In my new formatting, once you click on this link (Please click here to read the rest of my Memo . . . ) and the new memo appears, off to the right are future memos that I have written and scheduled to be sent at a later date. If you wish to read them in advance you can do so.
Prior to Virginia, the Senate Seat of Republican Adam Laxalt of Nevada was in play but it now appears it could be a toss-up. I mention this to show Virginia has national implications and suggests American voters are catching on and awakening.
This is why it is critical for Biden to keep the border open and gushing with illegals so a new class of clueless enslaved pawn Democrat voters, like the blacks and Hispanics have been for decades, can be replicated. Republicans have partially re-captured the working man and are beginning to make in- roads in the black and Hispanic community as political tectonic plates shift.
Consequently, though Biden told a FOX Reporter the rumor about paying tax payer money to illegals, separated from their families was not true if one takes the time to read the latest WSJ article it turns out to be another Biden Lie. Why? Because he is amenable to the idea and the Justice Department has fallen in line
Meanwhile, the Biden administration is engaged in shipping underaged across borders to engage in narcotic distribution and prostitution, now they are paying enormous tax payor funds to illegals in order to gain future voters and law enforcement has become random. This is your government folks.
As Durham moves forward the web/net spreads/expands and more appear vulnerable to indictment and eventually, I believe, it will ensnare Hillary and the DNC. If Durham is allowed to continue it will be the biggest act of voter fraud/theft ever perpetrated/orchestrated in the history of our nation. In addition to Hillary it could also involve Obama and possibly Biden in my opinion. Will the current AG allow it to go that far? This is the man who likens parents to terrorists.
If Glick is right she has added another dimension to this theft. It is the purposeful intention of ruining Gen. Flynn because the State Department and Intelligence agencies were filled with those who have an animus towards Israel and thus, wanted to gut Flynn's foreign plan to cripple Iran through sanctions while concurrently assisting Israel by dis-embowelling Iran's nuclear program. While this was underway the FBI was doing everything in their power to spy on Trump and throw roadblocks in the way of his administration .
While I am advancing my views, I would like to make another point as pertains to Biden and Trump's initial appointments.
In the case of Biden, most of his appointments are people of inexperience and radical viewpoints. In the case of Trump, his appointments were because of his own inexperience and lack of knowing much about D.C. Consequently, his administration got off to a rocky start and it took an inordinate amount of time before he was able to get a solid team constructed. Add to this the determined and coordinated effort to go after his administration at virtually every turn and it is amazing he was able to even form a government.
However, here is the fundamental difference. Trump fired and changed his people until he had the team he wanted. Whereas, Biden has continued to structure an administration based on everything but competence. They are sexually diversified, color coordinated and radical in terms of their political, economic and societal views. Few have ever held a job outside of government and politics and , I submit, this is why everything Biden has undertaken has been an abject failure.
Trump was constantly attacked for firing, Biden sticks with failures. Trump had a number of successes, Biden has orchestrated a number of disasters. The mass media attacked Trump at every opportunity, they allow Biden to duck everything and anything.
It is hard to tell when Biden is lying because he is not always conversant with what is happening nor cognizant of what he is saying. I continue to believe the "Pablum" he is fed comes from Obama holdovers who are busy helping the former president have a third term behind the White House curtains.
While on the subject of "formers" I also believe I will be vindicated, in time, for espousing Hillary Clinton will eventually be entrapped for being up to her armpits in the "Steele Dossier." If so, she should spend some jail time but we have not yet, reached the point of Lady Justice being totally blind.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Senator Kennedy and I are on the same page (edited:)
Friend,
There are two things in this world that I can't stand, and the Radical Left is three of them!
Between a Saints football game, my family, and my two dogs, there isn't much else that gives me the same satisfaction as kicking the crud out of Chuck Schumer's agenda and his radical wokers... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The authors never heard of "fusion power."
Nuclear Power Is the Best Climate-Change Solution by Far
Its total greenhouse-gas emissions are 1/700th those of coal—and one-fourth those of solar.
By Andrew I. Fillat and Henry I. Miller
Politics seems to have become inimical to critical thinking, and nowhere is this more obvious than climate change. Politicians peddle apocalypse and demand that Americans accept skyrocketing gasoline and home heating costs, rolling blackouts and brownouts, endless subsidies for uneconomic vehicles and power generation, and on and on.
Wishful thinking and flawed assumptions are the order of the day. Climate models assume that humans will fail to adapt to changing conditions, instead allowing floodwaters to rise unabated, wildfires to burn, and farms to fail. The U.S. contribution to global greenhouse-gas emissions is substantial but falling. By 2025, it could be 14% to 18% below 2005 levels. The U.S. should not put on a self-destructive show for the rest of the world.
Either for ideology or profit, climate activists promote wind and solar solutions despite the enormous carbon footprint to manufacture them, their intermittent energy production, and the monstrous cost and pollution required to manufacture and dispose of batteries for green backup. But the single greatest sin is the demonization of nuclear power, including the shutdown of existing nuclear plants that remain serviceable. Moreover, significant advances in nuclear power plant design that have improved efficiency and safety have been ignored.
Jacopo Buongiorno, a nuclear-engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has calculated that over the life cycle of power plants, which includes construction, mining, transport, operation, decommissioning and disposal of waste, the greenhouse-gas emissions for nuclear power are 1/700th those of coal, 1/400th of gas, and one-fourth of solar. Nuclear also requires 1/2,000th as much land as wind and around 1/400th as much as solar. For any given power output, the amount of raw material used to build a nuclear plant is a small fraction of an equivalent solar or wind farm. Although nuclear waste is obviously more difficult to dispose of, its volume is 1/10,000th that of solar and 1/500th of wind. This includes abandoned infrastructure and all the toxic substances that end up in landfills. One person’s lifetime use of nuclear power would produce about a half-ounce of waste. Even including the Chernobyl disaster, human mortality from coal is 2,000 to 3,000 times that of nuclear, while oil claims 400 times as many lives.
Although the federal government tends to resist nuclear power, many nuclear technologies are being investigated and funded by private capital including molten-salt reactors, liquid-metal reactors, advanced small modular reactors, microreactors and much more. More than 70 development projects are under way in the U.S., with many designs intended to create assembly-line construction facilities to simplify and standardize testing, licensing and installations. One appealing approach is to replace large-scale facilities with many smaller but safer, cheaper and more-manageable ones. The $10 billion 10-year planning and implementation cycle for a large nuclear plant can be cut in half with a small modular reactor and another half with a microreactor.
We could deploy SMRs today if we could surmount the negative propaganda about the nuclear industry. Microreactors could generate between 1 and 20 megawatts of power (enough to provide electricity to 500 to 20,000 homes) while needing to refuel only once every five to 10 years. They are air-cooled, capable of being shut down rapidly with no risk of radioactive release and occupy small spaces.
If we can get past the political hurdles, microreactors can be used in diverse applications such as charging stations for electrical vehicles and propulsion for large commercial ships. They could also power data centers, large factories, desalination plants and more. Heat generation is essential for many manufacturing processes, and microreactors can provide that directly without burning fossil fuels. It is worth noting that the U.S. Navy has employed shipboard nuclear reactors for more than 50 years with no significant problems or mishaps.
Nuclear power is cheap, efficient, extremely reliable and nearly carbon-free. New designs, including smaller reactors, drastically reduce the risk of large-scale radioactive contamination.
We need to stop wasting trillions of dollars on strategies that punish American citizens and businesses while China and India increase their greenhouse-gas emissions. The U.S. could set an example for the world with the ultimate infrastructure project: building and deploying advanced nuclear-power plants that painlessly accelerate our decarbonization. Sacrifice isn’t always the path to progress.
Mr. Fillat, an electrical engineer, has worked for technology venture-capital and information-technology companies. Dr. Miller is a physician and molecular biologist, and a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute.
Anti-Israel bias in one of America’s biggest newspapers matters
The latest spate of slanted articles in “The New York Times” is important because the writers and editors demonstrate how the shift in the culture has turned against Jews and Israel.
JONATHAN S. TOBIN
(November 4, 2021 / JNS) It’s not true that biased reporting about the Middle East has no impact on Israel. In the last week, a New York Times feature about a road trip taken by two of its staff through the small country generated a surge of interest on Twitter from Israelis. The 5,000-word article paints a dismal picture. Just about everyone they met as they traveled from the northern border with Lebanon to the southern port of Eilat was dissatisfied and disillusioned with the country. The Israel they depicted was dysfunctional, deeply divided and generally miserable. It was all summed up by one elderly Israeli quoted in the piece who said if his father, who had helped found one of the nation’s kibbutzim in the pre-state era, were to look at the country now, he’d say, “ ‘This wasn’t the child we prayed for.’ And then he’d return to his grave.”
While most Israelis will tell you they don’t read or care about foreign press coverage, this story generated a mass response. While few would deny that their nation has a lot of problems and that its politics are pretty crazy, they also take pride in the fact that surveys have consistently shown that it is also one of the happiest places on earth. Measuring happiness is complicated, but when you take into account responses about people’s satisfaction in their lives, pollsters have come up with a fairly objective standard. And it shows that Israel ranks 12th in the world (up from 13th the year before) in the happiness index of its citizens, ranking only below some Scandinavian and European countries, as well as New Zealand.
So to show the Times and its readers their contempt for this sort of shoddy agenda-driven writing, a Twitter hashtag was created called #SadSadIsrael in which Israelis posted pictures of them enjoying their lives from north to south and everywhere in-between. Scanning those posts actually provides readers with a much better picture of what life in Israel really looks like.
Why did the Times writers come up with such a different picture? Call it confirmation bias or just prejudiced reporting; the result was perfectly in line with the paper’s general tone of coverage of Israel. Their journey was intended to produce exactly what they pre-ordained. They went looking for a particular idea about the country, and that’s what they found.
The same applies to a subsequent article in the upcoming issue of the Times Sunday Magazine with the portentous title of “Inside the Unraveling of American Zionism.” It focuses on the 93 rabbinical and cantorial students who signed a letter condemning Israel during the fighting with Hamas last May. Subsequently published in the Forward, the letter was a disgraceful and self-important rant filled with virtue signaling and pseudo-religious contempt for Israel that displayed the signers’ tunnel vision about the conflict and lack of understanding of the dilemmas faced by the Israeli people.
The piece, by former Tablet writer Marc Tracy, wasn’t wrong to link their views to anti-Zionism. The students didn’t merely disdain Israeli policies; they called for an end to U.S. military aid to the Jewish state. Even worse, they fully embraced the Palestinian nakba (“catastrophe”) narrative about the illegitimacy of Israel’s creation. They also went full-bore intersectional by endorsing the comparison between the Palestinian war to destroy Israel with the struggle for civil rights in the United States. In so doing, they validated the toxic myth that Israel is a function of “white privilege,” and, whether intentionally or not, gave a permission slip to American anti-Semites on the left to demonize Israelis and American Jews.
Frankly, it’s a disgrace that several dozen students at the non-Orthodox seminaries could be mobilized to sign such a document at a time when more than 4,000 rockets and missiles fired by Hamas were raining down on Israelis, and while anti-Zionist rhetoric on the floor of the House of Representatives helped incite anti-Semitic violence on the streets of American cities. It’s also evidence of the way some have fully embraced the fashionable ideologies of the left, even if it places them in opposition to basic principles of Judaism, such as the importance of the land of Israel or even the right of Israelis to self-defense against terrorism and would-be terrorists.
On the other hand, to treat 93 extreme leftists as somehow representative of the complete “unraveling” of American Jewish support for Zionism is neither a serious analysis nor good journalism.
It’s true that the American Jewish community has changed since the heyday of support for Israel in the post-Holocaust period that stretched from 1948 to the Yom Kippur War. As Tracy pointed out, after that, many highly assimilated Jews began to revert to the pre-World War II position of many in the community that was not sympathetic to Zionism. And it’s indeed a stretch to consider 93 students and their spiritual mentor, the appalling writer Peter Beinart, as thought leaders. Beinart, who in a few years went from posing as the avatar of liberal Zionist to endorsing the Palestinian “right of return” and the destruction of the Jewish state, may be the poster child for such disillusionment, but to pretend that he is representative of Jewish opinion is simply untrue.
After all, polls continue to show that although an overwhelming majority of American Jews are loyal Democratic voters and aren’t fans of recent Israeli governments, most say that Israel is important to them and they consider Israelis family. Other surveys demonstrate that nine out of 10 American Jews back Israel over the Palestinians.
The point here is that to treat a feature about a six-month-old letter that did nothing to shape Jewish opinion about Israel as a harbinger of the end of Jewish support for Israel was irresponsible. It was also not original. The Times has been publishing similar pieces predicting the end of American Jewish Zionism for 50 years, giving Israel’s opponents the same sort of sympathetic and out-of-proportion coverage in previous decades that they’ve given the current batch of anti-Zionists.
The newspaper of record has a long history of hostile coverage of Israel and indifference to Jewish suffering dating back to its editorial policy of ignoring the Holocaust as it was happening. In the last decade, however, it has grown worse. Whereas in the decades after the Second World War, the paper’s editors didn’t give platforms to those advocating for the destruction of the one Jewish state on the planet and hosted a number of pro-Israel columnists on its op-ed page, today the Times considers such advocacy to be fair comment and employs several writers who regularly take that line. The dropping of even the pretense of objectivity in most of its news coverage on just about any topic in recent years has also led to more anti-Israel bias.
The question is, does this matter? Some pro-Israel activists and most Israelis will say “no.”
Israelis have always considered worrying about international opinion to be not in keeping with their goal of making their actions more important than what other people say about them. American friends of Israel say they stopped reading the Times years ago and that doing so is a waste of time.
Still, it’s a mistake to ignore what remains one of the most widely read publications in the world.
While the trend that Tracy’s article inflates into an “unraveling” is discussing the opinion of only a small minority, the support it gets from the newspaper that is still viewed by liberal Jews as the flagship of journalism can only strengthen it. Undermining Israel’s image by negative articles serves to help those trying to transform the Democratic Party from one with an increasingly vocal anti-Israel element to one in which that faction dominates.
That’s why it’s important that the calumnies of the Times never be allowed to go unanswered. If that answer can be in the form of mass mockery, as is the case with #SadSadIsrael, then all the better.
Ignoring the danger of allowing the “apartheid Israel” lie to gain traction in popular culture or even in Jewish forums is folly. Nor should Jewish organizations be shy about speaking up in condemning the sorts of actions that the seminary letter represents since it is providing cover for anti-Semites elsewhere.
While the vast majority of Americans remain steadfast friends of Israel and are generally unaffected by media bias, the one group that is impacted by it—and especially, at the Times—are American Jews. Fighting for Jewish opinion in this country means that no one who cares about Israel can afford to not care about what the Times publishes, no matter how wrongheaded or biased it might be.
The Left may not wish to admit it, but the fortunes of a once moribund Donald Trump of January 2021 have now largely recovered—even before the stunning gubernatorial victory of Republican Glenn Youngkin in Virginia.
How and why?
One, Joe Biden did not, as dishonestly advertised, prove to be good Ol’ “Lunch bucket” Joe. He was no moderate from Scranton. Instead, Biden has served as the clueless gun barrel through which hard-core leftists fired off the most unpopular agenda in memory.
T. Belman, I agree with Victor. Who doesn’t? We must mobilize our Army on the Lebanese border and in the Golan on some pretext or another. I do not think Hezbollah will pre-empt though that is possible. We must throw everything we have against Hezbollah, 24 hours a day, with intent to destroy their arsenal in 3 days max. Speed is of the essence.
In my morning paper there is a discussion of the home front defense drill that will be taking place today, simulating an all-out war with Hamas and Hezbollah. Warning sirens will be activated in various places, and note will be taken of whether schoolchildren and others are able to reach shelter in time. My personal situation is good compared to that of most Israelis; there is a shelter on every floor of the apartment building I live in, and we get about a minute’s warning of rockets from Gaza (flight time is 90 seconds). Rockets from Hezbollah will take a bit longer.
A red wave is also the color of blood. Will things get bloodier for Democrats who seem to explain Virginia by calling voters racists? As for Republicans they have a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory because they aren't good at messaging, don't have the guts to believe in the message they craft together and often succumb to Rinos in their party who need to leave and join the Democrats just as Manchin needs to vacate the Democrats and become a Republican.
Finally, can Trump stay on the sidelines, encourage his crowd to vote for the person he endorses and let things play out without intruding too much?
Republicans Predict Major GOP Wins in 2022 Midterms
As Americans now know, the Virginia gubernatorial race went in the favor of Republicans on Tuesday. Glenn Youngkin is now the governor-elect of the commonwealth and will be sworn into office within months.
Virginia’s been largely heralded as a bellwether for what’s to come in America’s future elections. Many Republicans have branded Youngkin’s win as a sign of the nation rejecting the Democrats’ agenda and Biden’s presidency as a whole.
Amid the outcome of the governor’s race in Virginia, many Republicans are projecting future wins to come for their party. This is something House Minority Whip Steve Scalise delved into during a recent sit-down with Newsmax.
Scalise on Future Wins to Come for the Republican Party
While speaking with Newsmax, Scalise explained Republicans are deeply focused on stopping Democrats from hurting Americans and completely ripping the nation to shreds.
Furthermore, the House Minority Whip went on to predict the GOP will win as many as 63 congressional seats during next year’s midterms. Scalise continued, explaining President Biden and Speaker Pelosi don’t have any regard for Americans.
Instead, Biden and Pelosi are just interested in forcing through spending bills amounting to trillions, even as most Americans urge putting a lid on spending. Scalise also pointed out that as Democrats are ignoring the wishes of the American public, Republicans are raising funds for the 2022 midterms and going to bat for the country.
Finally, Scalise weighed in on the outcome of Tuesday’s gubernatorial election in Virginia. Scalise stated the defeat of Terry McAuliffe ought to be a warning to Democrats who are backing the massively expensive agenda of Biden and Pelosi.
An Accurate Prediction?
Based on how Democrats are responding to their loss in Virginia this week, Scalise’s prediction seems quite accurate. Already, Democrats like Biden and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez are saying McAuliffe lost because the political left hasn’t gone far enough in their agenda.
Other Democrats are screaming that Youngkin’s win boils down to white supremacy and racism in the United States. Time and time again, Democrats fail to see any errors in their ways or any mistakes they’re making; instead, the leftist response is just to double down and dig in their heels.
The midterms, quite frankly, are not looking good for Democrats. Many leftist lawmakers in the House of Representatives are not seeking re-election; regarding Senate races, Biden’s approval ratings are significantly down in states that are going to play a vital role in who wins the Senate next year.
At the rate things are doing now, Republicans are extremely well-positoned to win dozens of seats, thereby flipping Congress red.
Do you think Republicans are going to manage to win back the Senate and House during the 2022 midterms? We want to read about your perspective below.
No comments:
Post a Comment