From a very dear friend, fellow memo reader and tennis partner regarding my recent memo about six reasons to vote for Trump: "One of your best concise summaries ... hit the nail on the head ... you get better with age! J--"
Actually I could ave added a 7th reason and it relates to health care.
Trump wants to address this matter, if given the opportunity, and will incorporate portability and pre-condition protection in whatever legislation he approves.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Holder becomes a cartographer while Republicans sleep.
Today our Republic rests on two foundations : money and biased judges instead of families and rugged individualism and faith.( See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Salena reviews labor's feud with Pittsburgh mayor. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Protecting the whistle blower has come down to keeping Schiff head's ruse alive because once he is exposed and cross examined the entire Gulag charade will fall apart.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Change in relationship with China is being formed. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What is it about politics that it attracts those it does?
Is it the opportunity to get rich? Is it because it is the path to power? Is it because it offers the opportunity for the do gooder's to allow their do good ideas to wash over the land? Is it because they genuinely care about people and want to better their lives through legislation? Is it because they are control freaks who have huge egos?
Should we require all politicians running for office to undergo psychiatric analysis or, at least, take the Rorschach test ?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Connectivity. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Eric Holder Takes Virginia
The Democratic plan to dominate state legislatures has its first electoral success.
ByKimberley A. Strassel
Democrats on Tuesday won total control of Virginia’s government, adding both chambers of the General Assembly to the governor’s mansion. They will redraw Virginia’s legislative district lines after next year’s census. The Old Dominion was already moving left, though the redistricting power likely cements Democratic dominance over Virginia for the next 10 years.
This was Mr. Holder’s plan. While most prominent Democrats spent the months following Donald Trump’s election plotting future runs, Mr. Holder was launching the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, committed to domination of electoral map making through the courts and legislatures. The NDRC spent its first years aggressively litigating legislative maps it didn’t like, to great success. Virginia’s election was the first test of the electoral piece of Mr. Holder’s strategy, and it will now serve as the model by which Democrats attempt to gain redistricting power in 11 other key states next year.
The NDRC claims its efforts are aimed at simple “fairness in the electoral system.” It says it’s working to overturn gerrymanders that “disenfranchise” voters. Don’t be fooled. Mr. Holder’s group has never engaged in blue states where Democrats routinely draw maps to disadvantage Republicans, such as Maryland, Massachusetts or New Jersey.
The NDRC is instead the Democratic version of the GOP’s success of a decade ago, the Redmap Project. Democrats, flush from Barack Obama’s 2008 victory, tuned out the state legislatures. Republicans used their inattention, along with a sweeping cash advantage and a backlash against the Obama presidency, to flip 21 state chambers in 2010, allowing them to dominate map-drawing after that year’s census. That power helped consolidate Republican control of state chambers and the U.S. House. Republicans might be flattered by Mr. Holder’s imitation—if they weren’t so busy getting crushed.
The Holder “sue to blue” litigation strategy has already yielded major gains for Democrats, as state judges struck down maps drawn by Republicans and required changes that ultimately aided the Democrats. Example: Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court—which is chosen through partisan elections and has a Democratic majority—in 2018 overruled the U.S. House maps drawn by the Republican legislature and produced its own version. The new maps helped Democrats flip three net seats. In Virginia, federal judges redrew the state legislative map to aid candidates running this week.
Mr. Holder built on those victories, using Tuesday’s election to carry out his group’s plan for state legislative dominance. The NDRC announced in August its support, to the tune of $250,000, for 17 Democrats running in state legislative elections. The more important contribution was to concentrate the liberal mind on the redistricting project. Left-wing activist groups had their own motives for wanting Democratic control in Virginia—gun control, abortion, labor and energy policy. But Mr. Holder and his backer Barack Obama have been pitching donors and activists on their plan for years, and the prospect of redistricting power and long-term Democratic dominance proved a powerful additional motivator.
Democratic groups threw at least $54 million at Virginia—an unprecedented sum in an election that didn’t feature a single federal office—outspending Republicans by some $12 million. Outside groups accounted for at least $22 million of the Democratic effort, nearly four times what they spent in 2015. Three billionaires—Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer and George Soros—and their organizations spent more than all outside Republican contributors combined.
Republican donors and groups are caught in the same funk as Democrats in 2009—too focused on the president and his fights to engage in the battle at the state level. The Republican State Leadership Committee—charged with getting and keeping state chambers—understood the stakes in Virginia, and it was one of the largest single spenders in the race. But it proved no match for the Democratic juggernaut.
Republicans are proving similarly flat-footed in combating Mr. Holder’s legal strategy. Democrats are ramping up litigation, increasingly relying on state judges—many of them elected and partisan, as in Pennsylvania—to do their bidding. Their goal in some of next year’s legislative races is simply to flip one chamber in each state, deadlocking Republicans and Democrats, potentially throwing the question to the courts. That means Republicans will need to put a huge new effort into electing state judges who refrain from meddling in the redistricting function, which the U.S. Constitution assigns to state legislatures.
Mr. Holder’s plan to take over nearly a dozen more states next year is far from a fait accompli. Virginia was already trending blue, and he will face a harder task in other target states such as Florida, Georgia and Texas. But the threat to the GOP is real. And if the party doesn’t take up that challenge soon, it’s going to lose its opportunity for another decade.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
Click here for the full story.
2)
Labor Sides With Jobs in a Feud With Pittsburgh’s Mayor
The dustup is a microcosm of Democrats’ difficulty with blue-collar voters, especially in Pennsylvania.
Pittsburgh
Mayor Bill Peduto has faced a fierce backlash since he announced at last week’s Climate Action Summit that he opposes any new petrochemical companies coming to Western Pennsylvania. Labor unions, civic leaders and even the mayor’s closest political ally have taken him to task.
“When you make a comment that can clearly hurt the advancement of a region and their ability to feed their family and have a better life, that’s when it becomes an issue for us,” said Darrin Kelly, the city firefighter who heads the Allegheny County Labor Council. “I’m going to be very vocal on behalf of the working men and women to protect them, OK? . . . If they’re attacking our way of life, I’m going to come after them.”
Click here for the full story.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) The Great Confrontation
With China
By Gordon Chang
Pence and Pompeo are making the case for a new approach that will outlast this administration.
The Trump administration is heading for a fundamental break with the People’s Republic of China. The rupture, if it occurs, will upend almost a half-century of Washington’s “engagement” policies. Twin speeches last month by Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo contained confrontational language rarely heard from senior American officials in public.
“America will continue to seek a fundamental restructuring of our relationship with China,” the vice president said at a Wilson Center event on Oct. 24 as he detailed China’s disturbing behavior during the past year.
Some argue the vice president’s talk didn’t differ substantively from his groundbreaking October 2018 speech, but these observers fail to see that in the face of Beijing’s refusal to respond to American initiatives, Mr. Pence was patiently building the case for stern U.S. actions.
Moreover, the vice president’s thematic repetition was itself important. It suggested that the administration’s approach, first broadly articulated in the December 2017 National Security Strategy, had hardened. That document ditched the long-used “friend” and “partner” labels. Instead it called China—and its de facto ally Russia—“revisionist powers” and “rivals.”
At a Hudson Institute dinner last Wednesday, Mr. Pompeo spoke even more candidly: “It is no longer realistic to ignore the fundamental differences between our two systems and the impact . . . those systems have on American national security.” China’s ruling elite, he said, belong to “a Marxist-Leninist party focused on struggle and international domination.” We know of Chinese hostility to the U.S., Mr. Pompeo pointed out, by listening to “the words of their leaders.”
Indeed we do. In May, the official People’s Daily declared a “people’s war” on the U.S.; Xi Jinping, the Chinese ruler, has for more than a decade been dropping hints that China is the world’s only legitimate state; and senior Chinese military officers now speak gleefully in public about sinking U.S. Navy vessels and killing American sailors in the thousands.
There had long been hope that the Chinese party-state would become a “responsible stakeholder” in the international system, as then-Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick expressed in 2005. American policy had been to encourage that transition and support China’s ruling class. U.S. presidents sometimes even rode to the rescue of their Chinese counterparts: Richard Nixon visited Beijing in 1972 when China had weakened itself by a yearslong Cultural Revolution; George H.W. Bush supported Deng Xiaoping in 1989 in the immediate aftermath of the Tiananmen massacre; and in 1999, during a Chinese economic downturn, Bill Clinton negotiated the deal that allowed Beijing to enter the World Trade Organization.
These hopes have been dashed as Mr. Xi has aggressively pursued “the Chinese Dream,” “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” He’s been relentlessly closing off the Chinese market to foreign competitors by, among other means, highly discriminatory rule enforcement and prejudicial laws and regulations like the draconian cybersecurity rules scheduled to take effect Dec. 1.At the same time Mr. Xi has ensured that the state sector is “advancing.” He is recombining already large state enterprises back into formal monopolies and duopolies, reversing the partial privatization of earlier years, having the state buy shares in listed private companies, shoveling more state subsidies to favored state businesses, exercising tighter control over price movements in equity markets, and pursuing development through antitrade industrial policies such as his Made in China 2025 initiative.
Mr. Xi is also implementing totalitarian controls. A nationwide “social credit system,” set to begin next year, will constantly monitor and score the behavior of individuals and businesses according to state criteria. Also by 2020, an estimated 626 million cameras will surveil the country’s citizenry. Worst of all, Mr. Xi is pursuing horrific campaigns to rid China of faith and minority identity with, most notably, mass detentions in concentration camps, destruction of churches and mosques, and organ harvesting from believers and others.
Mr. Xi, in short, seeks to implement a new form of Maoism. As a result of what some call his “great regression,” China’s strongman is forcing Washington to adopt a Reagan-like policy of explicit hostility to the Chinese regime itself.
Mr. Pompeo’s words, as the former British diplomat and Sinologist Roger Garside puts it, were “epoch-defining.” The startling aspect of Mr. Pompeo’s speech, Mr. Garside says, isn’t that the secretary of state said something novel—he didn’t—but that America’s top diplomat said what he did in a policy-setting speech. Mr. Pompeo also indicated there was more to come in “a series of sets of remarks.” Perhaps he will enunciate something like the Long Telegram of 1946 or the “X Article” of 1947, George Kennan’s paradigm-setting thoughts on containing the Soviet Union.
Chinese leaders seem confident they can continue to manage America. Many say Beijing is stalling, waiting for President Trump to be forced from office. That would be a mistake. Hostility to China is now so widespread that whoever wins the White House next year will probably continue the Trump administration’s hard-line approach. Although candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination have taken potshots at the White House’s China policy, establishment figures of the party, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have largely supported Mr. Trump’s approach to China, especially on tariffs. In May, for instance, Mr. Schumer urged the president to “hang tough,” saying, “Strength is the only way to win with China.”
China historian Arthur Waldron of the University of Pennsylvania says the current period reminds him of the American Civil War. After the carnage of the Battle of the Wilderness, an indecisive May 1864 struggle near Fredericksburg, Va., Confederate generals expected Ulysses S. Grant, the new commander of the Union Army, to turn back north to the safety of Washington, as his predecessors had done after battles. But Grant, to the cheers of his soldiers, turned south—and started a series of ferocious engagements that led to victory in the war within a year.
The Trump administration has turned east. “It’s not past,” Mr. Waldron says of Grant and his determined campaign to end the South’s rebellion. “The Chinese should grasp that 1864 is now.”
Mr. Chang is author of “The Coming Collapse of China.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) GAVIN NEWSOME IS NANCY PELOSI'S NEPHEW, CALIF GOVENOR
ADAM SHIFF'S SISTER IS MARRIED TO GEORGE SOROS SON, AND JOHN KERRY'S DAUGHTER IS MARRIED TO A "MULLAH'S SON IN IRAN................
BE AWARE WHY THERE IS SUCH TURMOIL IN OUR USA............... (educate friends and relatives, please )
This is what you call a "stacked deck."
IF YOU HAD A HUNCH THE NEWS SYSTEM WAS SOMEWHAT RIGGED AND YOU COULDN'T PUT YOUR FINGER ON IT, THIS MIGHT HELP YOU SOLVE THE PUZZLE.
ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice , Obama's former National Security Adviser.
CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes , Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications.
ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former Obama Whitehouse Press Secretary Jay Carney .
ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan , Obama's former Deputy Press Secretary .
ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama's former Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.
CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton's Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.
This is “Huge” and is a 'partial' list since the same incestuous relationship holds true for NBC/MSNBC and most media outlets. Trump has been right all along. Fake News is generated by this incestuous relationship.
Ya think there might be a little bias in the news ?.. Ya Think ?++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment