New California Law Limits How Much Water People Can Use – Including Monitoring Toilet Flushes, Showers

New California Law Limits How Much Water People Can Use – Including Monitoring Toilet Flushes, Showers

California Governor Jerry Brown signed a new law that would severely restrict the amount of water people can use inside of their homes.

The government of California will now be monitoring people’s toilet flushes, showers and laundry use.

Under the new water use limits, each person will barely have enough ‘water allowance’ to do one load of laundry and take an 8 minute shower. 

This also covers outdoor use so no watering your lawns or gardens, peasants. 

CBS Sacramento reported:

There will soon be more focus on flushes and scrutiny over showers with a new law signed in by the governor.

California is now the first state in the nation to enact tough new water-efficiency standards. The controversial rules limit how many gallons a person can use inside their home per day.

“So that everyone in California is at least integrating efficiency into our preparations for climate change,” said Felicia Marcus, Chair of the State Water Resources Control Board.

So, what are the new rules?

In 2022, the new indoor water standard will be 55 gallons per person, per day. by 2030, it will fall to 50 gallons.

Just how many gallons do household chores take?

An 8-minute shower uses about 17 gallons of water, a load of laundry up to 40, and a bathtub can hold 80 to 100 gallons of water.

Greg Bundesen with the Sacramento Suburban Water District says they already assist customers.

“We offer toilet rebates, we offer complementary showerheads, we offer complementary faucets,” he said.

The new laws also require water districts to perform stress tests of their water supply and curb loss due to leaks.

“Some people may not be aware that you’re going to use a lot more water in a bath and you wouldn’t shower and it’s our job to make sure they’re informed,” Bundesen said.

Water districts who don’t comply face fines up to $10,000 a day.

The ultimate goal is to make conservation a way of life in California. Outdoor water use is also covered by the new laws.

California is sliding into the abyss of totalitarian rule.

bill proposed in California would make the distribution of plastic straws illegal unless requested by a patron, with up to a $1,000 fine and jail time.

Now they’re monitoring toilet flushes and showers.

What’s next? Only allowing people to use one square of toilet paper per use just as Sheryl Crow used to push?

Back in 2007, far left singer Sheryl Crow wanted to control how much toilet paper people use. “One square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required,” said Sheryl Crow.

The left wants to bring us back to the dark ages. They will bring greater human misery to the masses claiming it is helping the environment.

Jerry Brown is more interested in monitoring how many times the people of California flush their toilets than he is monitoring the US-Mexico border where MS-13 gang members, drug cartels and illegals are spilling over into his state. Let that sink in.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Catholic League: SCOTUS Cakeshop Ruling Big Loss for ‘Gay Bullies’

Catholic League president Bill Donohue said Monday that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case was a “smashing victory for religious liberty” and a bruising defeat for “gay bullies.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Colorado baker Jack Phillips could not be coerced into making a cake to celebrate the wedding of a same-sex couple, which runs against his Christian beliefs on the nature of marriage.

The court ruled that Mr. Phillips had been the victim of religious hostility made manifest by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, one of whose members had called Phillips’ Christian beliefs on marriage “despicable.”

“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

The Court opted not to rule on the broader issue of whether the government can force people of faith to participate in same-sex weddings when the government does not show open hostility to their religious beliefs.

The Masterpiece case goes back to an incident in 2012 when Phillips refused to create a wedding cake to celebrate the marriage of two men in Massachusetts.

“I do not create custom designs that conflict with my conscience,” Phillips said, adding that, for the same reason, he does not make Halloween cakes.

Despite the ruling not going as far as it could have, Mr. Donahue said it represents an important milestone for religious freedom in America.

“Had the ruling gone the other way, black bakers would have to custom design cakes for Klansmen, Jewish bakers would have to inscribe cakes for Nazis, and gay bakers would have to make personalized cakes for gay bashers,” he said.

“This is a landmark victory for both religious liberty and freedom of speech. The bullies lost a big one,” Donahue added. “Those who lecture on bullying should discuss this case in their presentations, but we all know that the ‘tolerant’ ones who run these workshops will not.”

The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights is the largest Catholic civil rights organization in the United States and aims “to safeguard both the religious freedom rights and the free speech rights of Catholics whenever and wherever they are threatened.”

Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter .

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

Search for Child Suspended When Mother Found Dead, Illegal Immigrant Boyfriend Suspected

The search for missing 14-month-old Owen Hidalgo-Calderon has been suspended after the body of his 18-year-old mother Selena Hidalgo-Calderon was found on May 24 in Upstate New York.

After twelve days of combing the area, authorities are almost certain that the body of the baby boy is not located on the property where his mother was found. “It doesn’t mean that he’s not … but we are at over 90 percent probability of detection,” said state forest ranger Lt. Charles Richardson, adding that “right now there’s really no need for us to continue searching here until we get other information.”

Wayne County Sheriff Barry Virts said, “At this time we have expended all of the current information and clues that we have, so we are going shut down the search.”

Owen was last seen on May 16. While the active search has ended, the investigation will continue. 25-year-old Everardo Donoteo-Reyes is a suspect in Selena’s death but has not been formally charged. Immigration has said that Donoteo-Reyes is an illegal Mexican immigrant and has already been deported twice. He has confessed to burying the woman but not killing her.

While not charged in the investigation, he has been charged with tampering with evidence and possessing counterfeit documents. He is scheduled to appear in court on June 4.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

GOP Leaders, Candidates Split Over Immigration in November Election

GOP leaders are betting their House majority on voters’ supposed gratitude for the 2017 tax cut, but GOP candidates are betting their seats on public opposition to more cheap-labor immigration in 2019.

The leaders’ risky focus on taxes was highlighted by election forecaster Charlie Cook, who told a mid-May meeting of GOP leaders:

that the tax cut did help among Republican voters, but helped only a little and temporarily among independents and did nothing with Democratic voters … The essence of what I said was that if they were going to rely primarily on the tax cuts to hang onto their majority, they were unlikely to succeed.

Cook’s comments were posted by Axios, which also reported that:

A non-leadership source told me it should be a wake up call to leadership, who are fixated on using tax reform as a selling point to voters. But leadership sources disputed that to me, saying tax reform is just one message in their toolkit, though an important one.

GOP leaders diverted attention away from migration by scheduling briefings from two pollsters who have long had close ties to pro-migration business lobbies. Axios reported:

Some were unimpressed by Cook’s presentation and felt that other pollsters who presented to the group — including Kristen Soltis Anderson and David Winston — gave compelling reasons to think messages of tax reform and economic growth would help them this year.

But GOP candidates are focusing on the immigration issue, despite the GOP leaders’ effort to tout taxes. On May 29, USA Today reported how the GOP candidates are spending their advertising dollars:

WASHINGTON – House Republican candidates are blanketing the airwaves with TV ads embracing a hard line on immigration — a dramatic shift from the midterm elections in 2014, according to a USA TODAY analysis of data from Kantar Media.

Republicans have aired more than 14,000 campaign ads touting a tough Trump-style immigration platform this year. The barrage underscores why House GOP leaders worry that passing a legislative fix for undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children, referred to as DREAMers, would put GOP candidates at risk heading into the fall election …

“Just about every survey I’ve seen shows that among Republican primary voters, immigration is one of the most important issues, if not the most important,” said Brian Murray, a GOP consultant based in Arizona.

So far, most of the candidate advertising avoids a clash with donors by highlighting the problems about illegal migration and sanctuary cities — but not the damage caused to Americans’ wages by donor-preferred amnesties and cheap-labor.

Many polls show that the GOP candidates’ focus on immigration is a safer bet than the GOP leaders’ focus on tax raises.

For example, the 2018 Battleground Tracker poll by YouGov and CBS showed that 45 percent of likely voters say immigration has worsened their communities, while 42 percent said it had made no difference, and only 13.5 percent said immigration was good for their area. That’s a 31.5 point gap between those who say immigration is good or bad in these swing districts.

In contrast, the tracker poll showed tax issues have a minimal impact. Only 34 percent of independents said the tax-cut was good for them, while 18 percent said it was bad. That is a 16-point advantage, or half the 31.5 percent GOP-advantage in the immigration issue.

The tracker poll was conducted in late May poll. It included 5,923 registered voters in 64 districts, including the districts held by the GOP legislators who are pushing the amnesty-discharge petition. That means the poll included hundreds of registered voters in the districts of GOP Reps. Jeff Denham and Dave Valadao, plus Florida’s Chris Curbelo and Texas’s Will Hurd — and thousands of voters in districts held by the 23 GPO legislators who have signed the petition.

Similarly, a May poll of 1,347 registered voters by the Harvard-Harris showed that 27 percent of independents regard immigration as one of the top three issues “the most important issues facing the country today,” just one point less than the 28 percent who said the economy is the most important issue, and 4 points less than the 31 percent who say healthcare is the most important issue.

Only 9 percent of independents tagged taxes as one of the top three most important issues.

Among the GOP voters, 41 percent said immigration was one of the top three issues. Only 14 percent identified taxes as one of the three top issues. Only 28 percent of GOP voters said the economy was one of the top three issues.

Pulse Opinion Research conducted a poll in Denham’s district of Jeff Denham, one of the loudest advocates for the amnesty petition, and also a beneficiary of the CLF funding. A no-strings amnesty matching Denham’s proposal was opposed by 60 percent of 545 likely voters — and by 50 percent of the roughly 220 Hispanics in the poll, which was funded by pro-reform group, NumbersUSA.

Nonetheless, GOP leaders are zig-zagging their way towards approving an unpopular amnesty for 2 million illegals via the discharge-petition process.

That is s a risky course, admitted Dehnam, the leader of the discharge-amnesty push. In a June 1 article published by the New York Times, Denham said:

There have been some critics who say that this [discharge-petition strategy] could cost us our majority. My concern is if we do nothing, it could cost us our majority. So yes, it’s risky.

This process is being pushed and funded by GOP donors, including donors who say they will close their checkbook to the leaders unless they more cheap workers via an amnesty.

The GOP legislators who support the discharge petition echo the donor’s business-first policy. For example, Florida Rep. Carlos Curbelo told the Washington Post that “the party should stand for an immigration system that complements our economy, that is compassionate to the victims of illegal immigration.”

In contrast, Trump was elected by GOP voters who want pro-American immigration reform, not the current business-first immigration rules. 

“I think it’s time to get the whole package,” Trump told Fox News’ anchor Brian Kilmeade in May. “It’s time to get the whole package … We’re going to change the system — we have no choice for the good of our country.” He continued:

A [visa] lottery is ridiculous, you know. I mean, they take people from the lottery where you can imagine these countries are not putting their finest in that lottery, so I don’t like the lottery. Chain migration is a disaster, and you look at what’s going on where somebody comes in who’s bad and yet they’ll have 24 members of a family, not one of them do you want in this country. So chain migration is terrible, lottery is terrible … [and] we have to get rid of catch and release.

Despite the views of voters and the President, House speaker Paul Ryan is convening a caucus meeting on June 7 to talk about the discharge-petition amnesty. But Ryan has the authority to block the amnesty vote by simply declaring the House is not in session on the two days allowed for the vote, June 25 and July 23.

Ryan’s deputies at the National Republican Congressional Committee are ignoring the immigration issue in the 2018 election. Instead, the committees’ ads and funding-pitches are dominated by praise for tax cuts and by threats about a return of Rep. Nancy Pelosi to the Speaker’s chair.

For example, a May 27 fund-raising pitch from Ryan said:

You – the American people – DESERVE a House that will work with President Trump to continue to grow this economy, create jobs, and make things better for the American people. After all, this is the agenda you voted for. We already know what Nancy Pelosi and her far-left allies bring to the table: obstruction, higher taxes, and failed big government policies.

A May 29 fundraising pitch from the third-ranking House GOP leader, Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise, said:

This is Nancy Pelosi’s last stand. She is trying everything to ensure she becomes Speaker. If she fails, her fellow Democrats will turn on her to save themselves.

From April 24 to June 4, the NRCC’s Twitter account cited Pelosi 26 times and taxes 50 times — but did do not mention immigration or amnesty even once.

Any June 4 NRCC email asked for donations in honor Trump’s birthday — without mentioning migration:

Over the past two years, President Trump has fought to advance conservative values, cut taxes, and strengthen our economy. He is helping get hard-working Americans back on their feet, and we think he should have an abundance of signatures that reflects gratitude for his successful conservative agenda.

But the issue of lower immigration and higher wages is pushing its way to the front of voters’ attention, Don Trump, Jr. told Breitbart News radio. “The forgotten men that we campaigned on—they’re getting the real benefit” via rising wages, he said, adding:

They’re getting better wages. There’s more demand for their work. They’re able to do that. They’re able to support their families better. That helps their family structure. Everything—I mean, this is what we campaigned on. This is what my father ran on. This is helping the people in what was the forgotten land everywhere between New York City and Malibu that the Democratic Party establishment has forgotten about for decades.

 

 

 

 

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

Policy Allowing Children to Identify as Transgender Without Parental Permission Reversed

The administration of Delaware Gov. John Carney, a Democrat, has reversed a prior policy proposal that would have allowed children to identify as transgender at school without notifying their parents or obtaining their permission.

Delaware education secretary Susan Bunting reversed course after reviewing some 11,000 comments, the majority opposed to the original provision that was termed an “anti-discrimination” policy.

Bunting’s office said the new version of the policy:

  • Removes the provision that allowed students to make changes on how they were identified without parental involvement and adds a requirement of parental notification and permission; and
  • Substitutes the state’s suggested model policy for a guidance document to assist districts and charters in creating local policies.

The original transgender provision was drafted by a panel consisting of educators, parents, and advocates appointed by Bunting.

In response to the overwhelming number of comments opposed to the original policy, Bunting also changed the purpose of the policy from one that would serve as a model that all school districts in the state would be urged to adopt, to one simply providing “guidance to assist school districts and charter schools in creating an anti-discrimination policy.”

According to the News Journal, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Delaware said in response to the reversal that “students who are transgender will not be treated consistent with their core identity or accommodated in any way unless the school requests permission from a parent or guardian.”

The ACLU added the rule will “sacrifice the interests of some of Delaware’s most vulnerable young people in order to appease adults who do not believe in protecting the civil rights of people who are transgender.”

Another group, however, known as United Opposition to DE Regulation 225, said the reversal is “a victory.”

Jonathan Starkey, Carney’s spokesperson, released a statement about the reversal.

“We understand that there are strong feelings on all sides of this issue,” he said, according to WHYY. “There has been a significant amount of public feedback. Secretary Bunting and her team have carefully considered that feedback, and incorporated it into the updated regulation that was published today.”

“We believe the final product will help local districts craft policies that protect students, and involve families every step of the way in these discussions,” Starkey added.

The new policy states:

A school shall request permission from the parent or legal guardian before accommodating a request by a minor student that the school take action to recognize a change in any Protected Characteristic. Prior to requesting such permission, to safeguard the health, safety and well-being of the student, the school shall discuss with the student the permission process and, based on its discussions with the student, assess the degree to which the parent or legal guardian is aware of the change to the Protected Characteristic. If the student does not permit the school to request permission from the parent or legal guardian, then the request to take action shall not be accepted.

“They have created a policy now that in the end does not protect children,’’ said Andrea Rashbaum, a panel member and mother of a child who claims to be transgender. “The idea behind the policy was to protect children and it was to help children who may not have help in other ways. They may not have the social network, may be bullied in school and may not have parents’ support.”

However, state Rep. Rich Collins, a Republican, said the provision would have made parents’ rights subservient to students’ rights.

“I am cautiously optimistic that they have restored parental rights in education Regulation 225,” Collins said Friday. “Assuming that it is exactly as they said, then certainly it is a good thing that parents have been informed.”

Parent Emily Zinos tweeted, “When one parent speaks up, another parent is emboldened to do the same.”

“On and on it goes until thousands have the courage to say gender identity is a lie that hurts children,” she added. “And that’s when school officials start listening.”

Since the policy is a direct reversal of the previous one, Bunting’s office is allowing another public comment period until July 6.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

A closer look at SCOTUS’s gay cake decision

The Supreme Court decided 7-2 that cake-maker Jack Phillips apparently did not have to make a cake for a homosexual ceremony.  I say “apparently” because the court’s reasoning was convoluted.  Instead of saying outright that custom cake-makers don’t have an obligation to produce custom made cakes for homosexual cermonies, the court simply said the local human rights commission didn’t consider his right to follow his religious belief when he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.


By a 7-2 vote, the court said Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker, was treated with hostility and bias by a state commission that concluded his actions violated a state anti-discrimination law.



“The commission’s hostility [to Phillips and his religious beliefs] was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” [Justice] Kennedy wrote.  “Phillips was entitled to a neutral decision-maker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection.”


So the Court decided for Phillips without giving a broader ruling.


“The outcome of other cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” said Kennedy, who has authored most of the court’s most significant gay rights cases.


This may seem puzzling until you consider the composition of the court.  In the seven-member majority were four of the court’s conservatives, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr.; Neil M. Gorsuch; and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.  Also joining the decision were two hard-left justices, Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan.  The opinion was written by Justice Kennedy.


It’s unlikely whether Justices Breyer and Kagan, who are doctrinaire leftists, would have agreed to a broader ruling.  Even so, they wouldn’t have been needed if Justice Kennedy had been inclined to give a broader opinion.


Justice Kennedy created the “right” of two men or two women to “marry” out of thin air several years ago, and now he is making up the law as he goes along.  He has not yet decided how far this newly created right goes, and since he is unmoored by the framework of the Constitution, he is choosing, for now, to decide these disputes on a case-by-case basis.  This is what happens when you abandon an established body of law and operate based on feelings.  Not only do you throw out consistency, but you make it hard to apply the law consistently because there is no consistent law to apply.


So there will continue to be huge clusters of litigation about people who are coerced into participating in same-sex ceremonies.  Perhaps people who design wedding cakes will not be forced into participating, although that is not entirely clear from this opinion.  Probably people who provide goods for weddings, such as flowers or tables or tablecloths, will be required to do so.


What about businesspeople who have to participate in weddings, such as caterers, photographers, and musicians?  The First Amendment has been held to protect freedom of association, but with freedom of association must also logically come freedom from association.  It is one thing to sell the fish that are eaten at a gay ceremony, but it’s another to actually have to go to the ceremony to fry it.


Homosexuals have been free to pursue relationships with each other for a long time.  What has changed is that everyone else has been forced to accept it and now at times even participate in it.  I saw an amazing opinion piece in the New York Times yesterday from a gay rights advocate who suggested amending the Constitution to protect gay rights.  That would have been a much better course for the country, whether it succeeded or not, than what the Supreme Court did: informally amending the Constitution on its own and playing by ear, with the whirlwind of lawsuits created by its irresponsibility.


Ed Straker is the senior writer at Newsmachete.com.


The Supreme Court decided 7-2 that cake-maker Jack Phillips apparently did not have to make a cake for a homosexual ceremony.  I say “apparently” because the court’s reasoning was convoluted.  Instead of saying outright that custom cake-makers don’t have an obligation to produce custom made cakes for homosexual cermonies, the court simply said the local human rights commission didn’t consider his right to follow his religious belief when he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.


By a 7-2 vote, the court said Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker, was treated with hostility and bias by a state commission that concluded his actions violated a state anti-discrimination law.


“The commission’s hostility [to Phillips and his religious beliefs] was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” [Justice] Kennedy wrote.  “Phillips was entitled to a neutral decision-maker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection.”


So the Court decided for Phillips without giving a broader ruling.


“The outcome of other cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” said Kennedy, who has authored most of the court’s most significant gay rights cases.


This may seem puzzling until you consider the composition of the court.  In the seven-member majority were four of the court’s conservatives, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr.; Neil M. Gorsuch; and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.  Also joining the decision were two hard-left justices, Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan.  The opinion was written by Justice Kennedy.


It’s unlikely whether Justices Breyer and Kagan, who are doctrinaire leftists, would have agreed to a broader ruling.  Even so, they wouldn’t have been needed if Justice Kennedy had been inclined to give a broader opinion.


Justice Kennedy created the “right” of two men or two women to “marry” out of thin air several years ago, and now he is making up the law as he goes along.  He has not yet decided how far this newly created right goes, and since he is unmoored by the framework of the Constitution, he is choosing, for now, to decide these disputes on a case-by-case basis.  This is what happens when you abandon an established body of law and operate based on feelings.  Not only do you throw out consistency, but you make it hard to apply the law consistently because there is no consistent law to apply.


So there will continue to be huge clusters of litigation about people who are coerced into participating in same-sex ceremonies.  Perhaps people who design wedding cakes will not be forced into participating, although that is not entirely clear from this opinion.  Probably people who provide goods for weddings, such as flowers or tables or tablecloths, will be required to do so.


What about businesspeople who have to participate in weddings, such as caterers, photographers, and musicians?  The First Amendment has been held to protect freedom of association, but with freedom of association must also logically come freedom from association.  It is one thing to sell the fish that are eaten at a gay ceremony, but it’s another to actually have to go to the ceremony to fry it.


Homosexuals have been free to pursue relationships with each other for a long time.  What has changed is that everyone else has been forced to accept it and now at times even participate in it.  I saw an amazing opinion piece in the New York Times yesterday from a gay rights advocate who suggested amending the Constitution to protect gay rights.  That would have been a much better course for the country, whether it succeeded or not, than what the Supreme Court did: informally amending the Constitution on its own and playing by ear, with the whirlwind of lawsuits created by its irresponsibility.


Ed Straker is the senior writer at Newsmachete.com.




via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

China Flight Tests New Multi-Warhead ICBM

China moved closer to deploying its newest and most lethal strategic weapon by conducting the 10th flight test of the DF-41 intercontinental-range missile last week.

Defense officials said the flight test of the multi-warhead DF-41 took place May 27 at the Taiyuan Space Launch Center in northern China and flew overland several thousand miles to an impact zone in the western Gobi Desert.

"We are aware of recent flight tests and we continue to monitor weapons development in China but we cannot provide information on specific tests," Pentagon spokesman Marine Corps Lt. Col. Christopher Logan told the Washington Free Beacon.

The flight test comes amid growing tensions between the United States and China over Beijing’s militarization of islands in the South China Sea and a looming trade war over the Trump administration’s aggressive posture toward unfair Chinese trade practices.

The flight test last week was the 10th known launch of the DF-41 that will be armed with up to 10 multiple, independently targetable reentry vehicles or MIRV warheads.

The intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) system will be deployed on a road-mobile ICBM capable of targeting all of the United States. The mobility and ability to hide the weapon from intelligence detection poses serious challenges for U.S. strategic nuclear deterrence.

CSS-X-20 ICBM

China’s state media have said the DF-41 will be capable of being armed with up to 10 warheads each with a yield of 150 kilotons, or single, massive, 5.5 megaton warhead. A kiloton is the equivalent of 1,000 tons of TNT; a megaton is equal to 1 million tons.

The addition of multiple warheads to all of China’s ICBMs represents a substantial increase in the number of warheads in the arsenal capable of ranging all of the United States.

China made no mention of the latest flight test in state controlled media.

However, Chinese authorities announced in an international notice to airmen the closure of airspace on May 27 along a flight path used past DF-41 tests, according to Henri Kenhmann, who runs the East Pendulum blog that monitors Chinese military developments.

The main Communist Party newspaper reported in December that the DF-41 is one of Beijing’s most potent new weapons. The People’s Daily said the DF-41 would be fielded early in 2018 and has a range of over 7,500 miles.

As in the past, the latest DF-41 flight test appeared timed to send a political message to the United States.

CCTV-warheadsThe most recent test took place days before a U.S. trade delegation headed by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross visited China for talks.

China issued a statement Sunday warning that if the Trump administration goes ahead with plans to impose $50 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods that Beijing would break off past trade accords.

"If the United States introduces trade sanctions including tariffs, all the economic and trade achievements negotiated by the two parties will be void," the official Xinhua news agency said.

Before last week, the most recent DF-41 flight test took place Nov. 6—two days before President Trump visited Beijing in what military analysts said was an intentional show of force prior to the presidential visit.

A report made public last year by the National Air and Space Intelligence Center said the DF-41 is a new road-mobile ICBM likely capable of carrying MIRV payloads.

"The number of warheads on Chinese ICBMs capable of threatening the United States is expected to grow to well over 100 in the next five years," the report said, noting China’s Strategic Rocket Force "continues to have the most active and diverse ballistic missile development program in the world."

"It is developing and testing offensive missiles, forming additional missile units, qualitatively upgrading missile systems, and developing methods to counter ballistic missile defenses," the report said.

Rick Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said the 10th flight test is a significant milestone.

The test "means this mobile, solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile is much closer to deployment, in both its road-mobile and rail-mobile versions," Fisher said.

"As the missile already has been tested with up to 10 new small warheads, it can be expected that the DF-41 may also become an early carrier of China’s developing nuclear and non-nuclear maneuverable hypersonic glide vehicle warheads," Fisher added.

Hypersonic glide vehicle warheads, when deployed in the next several years will provide China with a capability the United States has sought to develop through its non-nuclear rapid strike system known as Prompt Global Strike concept, he said.

Additionally, the DF-41 is expected to accelerate China’s development of a next-generation JL-3 submarine-launched ballistic missile for the new Type 096 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine that is expected to come on line in the early 2020s.

"China’s rapidly modernizing intercontinental nuclear and non-nuclear strike capabilities undermines the credibility of America’s extended nuclear deterrent upon which so many U.S. allies have come to depend," Fisher said.

"Washington must rapidly redeploy theater tactical nuclear weapons or some U.S. allies could opt for their own nuclear deterrent in the face of China’s growing missile threats."

Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of the Strategic Command, told a congressional hearing in March that the Chinese and Russian nuclear buildups are behind plans for the Untied States to build a new sea-launched nuclear cruise missile.

"The threat is from both Russia and China that drives the need for the sea-launched cruise missile," Hyten said.

A senior Strategic Command official told the Free Beacon earlier this year that plans for new low-yield nuclear warheads were prompted by China’s large-scale deployment of medium- and intermediate-range nuclear missiles, and Russia’s treaty-violating ground-launched medium-range nuclear cruise missile.

To deal with the China threat, Strategic Command recommended deploying a new sea-launched missile, to be fired from either a surface warship or submarine.

The new smaller warheads, that can be developed from the existing primary nuclear warheads currently in the arsenal, were recommended in the Pentagon’s recent Nuclear Posture Review completed in February.

The review warned that China is engaged in a large-scale buildup that includes future deployment of the DF-41 that the Pentagon calls the CSS-X-20.

"China continues to increase the number, capabilities, and protection of its nuclear forces," the report said, noting excessive secrecy surrounding the build up.

The Pentagon report mentioned the DF-41 as one of the major worries.

"China has developed a new road-mobile strategic intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), a new multi-warhead version of its DF-5 silo-based ICBM, and its most advanced ballistic missile submarine armed with new submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM). It has also announced development of a new nuclear-capable strategic bomber, giving China a nuclear triad. China has also deployed a nuclear-capable precision guided DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile capable of attacking land and naval targets.

A Chinese Embassy spokesman did not return an email seeking comment on the missile test.

China’s Defense Ministry has said in the past in response to an earlier DF-41 test that it was common for missile tests to be carried out for scientific research.

"Such tests are not aimed at any specific country and target," the ministry said in response to an April 2017 DF-41 test.

The post China Flight Tests New Multi-Warhead ICBM appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://freebeacon.com

Conservative America’s mainstream media war

For years, mainstream media have waged an incessant, calculated war upon conservative America. 


However, following a seismic presidential election, where a deadpan populist movement ruled, the wounded modern-day propaganda blitzkrieg has doubled down. 



To show their teeth, staggered liberal executives unleashed the largest campaign of out-group bias ever aimed toward a political opponent.  Brash everyday progressives have followed suit.  Motivated by a consequence-free atmosphere of conservative-bashing, sermonized by the nation’s largest corporations, why wouldn’t they?


What an enlightened time for the “compassionate party.”  What a trying time for a conservative.


Now set in overdrive, the engine of elitist rhetoric advanced recently by claiming the professional career of Roseanne Barr, as comedienne Samantha Bee took verbal potshots at Ivanka Trump and Antifa launched yet another Portland attack. 


With respect to Barr and Ivanka, as the machine rolls, Antifa’s latest round of thinly veiled criminal activism looms most urgent.


This is due to the climate of fear Alt-Lefters seek to evoke. 


One must imagine how ardently mainstream media salivate whenever their henchmen punctuate the group’s larger conceptual message with a violent outburst.  Clearly, that message is, in America circa 2018, that conservatism will not be tolerated. 


But, as proven by Election 2016, even in the face of its sternest test from a crafty, often belligerent foe, conservative America is resilient and will not fade.


To illustrate that point, conservatives didn’t blink when George Soros and Jeff Zucker politicized a tragic event while positioning children as manipulative pawns in Parkland’s wake.  Nor did they cave when Twitter declared its political intentions by overtly purging right-leaning users.  Nor do they fall in a society now programmed to “think left.”


In short, no weapon formed against Patriot America shall prosper – not even the most potent: the media.


For years, mainstream media have waged an incessant, calculated war upon conservative America. 


However, following a seismic presidential election, where a deadpan populist movement ruled, the wounded modern-day propaganda blitzkrieg has doubled down. 


To show their teeth, staggered liberal executives unleashed the largest campaign of out-group bias ever aimed toward a political opponent.  Brash everyday progressives have followed suit.  Motivated by a consequence-free atmosphere of conservative-bashing, sermonized by the nation’s largest corporations, why wouldn’t they?


What an enlightened time for the “compassionate party.”  What a trying time for a conservative.


Now set in overdrive, the engine of elitist rhetoric advanced recently by claiming the professional career of Roseanne Barr, as comedienne Samantha Bee took verbal potshots at Ivanka Trump and Antifa launched yet another Portland attack. 


With respect to Barr and Ivanka, as the machine rolls, Antifa’s latest round of thinly veiled criminal activism looms most urgent.


This is due to the climate of fear Alt-Lefters seek to evoke. 


One must imagine how ardently mainstream media salivate whenever their henchmen punctuate the group’s larger conceptual message with a violent outburst.  Clearly, that message is, in America circa 2018, that conservatism will not be tolerated. 


But, as proven by Election 2016, even in the face of its sternest test from a crafty, often belligerent foe, conservative America is resilient and will not fade.


To illustrate that point, conservatives didn’t blink when George Soros and Jeff Zucker politicized a tragic event while positioning children as manipulative pawns in Parkland’s wake.  Nor did they cave when Twitter declared its political intentions by overtly purging right-leaning users.  Nor do they fall in a society now programmed to “think left.”


In short, no weapon formed against Patriot America shall prosper – not even the most potent: the media.




via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Leftists Here And Abroad Seething After New Italian Leader Pledges To Rain HELLFIRE On Illegals/Migrants

He doesn’t give two hoots, though! ………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. …………………… ………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. …………………… While the framework of Italy’s complicated […]

via Downtrend.com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://downtrend.com