++++++++++++++++++++++

I frequently post Derek Hunter's Op Ed's because he is a fine thinker and writer and much of what he espouses reflects my own thinking. I have edited several of his recent comments and attached them below because they address what I have written myself in previous memos.

Yes, every topic Hunter discusses are matters I have brought up and addressed myself.

Two other topics not addressed by Hunter in this attached Op Ed but by others like Melanie Phillips, Caroline Glick etc. are these:

1) America is in decline. Our allies have lost confidence in our ability to outstrip and/or contain China. They look at the leadership of Obama and Biden and shake their head. Trump totally turned them off initially but they came to realize his policies and accomplishments outweighed his oppressive personality.

Of course the Merkel's of the world were unmitigated disasters and thus European leadership made it's own negative contribution.

Where this all leads depends on what transpires over the next two years and how Ukraine plays out as well.

2) Because of Biden's antipathy towards Israel and that of the Justice and State Department, combined with the fact that Iran is in turmoil, Biden is unlikely to do anything to push the needle our way, and snce Netanyahu is to become the PM of Israel once again, we have a real opportunity to finally see Iran's nuclear ambitions crushed.

There has never been a better time for the West to assist the Iranians in their quest to rid themselves of the Ayatollah's yoke.

With Iran's leadership decapitated the consequences for China and Russia shift dramatically.

This is another reason for Bibi to be bold , move away from the strong arm effort of America and like with Orrick, strike independently. Easy to say and maybe impossible to expect.

I took it upon myself to suggest as much to Bibi but then who am I?

All I can say is stay tuned.

+++

Some Humble Advice for Donald Trump

By Derek Hunter

I voted for Trump against Biden and would do so again. I recognize his flaws, but I’m a policy guy. I supported most of Trump’s policies and worked with the administration on criminal justice reform and other matters. But he would never have been impeached if Republicans controlled the House. And given “peace and prosperity” — his successful foreign policy and robust economy — absent his tweets and dysfunctional behavior, Republicans in 2018 might have kept control of the House by a few seats. Back then Trump apologists dismissed his destructive behavior as eccentric (“that’s Trump”); now, it’s admittedly toxic. Republicans should not confront him but simply stand down and ignore him.

With the president unpopular, Republicans wanted 2022 to be a referendum on Biden, not Trump. And, looking forward, the new speaker of the House can praise Trump administration policies but remain agnostic on Trump. But the inexcusably tiny Republican margin in the House provides no cushion for the speaker to preside over a government in exile. Still, Republicans can paint the Senate and Biden as obstructionists. The good news is that some Democrats who barely won reelection may no longer always shill for Biden.

Democrats already have a 50-seat majority in the U.S. Senate, but electing Herschel Walker remains critical. The plainspoken Walker seems more authentic than the polished Warnock, especially among black voters who see the attacks on Walker as a takedown. If Trump stays out of it, and Kemp helps, Walker could win. Perhaps then one or two Senate seats will open up next year, where a Republican governor appoints. Given his pre-election tirade against Biden, Joe Manchin likely considered switching parties if Republicans won a majority and offered him a committee chairmanship. If Biden continues to disrespect Manchin and continues his attack on West Virginia coal, and if Manchin fears a Republican challenger in 2024, he could switch parties.

In 2022, Democrats pushed abortion/pro-choice policies and a strategy of scaremongering about threats to democracy/election denial. In 2024, abortion should be a state issue, unless Republicans stupidly nationalize it. And democracy/election denial should finally be off the table. If Trump persists, most Republican candidates will ignore him. The Republican Party, sans Trump, will have a new lease on life in 2024.

Looking ahead, Republicans will antagonize independent voters if their agenda is mainly clumsy investigations, but serious hearings could unearth major scandals, including on COVID policy, especially the long-term effects of mandated vaccinations. Republicans also need to build on their inroads among nonwhite voters. And they need to reach younger voters who will turn out in a presidential year.

Republicans must ensure that Biden is blamed for continued inflation, higher interest rates, a tech meltdown, unemployment, any recession, racial division, culture disintegration, open borders, and foreign-policy debacles, while Republicans get credit for anything positive. There are preemptive ways to do all that and propose alternative policies. Finally, Republicans must create a permanent sentiment

+++

Michele, Michele My Michele:
+++

The Most Worshipful Michelle Obama Review Ever?

By Tim Graham

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Ben Shapiro was blunt on Twitter. He had discovered "the most sycophantic book review ever written." The book was the second come from multimillionaire author and advice guru Michelle Obama. The review appeared in The New York Times, from the paper's "Help Desk" columnist Judith Newman. She's "the help," all right.

Ed Morrissey tweeted back to Shapiro: "The secret to success in life: Find someone who loves you as unconditionally and fiercely as the mainstream media loves the Obamas."

Except they're not "mainstream" at all. These "objective newspapers" are blatantly leftist partisan rags, as they demonstrate daily.

Shapiro quoted this saccharine passage about the Blessed Michelle: "She is on a journey. Through her stories, experiences, and thoughts, we're finding the light with her. Lucky us." Obama's publishers tweeted out this quote, and then Newman retweeted the publisher like they're all in the business of selling Michelle Obama.

So the people buying (and paying) Obama are lucky, and so are her pals. Newman added, "The fact that she loves 'lowbrow TV' and counts the hilarious but racy Ali Wong among her favorite comedians says the world about who Obama is when she gets together with those friends. Lucky them."

The first line of Newman's glittery bootlicking review is, "It's not easy being Michelle Obama. Fabulous, yes. Easy, no."

Later, she decries the "explosion of divisiveness" under former President Donald Trump, typically ignoring any introspection about the left-wing media endlessly and divisively smearing conservatives.

Newman complained: "You think it was painful for you to see a reckless crew in the White House? Try being the Obamas, knowing as you toss them the keys that so much of what you had worked for was about to be shredded like a cheap dog toy."

Just see Newman's tweets for her partisan background. She's sharing feminist Hillary Clinton tweeting, "It turns out women enjoy having human rights, and we vote," and retweeting praise for Pennsylvania Sen.-elect John Fetterman's social media producer Annie Wu, "the genius who has been embarrassing Dr. Oz online this year. She is incredible and deserves our praise."

When Barack Obama's memoir, "A Promised Land," came out right after the 2020 election, their New York Times book review also was destined to become a sales pitch. The publisher happily and repeatedly regurgitated author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: "Barack Obama is as fine a writer as they come ... (A Promised Land) is nearly always pleasurable to read, sentence by sentence, the prose gorgeous in places, the detail granular and vivid."

Now consider that just three months ago, Times book reviewer Dwight Garner shredded Jared Kushner's White House memoir, "Breaking History." It was "earnest and soulless -- Kushner looks like a mannequin, and he writes like one." Garner sneered in print: "Reading this book reminded me of watching a cat lick a dog's eye goo."

When Kushner's wife, Ivanka Trump, assembled a motivational book, "Women Who Work," the Times assigned the review to Jessa Crispin. Crispin wrote: "It reads more like the scrambled Tumblr feed of a demented 12-year-old who just checked out a copy of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations from the library."

Crispin tweeted: "The New York Times forced me to read the Ivanka book. Which cleanse is best for toxins in the brain?"

Quoting these reviews does not mean that these books are good. It means that you can't trust The New York Times to judge for you because their reviews of the Trump books sound more like they're performing stand-up comedy for a rabidly left-wing readership. You can't trust their Obama book reviews because they read like a gelatinous trail of happy tears and sputum.

Tim Graham is the director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. To find out more about Tim Graham and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

And:

Michelle Obama Says She Didn’t Wear Her Hair in Braids in the White House – Can You Guess?

BY ROBERT SPENCER

One of the biggest obstacles to the Left’s never-ending quest to portray America as a nation beset by “systemic racism” has been the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. What other country has elected a member of a minority that once faced daily discrimination to the highest office in the land? But former First Lady Michelle Obama has come up with an imaginative new way to perpetuate the Leftist myth: she’s claiming that she didn’t wear her hair in braids while she was living in the White House because the American people, those stupid, hate-filled racists who twice gave their votes to her husband, just weren’t “ready” for the spectacle of her natural hair. Apparently, Mrs. Obama is laboring under the impression that the American people thought she was Swedish.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that as First Lady, Michelle Obama “considered wearing her hair in braids,” but “then she thought of the American people.” Back in 2009, it was impossible to avoid media gushing about the First Black President, who was the recipient of breathless adulation and even the Nobel Peace Prize before he actually did anything at all. But apparently, Michelle Obama thought that the American people had somehow failed to notice that the First Couple was black, and she opted not to upset the poor yahoos by appearing to be what she actually was.

The American people, Mrs. Obama said, “were ‘just getting adjusted’ to having a Black president in the Oval Office and a Black family in the White House, so she decided to keep her hair straight.” This was not her actual preference; it was a concession to the limitations of the benighted Americans over whom Barack was ruling: “It would have been easier to keep her hair in braids, Obama said, but ‘nope, they’re not ready for it,’ she added, recalling her thinking at the time.”

It’s a pity that no one who was present at the Warner Theatre in Washington on Tuesday when Michelle Obama made these remarks asked her exactly why she thought Americans were not ready for the prospect of the First Lady in braids, or what she thought would happen if she had worn them. Would KKK members have burned a cross on the White House lawn? Would blond-haired racists have descended upon the White House with pitchforks? Would Bull Connor have set his dogs on the Secret Service agents guarding the Executive Mansion?

Whatever the reason, Meesh “sacrificed” — sacrificed! Oh, how much these people have given up for us! — “doing her hair as she would have liked so her husband’s administration could focus on achieving its goals instead of sinking political capital into putting out a hairstyle-induced firestorm. ‘Let me keep my hair straight,’ Obama said of her mind-set at the time. ‘Let’s get health care passed.’” So we wouldn’t have the rolling disaster that is Obamacare if Michelle had worn her hair in braids? I would have braided her hair myself at the time if I had known that.

But it was all she could do to survive in a racist society: “Obama said her dilemma was an extreme example of the decisions Black women make daily to navigate the politics and sensibilities of their workplaces. They often find it easier, healthier and safer to wear braids, dreadlocks or Afros, but feel the pressure from White beauty standards and workplace norms to chemically straighten their hair for a more professional, ‘clean-cut’ appearance.”

She claimed: “We deal with it, the whole thing about, ‘Do you show up with your natural hair?’” Yeah. It must be tough to be First Lady of the United States and the subject of universally adoring coverage and still feel oneself subject to “white beauty standards.” But Obama nonetheless leaned into the pose, claiming that if she had worn braids, the reaction would have been “Remember when she wore braids? Those are terrorist braids! Those are revolutionary braids!” Yeah, if there is anything that leaps to my mind when I think of terrorists and revolutionaries, it’s braids.

This nightmare story of imaginary racism and harassment suffered by one of the nation’s cosseted elite class has a happy ending: Obama happily showed off her current hairstyle to the crowd, proclaiming: “Braids, y’all!” Apparently, America, as racist and evil as it is in the view of Michelle Obama, is ready at last.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Obama Judge Tosses Lawsuit Against Rudy Giuliani

(Republicaninformer.com)- A federal judge in Washington dismissed the lawsuit filed by Resistance star Alexander Vindman accusing Donald Trump Jr., then-President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, and two others.

Vindman had sued the four claiming they engaged in witness intimidation and retaliation in connection to Vindman’s testimony in former President Trump’s first impeachment.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the case, and this week, Judge James Boasber of the US District Court in Washington DC granted their motion.

Judge Boasber wrote in his dismissal that Vindman’s complaint failed to meet the necessary standards to prove the defendants conspired to “intimidate and unlawfully retaliate against him.

In his 29-page ruling, Judge Boasber, an Obama appointee, noted that while Vindman did establish the fact that the defendants had leveled “harsh, meanspirited, and at times misleading attacks” against him, “political hackery alone” isn’t enough to violate the law.

Vindman’s complaint alleged that he became a target of a “dangerous campaign of witness intimidation by President Trump and a group of conspirators” who attempted to prevent him from testifying in the House impeachment hearing in late 2019.

Vindman became a star witness in the first impeachment of former President Trump which was prompted by a July 25, 2019 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump was accused of asking Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden’s son Hunter’s ties to Ukrainian companies in exchange for US aid.

Vindman, who was on the call, later went to his brother to “discuss his concern” that Trump violated the law by asking a foreign government to interfere with a presidential election. He was later subpoenaed by Congress to give testimony in the House impeachment hearings.

In addition to Donald Trump Jr. and Rudy Giuliani, Vindman also named Trump advisors Julia Hahn and Dan Scavino in his lawsuit.

Judge Boasber’s dismissal applied to all four defendants.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuH_HfxXhas

+++

2022 Midterms Are the GOP’s Wake-Up Election

If it wasn’t clear before, it is now: Trump victories aren’t inevitable.

By Kimberley A. Strassel

Former President Donald Trump announces he is running for president at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., Nov. 15

Last week’s midterms were seismic for the GOP, and the latest evidence was Donald Trump’s Tuesday presidential announcement—notable for its not-notable response. Republicans just woke up to the realization that their leader is a liability, and Mr. Trump begins his third attempt at the White House from his weakest position yet.

The Trump who came down the escalator in 2015 didn’t have many heavyweights in tow. It took him through the 2016 convention to consolidate party support, and through the autumn to pull together the base. But that was then. Today’s Mr. Trump is a former president, the leader of the Republican Party, a man who lost in 2020 by a mere 44,000 votes across three states. Other ex-presidents have sought to reclaim the office, and their prior perch meant that all began with the support of a significant mass of party bosses, money men and elected officials.

The scene at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday was the exact opposite. Reporters spotted Rep. Madison Cawthorn, the controversial first-termer who lost a North Carolina GOP primary in May. That was about it for the elected class. Smiling for the cameras were Roger Stone and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell.

Also missing? In 2015, Mr. Trump was introduced by his daughter Ivanka, who went on to serve as a central adviser in the White House and one of the 2020 campaign’s most sought-after surrogates. As the Mar-a-Lago festivities unfolded, Ivanka made her own announcement on Instagram: She won’t be involved in his campaign or “in politics” going forward.

A handful of Trump political associates showed up: Russell Vought, once at the Office of Management and Budget; campaign guru Jason Miller; onetime press secretary Hogan Gidley. But most of the Trump White House, cabinet and agency world was silent, or dismissive. ABC, NBC and CBS stuck with their previously scheduled programming. Fox and CNN showed the announcement but cut away before the speech was over.

The bundlers are bailing out. Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman, a megadonor, said this week he’d be supporting one of a “new generation of leaders” in the GOP presidential primary. Citadel hedge-fund founder Ken Griffin, with a betting man’s bluntness, said it was time for the party to move on from a “three-time loser.” Ronald Lauder says he’s out. Businessman Andy Sabin, who put money into Trump 2020, declared this week that he wouldn’t give Mr. Trump a “[expletive] dime.”

Prior to the election, Republicans routinely said yes when asked if they’d support another Trump run. But endorsements were vanishingly thin Wednesday. They included maybe half a dozen sitting or newly elected House members, including Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar and Elise Stefanik. One or two statewide officials. Defeated Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake. Diamond and Silk.

But surely all those rethinking Mr. Trump are just RINOs and “establishment” losers? Nope. A poll taken after the election of Texas GOP primary voters found they now supported Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (43%) by 11 points over Mr. Trump (32%). Polls of Republican voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida and Georgia—taken both before and after the election—also show Mr. Trump trailing. Mr. Trump has a problem up and down the line.

“When they cross Trump, they lose, and that’s not going to change,” declared a Trump spokesman in response to Club for Growth polling evidence that he’s weak. Only that’s exactly what has changed. What kept the party united behind Mr. Trump—through his antics, his outbursts, Jan. 6—was the fear that only he could command the base, and only he could win elections. But this time it was failing to cross Mr. Trump—bowing to his primary picks—that lost the GOP winnable seats.

Mr. Trump’s own announcement speech was an acknowledgment he has a problem. After insisting that his endorsed candidates repeat his claims of 2020 election fraud, which turned off many independent and moderate voters, he himself on Tuesday made no mention of that accusation. The speech was an attempt to look forward and promise a brighter American future, and Mr. Trump largely (and uncharacteristically) stayed on teleprompter. This inspired South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham to tweet that “if President Trump continues this tone and delivers this message on a consistent basis, he will be hard to beat.” That’s a yuge if.

And that’s Mr. Trump’s other problem: His party, and a lot of his base, knows him. News reports say the campaign wants to run like it did in 2016—positioning Mr. Trump as an outsider, an underdog. But Mr. Trump is neither of those anymore. Back then, voters didn’t know what to expect and took a chance on a guy who came across as a fighter. They know now, and a lot are weary.

Especially when they see a new generation of Republicans who also have the fight, if not the drama. Mr. Trump jumped in early to clear the field, to create a sense of inevitability. But what the midterms taught Republicans is that Trump victories aren’t inevitable—and may be things of the past. A wake-up call, indeed.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Israel must develop new strategy to fight lone wolf terrorism -editorial

It is crucial to see that lone wolf attacks are just that: extremist actors taking matters into their own hands, completely alone.

It’s been years now that Israel has been seeing terror attacks that are not purposely perpetrated as part of an operation led by one specific terror organization, but rather by single people taking upon themselves to murder innocent civilians.

In recent weeks, these attacks have come again – randomly and lethally. These are now well-known as “lone wolf” attacks.

In 2019, The Washington Post looked at attacks carried out by Palestinians and found that most of them seem to be random and based on opportunity rather than careful planning. A majority of the terrorists are young, unmarried men using a kitchen knife. This later became the working definition for lone-wolf terror attacks.

That definition, for the most part, applies to the attacks seen recently.

Three Israelis were brutally murdered and another three injured this past Tuesday, for example. The terrorist, Muhammad Murad Sami Souf, was 18 years old and used a knife and car to kill the victims. It is believed that he was working alone.

Just two weeks prior in October, Hebron resident Muhammed Kamel al-Jaabari used an M-16 rifle – the kind most IDF combat soldiers carry home with them – to murder 50-year-old Ronen Hanania. Again, we see a young attacker working alone.

In August, Amir Sidawi wounded at least eight people – including a pregnant woman, who had to have an emergency C-section – when he opened fire at a bus.

Focusing on the most recent attack in Ariel, we can see a young Palestinian man with a permit to work in the city and who had a job at a cleaning company in the industrial zone. There are thousands of Palestinians with permits like him – and most of them do not plan on carrying out terror attacks on innocent civilians.

It is crucial to see that lone wolf attacks are just that: extremist actors taking matters into their own hands, completely alone. This should not and must not affect the good standing relationship between Israelis and Palestinians in the Ariel industrial zone as it operates today.

The coexistence, and in Ariel of all places, represents so much more than what one extremist does. If this lone wolf attacker is given the power to destroy that, it significantly harms the fragile coexistence that exists in Judea and Samaria – which is exactly what these terrorists want.

Nevertheless, Israel must adopt a clear strategy to counter the things that happened in that awful attack.

Lone wolf attacks are difficult to track and predict due to the very nature of the attacker, who operates alone. That means that, in essence, one of the major databases wherein the planning for the attack happens is not in a war room or on a map, but in the mind of the attacker. So how can this be predicted and stopped?

Lone wolves do not belong to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Lions’ Den or any other terrorist group that raises its ugly head against Israelis.

These are individuals whose ages vary, inspired by vicious incitement from social-media networks and traditional media on television screens and radios. They feel as though they have nothing to lose – or know that they might very well lose their lives for it – and can randomly choose, at any given moment in the day, to use whatever weapon is closest to them to brutally murder victims chosen at random.

In Souf’s case, he came armed with a knife and killed two civilians before he chose another weapon – a stolen car – to kill another one.

Attacks by lone wolves, the IDF has admitted, are much more challenging to thwart than those planned by groups. If you don’t have an organization, you don’t have the signature of the preparedness of the specific attack.

It’s important to note that the IDF and Israel’s other security forces thwart terror attacks – even lone-wolf attacks – every single day. It is these more shifty ones that fly under the radar that nevertheless get perpetrated.

Since lone wolf attacks are carried out by those who feel that they have nothing to lose, this could provide yet another way to narrow the search down.

Once Israel manages to perfect its behavioral analysis and track down the signs – mostly online – then perhaps the next stabber or shooter who would have previously flown below the radar will now be caught before another family has to bury a loved one.

This is a huge challenge that the new government will need to confront; a new strategy is needed.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++