The defense—and the Rosenbergs’ supporters today—argued that the sketch was useless, that it revealed nothing, that David Greenglass was a machinist and not any kind of scientist, and hence it would have been on no value whatsoever to the Soviets.
Mark Kramer, taking up this point, writes the following:
It is simply untrue to say, as the 60 Minutes producers did, that the sketch was of no value. Nine large volumes of declassified Soviet nuclear documents were published from 1999 to 2009 under the title Atomnyi proekt SSSR (Atomic Project of the USSR), and these volumes make clear that the special committee headed by Lavrentii Beria (which oversaw the Soviet nuclear weapons program from 1945 until 1953) always sought multiple sources to confirm the information they were receiving from espionage. So, even though it is true that what Klaus Fuchs and Theodore Hall provided was far more detailed and sensitive than the information provided by Greenglass, it is factually wrong to say that the Greenglass sketch was of no value. The sketch provided confirmation of information from Fuchs and Hall.
Indeed, The Rosenberg File, which was published in 1983, included an entire chapter titled “The Scientific Evidence.” We showed that contrary to popular commentary on Greenglass’ sketch, major scientists the Rosenberg defense sought to enlist on their behalf replied to the couple’s counsel, Emanuel Bloch, that in effect any scientist worth their salt, especially a nuclear physicist, would immediately be able to understand that it meant the United States was working on the process of implosion to produce a working a-bomb. These scientists who Bloch had written were all sympathetic to the Rosenbergs, and were they able to help them by showing the sketch was useless, they would have done so. The chapter, clearly, was completely ignored by the producers.
Rather, Anderson Cooper says, incorrectly, that while the spy network did gather “important technology for jet fighters, radar, and detonators,” it did not do a “a very good job of stealing…atomic secrets.” He adds: “When a copy of the sketch Greenglass said he drew for the Soviets was made public in 1966, nuclear scientists were not impressed.” That conclusion itself is false and flies in the fact of the facts.
To be fair to the producers, the narrative read by Anderson Cooper does say “secret messages, intercepted cable [Venona] long-forgotten files from the archives of the FBI, the CIA and the KGB” have “changed the way this chapter of American history is being viewed.” But Cooper then says that this material is why the Meeropols are “asking to exonerate their mother.” That statement makes little sense because the material proves Ethel’s involvement with the network and her guilt.
Secondly, as Kramer writes, Julius recruited another atom spy, Russell McNutt, who worked at the Oak Ridge, Tennessee, plant of the Manhattan Project on projects relating to the A-bomb. This is why McNutt’s absence from their segment is important.
First, even though Radosh spoke to them at length about the importance of Russell McNutt, they made no mention of him. The reason this omission is so important is that the Rosenbergs’ recruitment of McNutt shows conclusively that they were intent on setting up a wide spy network in the U.S. nuclear weapons program — not just at Los Alamos but also at Oak Ridge.
Mentioning McNutt would have completely undermined the false assertion that Julius’ network did not succeed in gaining any material of importance relating to the atomic bomb. I said as much in an email to Andy Court dated Oct.13, at which time they were still finalizing the script:
I think your voice-over should note that Julius recruited another atom spy, Russell McNutt. It is important because it confirms that Julius was seeking atomic information, and undermines the Meeropol argument that his father just was putting together a network to gather relatively unimportant industrial secrets that the Russians deserved having anyway.Your viewers will come away thinking that only David got material, and since some contest the worthiness or accuracy of that judgment, Julius too is absolved. McNutt proves that one cannot say that Julius was not seeking atomic secrets.
Court answered the same day that “because some of your historian colleagues have objected to any implication that David Greenglass was the ‘only’ atomic informant Julius recruited, I have rewritten that line with their concerns in mind.” I have read through the entire script online and cannot find what line was supposedly re-written.
Another “proof” mentioned by the Meeropols and not answered by anyone is that David Greenglass lied and falsely testified that when presenting atomic material to Julius in New York, his sister Ethel typed up the notes that were given to the Russians.
Ethel did not type up any notes. We know this both from a Venona entry as well as corroboration in the Vassiliev KGB files, which indicate the receipt of Greenglass’ handwritten material. The Meeropols argue that this was perjured testimony that Greenglass gave because he needed to give his sister up in order for his wife to remain free. That deal was offered to him by the prosecution, and it is likely that, as Greenglass later told CBS, he was pushed to implicate Ethel in this overt act by the late Roy Cohn, who was an assistant prosecutor in the case. We have no way of knowing whether or not this assertion is true.
But even with this perjured testimony, the rest of the evidence substantiates Ethel’s guilt. One must remember that the Justice Department knew from Venona of the Rosenbergs’ actual guilt, but was not free to use anything in it as evidence in Court, since the United States did not want the Soviets to know they had broken their code. That is why I said in my interview that if the Rosenbergs were framed, as many argue, “they framed guilty people.”
Finally, one other aspect was left out of my interview. Anderson Cooper asked me why I thought Robert and Michael Meeropol were carrying on this cause, knowing that their father was a Soviet agent. I answered that what they have said recently is their father only gathered minor industrial material that the Soviets should have had anyway, and they deny that he gave the Soviet Union anything of significance. I also argued that in their mother’s famous last letter to them, she told them to never forget that the family was innocent and they should live to fight to clear their parents’ names.
Given an admonition like this, from a woman who knew well they were Soviet agents, indicates that the Rosenbergs were both fanatic Communists who indeed, as Judge Kaufman said in court, were willing to orphan their own children because being loyal to the cause was more important to them than the truth. How could the Meeropols go on and admit to themselves, I said, that their parents—including their mother—were guilty?
The Meeropols are given the last word. They say they were undoubtedly “damaged” by what their parents did, but are certain that Ethel Rosenberg was “killed for something she did not do.” True, she did not type any notes. But the Rosenbergs were charged and found guilty of “conspiracy to commit espionage,” not treason as many people think was the case. In a conspiracy indictment, any party who was part of a conspiracy is as guilty as the main perpetrator. That means legally, Ethel—who in fact did many things for the network—was no less guilty than her husband.
My conclusion is that the producers tried to be fair, but could not obviously help themselves from being dragged into the narrative offered by the Meeropols. It was their dramatic story—told in part I—that made the entire report interesting. Had the producers gone with the complete truth and said the evidence proved Ethel’s guilt, they could not have had a story that showed the Meeropols suffering over the years. Hence the report ended up filled with false information as well as many references to Ethel’s innocence. In a portion of my interview that made the cutting floor, Anderson Cooper asked me whether I was certain she was guilty, and he repeated the question a few times. I answered that she absolutely was guilty, and I said so without any reservations.
Intentionally or not, 60 Minutes allowed itself to be used as part of the Meeropols’ campaign to vindicate their mother. Perhaps it is too much to ask that the media, and as influential a program as 60 Minutes, would dare to use its program to tear apart a cherished myth of the American left.
Turkey's state media has said the strikes killed around 200 YPG fighters, although the death roll is disputed. Turkey has voiced its displeasure at US support of Kurdish groups fighting the so-called "Islamic State."
Turkish jets and artillery forces launched more than 20 airstrikes on a US-backed Kurdish militia group in northern Syria on Thursday, highlighting the widening gap between Washington and Ankara's military agendas for the region.
According to Turkish state media, the airstrike killed between 160 and 200 combatants from the People's Protection Unit (YPG), the strongest force in the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). However, the death toll has been widely disputed. The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at least 11 fighters were killed, while the early reports from the YPG itself suggest no more than 10 were killed.
The warplanes targeted three villages occupied by YPG personnel in the Afrin region to the northeast of Aleppo. Kurdish fighters had recently captured the villages from the so-called "Islamic State" (IS).
Footage released by the pro-Kurdish Anha news agency reportedly shows smokes billowing out from an SDF camp following the air strike.
The strikes, the strongest against YPG forces since Turkey launched its incursion into Syria in August, came mere hours after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that Turkey could act alone in rooting out its enemies and that it "would not wait for terrorist organization to come and attack."
Senior Kurdish official Ilham Ahmed said on Thursday that Turkey's attacks on US-backed Kurdish forces posed a threat to the United States' fight against terrorism in the region. She accused Ankara of taking advantage of the US' preoccupation with the presidential election by imposing its own plans for the region. She urged Washington to intercede immediately.
US Defense Secretary Ash Carter is expected to visit Ankara on Friday.
The Turkish military said the attacks were retaliatory after five shells fired from the YPG-controlled Afrin region hit Turkey's Hatay province, striking empty land.
Turkey also announced that 21 militants from the PKK, a Kurdish separatist organization in Turkey and Iraq, were killed in military operations in the southeastern Turkish province of Hakkari.
Turkey is a significant backer of the insurgency against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, supporting and arming the Free Syrian Army. However, Ankara admits that its intervention is also aimed at preventing the SDF from gaining more ground in the region. Both Turkish and Kurdish forces are racing to capture key territories from IS.
Thursday's bombardment comes as Kurdish forces made significant territorial gains in the fight against IS, including in the Aleppo province. The United States has backed such Kurdish fighters, albeit to Ankara's displeasure. It views the YPG as an extension of Kurdish separatist groups that have waged a three-decade insurgency in the southeast of Turkey.
Turkish officials have grown increasingly wary that Kurdish forces will use the captured territories and connect its three de facto autonomous cantons, creating a Kurdish-run enclave in northern Syria and stoking separatist ambitions in Turkey.
Numan Kurtulmus, Turkey's deputy prime minister, said his country was "displeased" with the US' support of Syrian Kurdish fighters. He told reporters on Thursday that "whoever comes next to the US presidency" must understand the importance of maintaining ties with "a key regional country like Turkey and not an armed terrorist organization with a few thousand militants."
Commander Mahmoud Barkhadan of the People's Protection Units (YPG) accused Turkey of aiding IS insurgents by converting the fight against the Islamist extremists into a Turkish-Kurdish conflict. "We are fighting Daesh, why are they striking at us?" he told the Associated Press news agency. He said that Kurdish forces had not retreated from the newly captured territories, but that the Turkish airstrikes had allowed IS militants to launch a counteroffensive.
Fighting between Kurdish forces and IS continued into Thursday.
Something left out of the argument about Hillary's health is that if she is as ill as it appears we have the possibility of having an admitted far leftist waiting in the wings to take over. If that's not enough to scare you, I don't know what will.
by Mark Steyn
Steyn on America
Steyn on America
Just ahead of tonight's final debate (from which I shall be several thousand miles away):
As I've said for years - on radio, TV and in print - for me the overriding issue in American politics is the corruption. In the Obama era, we have seen the remorseless merging of the party and the state - in the IRS, in the Justice Department and elsewhere. Whatever one feels about, say, Scandinavia, they at least come to their statism and socialism more or less honestly. Not so the United States.
It's bad enough that Democrats aren't agitated about this corruption - but then it works to their advantage. Slightly more mysterious is why so many of my friends on the right aren't incensed by it. For months, conservative commentators assured us that, when it comes to straight arrows, no arrow is straighter than FBI honcho James Comey - non-partisan, career public servant, will follow the evidence whereso'er it leads; why, "no one in law enforcement" is "more capable of navigating through a political maelstrom" and any attempts to politicize the outcome will ensure that "Comey will resign in protest, and other high-level FBI officials could follow him out the door".
All bollocks. Bollocks on stilts. Like everything else the Clintons touch, Comey's FBI is hopelessly corrupted - and certainly more corrupt than J Edgar Hoover's FBI, at least in the sense that Hoover was independent enough not to get rolled. The revelations of what happened reveal Comey to be a hack and a squish: he offered immunity to Hillary's aides not to facilitate his investigation but to obstruct any further investigation; he allowed witnesses to Hillary's crimes to serve as her "lawyers"; and he physically destroyed the evidence - that is, the laptops. A 6' 8" gummi worm would be more of a straight arrow.
Now come the latest revelations. Powerline's John Hinderaker writes:
In the first page, an unidentified FBI employee says he was "pressured" to change the classification of an email to render it unclassified. This pressure came from someone within the FBI, who said he had been contacted by Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, who "had asked his assistance in altering the email's classification in exchange for a 'quid pro quo.'" The quid pro quo was that, if the FBI would say the email was unclassified, the State Department would allow the FBI to "place more Agents in countries where they are presently forbidden."
So, to add to the corrupt revenue agency and the corrupt justice department, we now have a corrupt national law enforcement agency and a corrupt foreign ministry - willing, indeed, to subordinate national security and its own diplomatic policy to the personal needs of Hillary Clinton. Needless to say, if you get your news from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, etc, etc, you will be entirely unaware of all this. Which is the way they plan on operating for the next eight years.
A small but telling point: Wikileaks' Julian Assange has lived in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for over four years. But not until he leaked against Hillary was his Internet cut off. Hillary, out of office, has a swifter and more ruthless global reach than Hillary in office on the night of Benghazi. And, should she win, her view of her subjects is that we should have the same information access as Ecuadorian Embassy refugees.
John Hinderaker continues:
We have here a clear pattern of corruption that makes Watergate look like child's play. Hillary's aide, Patrick Kennedy, tried to bribe the FBI to change the classification of a Benghazi document so as to enable Hillary's false claim that she didn't send or receive classified information on her illegal home server. The FBI, to its credit, refused. (James Comey wasn't involved at that stage.)Hillary's aide then asked whether the FBI would be saying anything publicly about the classification issue. Once assured that the FBI would be silent, Hillary took the stage and alleged publicly, and falsely, that she never used her illegal home server to send or receive classified information...Donald Trump has his faults, but Hillary Clinton is far too corrupt to serve as President of the United States.
On that last point, I agree wholeheartedly. In any society, the chief magistrate's first duty is to uphold the law, and throughout human history his easiest temptation, once in office, has been to regard himself as above it. In this case, the American people would be electing someone who, not yet in office, is already above the law, and way beyond it. (Even her bodily fluids are above the law.) That would be an extraordinary act, and Hillary and her cronies would be entirely justified in treating such an electorate with utter contempt.
As for today's impotent and ineffectual Republican establishment, they'll look like rock-ribbed steel-spined titans compared to the husks that will remain after two Hillary terms.
The corruption might not seem directly relevant to the rise of Donald Trump, but it's there, implicitly. The present arrangements work for the political class, the permanent bureaucracy, their client groups, and the lawless. But not for millions of the law-abiding. Consider illegal immigration, for example, which pre-Trump was entirely discussed in terms of the interests of the lawbreakers - how to "bring them out of the shadows", how to give them "a path to citizenship", celebrate their "family values" and "work ethic" - and never in terms of the law-abiding, whose wages they depress, whose communities they transform, and, in too many criminal cases, whose lives they wreck. Victor Davis Hanson writes:
Something has gone terribly wrong with the Republican party, and it has nothing to do with the flaws of Donald Trump. Something like his tone and message would have to be invented if he did not exist. None of the other 16 primary candidates — the great majority of whom had far greater political expertise, more even temperaments, and more knowledge of issues than did Trump — shared Trump's sense of outrage — or his ability to convey it — over what was wrong: The lives and concerns of the Republican establishment in the media and government no longer resembled those of half their supporters.
That's exactly right. This time last year, to prevent Trump all you had to do was convey that same sense of outrage. As I wrote on July 10th 2015 - a mere month after Trump entered the race:
Trump, like other philosophically erratic politicians from Denmark to Greece, has tapped into a very basic strain of cultural conservatism: the question of how far First World peoples are willing to go in order to extinguish their futures on the altar of "diversity".As Ann Coulter's new book Adios, America! lays out in remorseless detail, Kate Steinle is dead because the entire Democratic Party, two-thirds of the Republican Party and 100 per cent of the diseased federal-state-municipal bureaucracy prioritizes myths over reality. Yes, it's distressing to persons of taste and discrimination that the only person willing to address that reality is Donald Trump. But that's because he's not the reality-show freak here. The fake-o lame-o reality freakshow is the political pseudo-campaign being waged within the restraints demanded by the media and Macy's. So, if Donald Trump is the only guy willing to bust beyond those bounds, we owe him a debt of gratitude. If, as Karl Rove proposes, other candidates are able to talk about the subject in a more "inclusive" way, so be it. But, if "inclusive" is code for not addressing it at all, nuts to that.
I think we now know that "inclusive" is code for not addressing it at all, and that, if Trump loses next month, that's what the GOP establishment will go right back to doing.
Will he lose? Given that he's running against both the Democrats and half the Republican Party, he remains tenaciously just about competitive. But Victor explains where the math comes up short:
What has always been missing to end the long public career of Hillary Clinton is a four- or five-percentage-point boost from a mélange of the so-called Never Trump Republicans, as well as women and suburban, college-educated independents. Winning back some of these critics could translate into a one- or two-point lead over Clinton in critical swing states.
Many of those openly supporting Hillary among the right-of-center pundit class are people I have known and worked with over the years - from Dorothy Rabinowitz to Max Boot to (he's considering it) Glenn Beck. I don't quite get this. As Victor puts it:
In this low-bar presidential race, why do conservative establishmentarians and past foreign-policy officials feel a need to publish their support for the Democratic candidate, when their liberal counterparts feel no such urge to distance themselves from their own nominee? Is what Clinton actually did, in leaving Iraq abruptly, or lying about Benghazi, or violating federal security laws, so much less alarming than what Trump might do in shaking up NATO or "bombing the hell out of ISIS"?
Just so. Trump is an unknown. But, to channel Donald Rumsfeld, Hillary is the most known known in the history of knowns. And what we know of her is that she's stinkingly corrupt, above the law, and able to suborn entire government agencies in the cause of her corruption. Where do you think we're gonna be after eight years of that?
Oh, and it will be eight years. The NeverTrumpers are saying, "Don't worry. We'll get it right in 2020", just like after 2012 they said, "Don't worry. We'll get it right in 2016", and after 2008 they said, "Don't worry. We'll get it right in 2012." Next time never comes. There are no tomorrows for the Republican Party, because, unlike the GOP, the Democrats use their victories very effectively.
Victor Davis Hanson lives on a small family farm in rural California, at the sharp end of the artificial and lawless demographic transformation of a once Golden State. With respect to my former colleagues in the New York and Washington commentariat, I don't think they have any idea of how bleak life is in many parts of this country. And I don't mean Jimmy Carter-like "malaise" - a brief blip after three decades of post-war prosperity - but bleakness as a permanent feature of life. Perhaps I'm touchy about the corruption because I'm a foreigner and I've lived in countries with clean government. Perhaps I'm sensitive to the contempt in which a put-upon middle-class is held because I've spent much of the last year in wealthy first-world countries (France, Sweden, Germany) that are on the verge of implosion over their delusional immigration policies. But the indifference from influential conservatives to both the despair and the naked corruption is deeply disturbing.
Think of what the last eight years have wrought - Obamacare, a weaponized IRS, six-figure fines for homophobic bakeries - and then pitch America forward to 2024. Picture the most absurd scenario you can concoct - say, a federal transgender-bathroom regime. Oh, no, wait, we've already got that.
The left is serious about power, and they don't waste time. The idea that the most personally corrupt candidate in modern American history will govern as some sort of benign moderate centrist placeholder until the wankers who thought Jeb Bush was a superstar shoo-in come up with their next inspiration is utterly preposterous.
Enjoy the debate.
3 sex-spread diseases hit another record high, CDC says. See the breakout of the carriers left out of the news story.
NEW YORK (AP) — Infections from three sexually spread diseases have hit another record high.
Chlamydia (kluh-MID'-ee-uh) was the most common. More than 1.5 million cases were reported in the U.S. last year, up 6 percent from the year before.
Nearly 400,000 gonorrhea (gah-nuh-REE'-uh) cases were reported, up 13 percent. And there were about 24,000 cases of the most contagious forms of syphilis, up 19 percent.
The three infections are treatable with antibiotics.
Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say part of the growth may be due to better testing and diagnosis, but much of it is a real increase. They're not sure why.
The CDC released the new numbers Wednesday.
An estimated 20 million cases of sexually transmitted infections occur each year in the U.S.
Here are some facts in the report that are glossed over in this release. you must know the target group to deal effectively with a problem, but political correctness makes it impossible to say thesethings out loud:
Among the 45 states that submitted data on race and ethnicity for each year during 2011–2015 according to the OMB standards, rates of reported chlamydia cases increased during that time frame among Asians (7.8%), Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders (8.9%), Whites (14.6%), and Multirace persons (43.1%), and decreased among Blacks (11.2%) (Figure 6). Rates were stable among American Indians/Alaska Natives and Hispanics during 2011–2015.
In 2015, 50 states submitted data on race and ethnicity according to the OMB standards. The following data pertain to those states:
Blacks — In 2015, the overall rate of reported chlamydia cases among Blacks in the United States was 1,097.6 cases per 100,000 population (Table 11B). The rate among Black women was 5.4 times the rate among White women (1,384.8 and 256.7 cases per 100,000 females, respectively) (Figure P and Table 11B). The rate among Black men was 6.8 times the rate among White men (782.0 and 115.4 cases per 100,000 males, respectively). Rates of reported cases of chlamydia were highest for Blacks aged 15–19 and 20–24 years in 2015 (Table 11B). The rate of reported chlamydia cases among Black women aged 15–19 years was 6,340.3 cases per 100,000 females, which was 4.7 times the rate among White women in the same age group (1,339.1 cases per 100,000 females). The rate among Black women aged 20–24 years was 3.9 times the rate among White women in the same age group (6,782.5 and 1,737.8 cases per 100,000 females, respectively) (Table 11B).
Similar racial disparities in reported chlamydia rates exist among men. Among males aged 15–19 years, the rate of reported chlamydia cases among Blacks was 8.8 times the rate among Whites (2,119.6 and 240.3 cases per 100,000 males, respectively) (Table 11B). The rate among Black men aged 20–24 years was 4.9 times the rate among White men of the same age group (3128.8 and 637.2 cases per 100,000 males, respectively).
American Indians/Alaska Natives — In 2015, the rate of reported chlamydia cases among American Indians/Alaska Natives was 709.1 cases per 100,000 population (Table 11B). Overall, the rate of chlamydia among American Indians/Alaska Natives in the United States was 3.8 times the rate among Whites.
Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders — In 2015, the rate of reported chlamydia cases among Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders was 622.1 cases per 100,000 population (Table 11B). The overall rate among Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders was 3.3 times the rate among Whites and 5.5 times the rate among Asians.
Hispanics — In 2015, the rate of reported chlamydia cases among Hispanics was 372.7 cases per 100,000 population, which is 2.0 times the rate among Whites (Table 11B).
Asians — In 2015, the rate of reported chlamydia cases among Asians was 114.1 cases per 100,000 population (Table 11B). The overall rate among Whites is 1.6 times the rate among Asians.
Among 45 states submitting race and ethnicity data consistently according to OMB standards for all years from 2011–2015, rates of reported gonorrhea cases increased 75.1% among Whites (26.1 to 45.7 cases per 100,00 population), 71.3% among American Indians/Alaska Natives (104.5 to 179.0 cases per 100,000 population), 70.0% among Asians (14.0 to 23.8 cases per 100,000 population), 61.0% among Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders (72.6 to 116.9 cases per 100,000 population), and 53.8% among Hispanics (52.4 to 80.6 cases per 100,000 population) (Figure 20). The gonorrhea rate decreased 4.0% among Blacks (451.3 to 433.3 cases per 100,000 population).
In 2015, 50 states submitted data on race and ethnicity according to the OMB standards. The following data pertain to those states:
Blacks — In 2015, 42.2% of reported gonorrhea cases with known race and ethnicity occurred among Blacks (excluding cases with missing information on race or ethnicity, and cases whose reported race or ethnicity was Other) (Table 22A). The rate of gonorrhea among Blacks in 2015 was 424.9 cases per 100,000 population, which was 9.6 times the rate among Whites (44.2 cases per 100,000 population) (Table 22B). Although the calculated rate ratio for 2015 differs when considering only the 45 jurisdictions that submitted data in race and ethnic categories according to the OMB standards for each year during 2011–2015, this disparity has decreased slightly in recent years (Figure Q). In 2015, this disparity was similar for Black men (9.6 times the rate among White men) and Black women (9.7 times the rate among White women) (Figure R, Table 22B). As in previous years, the disparity in gonorrhea rates for Blacks in 2015 was larger in the Midwest and Northeast than in the West or the South (Figure S).
Considering all racial/ethnic and age categories, rates of gonorrhea were highest for Blacks aged 20–24, 15–19, and 25–29 years in 2015 (Table 22B). Black women aged 20–24 years had a gonorrhea rate of 1,760.5 cases per 100,000 females, which was 9.0 times the rate among White women in the same age group (195.8 cases per 100,000 females). Black women aged 15–19 years had a gonorrhea rate of 1,547.3 cases per 100,000 females, which was 11.3 times the rate among White women in the same age group (136.4 cases per 100,000 females). Black men aged 20–24 years had a gonorrhea rate of 1,681.5 cases per 100,000 males, which was 9.5 times the rate among White men in the same age group (176.1 cases per 100,000 males). Black men aged 25–29 years had a gonorrhea rate of 1,415.0 cases per 100,000 males, which was 8.2 times the rate among White men in the same age group (173.6 cases per 100,000 males).
American Indians/Alaska Natives — In 2015, the gonorrhea rate among American Indians/Alaska Natives was 192.8 cases per 100,000 population, which was 4.4 times the rate among Whites (Table 22B). The disparity between gonorrhea rates for American Indians/Alaska Natives and Whites was larger for American Indian/Alaska Native women (6.1 times the rate among White women) than for American Indian/Alaska Native men (3.0 times the rate among White men) (Figure R, Table 22B). The disparity in gonorrhea rates for American Indians/Alaska Natives in 2015 was larger in the Midwest than in the West, Northeast, and South (Figure S).
Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders — In 2015, the gonorrhea rate among Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders was 123.0 cases per 100,000 population, which was 2.8 times the rate among Whites (Table 22B). The disparity between gonorrhea rates for Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders and Whites was the same for Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander women (2.8 times the rate among White women) and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander men (2.8 times the rate among White men) (Figure R, Table 22B). The disparity in gonorrhea rates for Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders in 2015 was lower in the West than in the Midwest, Northeast, and South (Figure S).
Hispanics — In 2015, the gonorrhea rate among Hispanics was 80.5 cases per 100,000 population, which was 1.8 times the rate among Whites (Table 22B). This disparity was similar for Hispanic women (1.7 times the rate among White women) and Hispanic men (1.9 times the rate among White men) (Figure R, Table 22B). The disparity in gonorrhea rates for Hispanics in 2015 was higher in the Northeast than in the Midwest, South, and West (Figure S).
Asians — In 2015, the gonorrhea rate among Asians was 22.9 cases per 100,000 population, which was 0.5 times the rate among Whites (Table 22B). This difference is larger for Asian women than for Asian men (Figure R, Table 22B). In 2015, rates among Asians were lower than rates among Whites in all four regions of the United States (Figure S).
Primary and Secondary Syphilis
During 2011–2015, 45 states submitted race and Hispanic ethnicity data for syphilis for each year according to the OMB standards. In these states, rates of reported primary and secondary (P&S) syphilis cases increased 130.8% among Asians (1.3 to 3.0 cases per 100,000 population), 102.3% among Hispanics (4.4 to 8.9 cases per 100,000 population), 90.3% among American Indians/Alaska Natives (3.1 to 5.9 cases per 100,000 population), 66.7% among Whites (2.4 to 4.0 cases per 100,000 population), 51.4% among Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders (7.0 to 10.6 cases per 100,000 population), and 31.8% among Blacks (15.7 to 20.7 cases per 100,000 population) (Figure 39).
In 2015, 49 states submitted syphilis data by race and ethnicity according to the OMB standards. The following data pertain to those states:
Blacks — In 2015, 37.6% of reported P&S syphilis cases with known race/ethnicity occurred among Blacks (excluding cases with missing information on race or ethnicity, and cases whose reported race or ethnicity was Other) (Table 35A). The P&S syphilis rate among Blacks in 2015 was 21.4 cases per 100,000 population, which was 5.2 times the rate among Whites (4.1 cases per 100,000 population) (Table 35B). The disparity was higher for Black women (8.8 times the rate among White women) than for Black men (5.1 times the rate among White men) (Figure T, Table 35B).
Considering all race/ethnicity, sex, and age categories, P&S syphilis rates were highest among Black men aged 20–24 years and 25–29 years in 2015 (Table 35B). Black men aged 20–24 years had a P&S syphilis rate of 110.1 cases per 100,000 males. This rate was 7.6 times the rate among White men in the same age group (14.5 cases per 100,000 males). Black men aged 25–29 years had a P&S syphilis rate of 133.2 cases per 100,000 males, which was 6.9 times the rate among White men in the same age group (19.4 cases per 100,000 males).
Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders — In 2015, the P&S syphilis rate among Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders was 10.4 cases per 100,000 population, which was 2.5 times the rate among Whites (Table 35B). This disparity was similar for Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander women (2.7 times the rate among White women) and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander men (2.5 times the rate among White men).
Hispanics — In 2015, the P&S syphilis rate among Hispanics was 9.1 cases per 100,000 population, which was 2.2 times the rate among Whites (Table 35B). This disparity was similar for Hispanic women (2.3 times the rate among White women) and Hispanic men (2.2 times the rate among White men).
American Indians/Alaska Natives — In 2015, the P&S syphilis rate among American Indians/Alaska Natives was 5.6 cases per 100,000 population, 1.4 times the rate among Whites (Table 35B). This disparity was larger for American Indian/Alaska Native women (3.5 times the rate among White women) than for American Indian/Alaska Native men (1.2 times the rate among White men).
Asians — In 2015, the P&S syphilis rate among Asians was 3.0 cases per 100,000 population, which was 0.7 times the rate among Whites (Table 35B). This difference was larger for Asian women (0.5 times the rate among White women) than for Asian men (0.8 times the rate among White men).
Race/ethnicity for cases of congenital syphilis is based on the mother’s race/ethnicity. During 2014–2015, rates of reported congenital syphilis cases increased 25.0% among Hispanics and 18.9% among Whites (Figure U, Table 42). However, rates decreased 19.5% among American Indians/Alaska Natives, 15.7% among Asians/Pacific Islanders, and 8.8% among Blacks.
In 2015, 44.9% of congenital syphilis cases with known race/ethnicity occurred among Blacks (excluding cases with missing information on race or ethnicity, and cases whose reported race or ethnicity was ‘Other’) (Table 42). The rate of congenital syphilis among Blacks in 2015 was 35.2 cases per 100,000 live births, which was 8.0 times the rate among Whites (4.4 cases per 100,000 live births). The rate of congenital syphilis was 15.5 cases per 100,000 live births among Hispanics (3.5 times the rate among Whites), 10.3 cases per 100,000 live births among American Indians/Alaska Natives (2.3 times the rate among Whites), and 5.9 cases per 100,000 live births among Asians/Pacific Islanders (1.3 times the rate among Whites).