The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Nihon Hidankyo, described in news reports as “a Japanese organization of survivors of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” The organization received the award for its “activism against nuclear weapons.” Jorgen Watne Frydnes, the chairperson of the committee, explained the award by noting the current weakening of the “taboo” against the use of nuclear weapons. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen added that “the spectre of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still looms over humanity. This makes the advocacy of Nihon Hidankyo invaluable.” The selection of an anti-nuclear weapons organization for the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing more than symbolic, and this isn’t the first occasion where the Nobel Committee chose symbolism over substance. Back in 2009, the Nobel Committee awarded the peace prize to Barack Obama, who had been in office as president for less than a year, for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” The committee’s press release noted Obama’s “vision” for a more peaceful world and his ability to give the world’s people “hope.” Obama had at that time done nothing of substance to implement his “vision” and fulfill the “hope” he apparently created, other than embarking on an apology tour in the Middle East and other places where he expounded on America’s past sins. In reality, after the eight years of the Obama presidency, the Middle East was in chaos as terrorists and Islamists gained the upper hand in Libya, Yemen, Egypt, parts of Iraq, and Syria during the so-called “Arab Spring” and Iran’s geopolitical reach expanded in the region. Hardly the stuff of “peace,” but Obama’s criticism of the United States during his apology tour was reason enough to give him the “peace” prize. The Nobel Committee’s selection of an organization of survivors of the U.S. atomic bombings of Japan is meant to highlight the evils committed by the United States. President Obama visited Hiroshima in 2016, and while he did not expressly apologize for the dropping of the atomic bombs, he did note the suffering that resulted from the “terrible force unleashed” by the United States. He did not say that the bombings were justified, nor that they saved many more lives than they took. The “spectre of Hiroshima and Nagasaki” doesn’t haunt the world. The dropping of those two atomic bombs ended a terrible war and saved both American and Japanese lives. During the Cold War, the U.S. stockpile of nuclear weapons protected half the continent of Europe from communist enslavement. Today, it protects parts of eastern and northern Europe from Russian aggression. That same nuclear stockpile protected the freedom of Japan and South Korea during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and today protects those countries from communist China and North Korea. But the committee doesn’t want to consider nuclear weapons in historical context. Nuclear weapons helped prevent the outbreak of a third global war, yet the committee would not dare to give the peace prize to, say, Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb — a weapon that helped keep the general peace during crises that absent the H-bomb would likely have resulted in much larger and destructive wars. Today, Israel’s survival depends on its unrivaled nuclear stockpile in the Middle East, which is why its leaders acted to prevent Iraq from obtaining a nuclear weapon in 1981 and Syria from obtaining one in 2007. And it is why Israel will never knowingly allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Instead of praising the people and organizations who provide for and support deterrence of war, the Nobel Committee gives awards to people and organizations who advocate for the end of nuclear deterrence. Perhaps if they looked back at pre-nuclear history they might appreciate the deterrent value of nuclear weapons. The Napoleonic Wars of the early 19th century claimed between 3.2 million and 6.5 million lives. The First World War resulted in more than 18 million deaths. World War II caused between 35 million and 60 million deaths. There has been no global kinetic war since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear deterrence has thus far worked to avoid the kind of global war that in the past produced such enormous casualties. The nuclear genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Global wars are avoided by what Albert Wohlstetter called the “delicate balance of terror.” Too bad the Nobel Committee refuses to acknowledge this reality. The post The Nobel Committee’s Symbolism Over Substance appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

WASHINGTON — It’s been a little over a week since the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget sent a letter to Kamala Harris and Donald Trump suggesting they get serious about “skyrocketing” national debt, which now exceeds $35 trillion. Washington is spending $1.8 trillion more than it collects annually. “Our publicly held debt will soon surpass the entire size of the U.S. economy, and debt is projected to exceed its previous record, 106 percent of GDP, in 2027,” the letter warned. “At a projected cost of $892 billion this year, our nation already spends more on interest on the debt than we do on both national defense and all federal spending on children.” “The costs and promises just keep coming,” CRFB head Maya MacGuineas observed as we chatted over the phone Friday. As November nears, the candidates are dangling “expensive targeted breaks for groups of voters” with a “silly cynical patchwork of fiscal giveaways.” CRFB crunched the numbers from the Harris and Trump campaign troves and reported that Harris scored better than Trump. The fiscal watchdog group factored three outcomes — low impact, high impact, and in between — of each candidate’s proposals and figured the impact on the national debt for Plan Kamala could be as low as zero or as high as $8.1 trillion over 10 years starting in 2026. For Trump, the range could be as low as $1.45 trillion or as high as $15.15 trillion over the same period. That would be on top of the $1.8 trillion or so in debt that we already accumulate each year. Since the letter went out, MacGuineas noted, there has been another natural disaster, Hurricane Milton, and Harris promised to have Medicare fund at-home, long-term care and Trump promised a new tax break on car-loan interest. So those estimates can only grow. MacGuineas knows that the longer Washington puts off addressing America’s over-indebtedness, the more painful the remedy will be. Because really, the only way to eliminate the money gap and put federal spending on a sustainable path would be to address entitlement spending. But you don’t hear either candidate talking about fixing Social Security or Medicare. Instead, you hear about how they want to give away more money they don’t have. Part of the problem is there is no crisis, just more red ink every year; our finances resemble the frog in the pot on top of a fire. But it’s also true that with no crisis, this would be a perfect time to course-correct. The economy is strong enough to absorb the cost of what needs to be done. Shortly after MacGuineas and I spoke, the Wall Street Journal reported that JPMorgan Chase Chief Financial Officer Jeremy Barnum said on a conference call that after a recent interest rate cut, the U.S. economy is in a “kind of Goldilocks” situation. Inflation is at 2.44 percent right now. But when interest rates climb, the cost of paying off the mountains of U.S. debt will climb as well. So this would be a great time to right the ship, except that it’s an election year, and neither party wants to talk about paying the piper. Republicans aren’t talking about cutting government to right the ship, MacGuineas noted, and Democrats aren’t pushing for the broad tax hikes necessary to pay for their programs. I asked MacGuineas: What should voters be pushing for? A pledge from candidates, MacGuineas responded, and it’s simple: “No new borrowing until they fix this situation, barring emergencies.” That makes so much sense, you know it won’t happen. Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post Who Wants to Increase the National Debt? Both Trump and Harris appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from NEM721:  TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Eric Zuesse, The Duran: The neoconservative dream, ever since neoconservatism started on 25 July 1945, has been for the U.S. Government to take over the entire world, but this 79-year-old dream for them (nightmare for everyone else) has now practically ended, because after having played nuclear chicken against Russia ever since that date, the U.S. […]

Deep Purple's albums ranked, from patchy Purple to purple patches, from iconic albums to the one Ritchie Blackmore dubbed "cattle grazing" to the one with the new chap

Are the cures for the Harris slide far worse than the malady itself? The post The Scent of a Harris Panic in the Air appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

It gives us “the gayest political ad of all time”. The post Harris Campaign Actually Accomplishes Something appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

Norway gets slapped for recognizing Palestinian statehood. The post Israel to Norway: No Ambassador for You! appeared first on Frontpage Mag.