Private Pelosi has unilaterally decided America would be safer if she took over the Pentagon and assumed the position of Chief of The Armed Services.
And:
I seriously believe Iran will think twice before provoking Trump but that does not mean they will not
attempt something that could command a response. There is nothing Trump can do, short of their destruction, regardless of his desire to disengage. The Ayatollah has chosen to be a cancer as long as he can suppress his people and not die from his own.
Meanwhile, over 170 citizens died because Iran "mistakenly" shot down an airliner and where is the outrage from the Democrats, Hollywood and the mass media? They are too busy blaming Trump for killing a general who killed over 600 Americans. There once was a time when Democrats could not spell proportionate but Pompous Pelosi became PC Pelosi and now she is an expert on equivalency.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Between poor land management and arson, Australia is tragically aflame. (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Amazing how evidence regarding Epstein's death seems to have gone astray including a crucial video. Famous politicians, Hollywood types and Royalty must be breathing a sigh of relief. Wonder how much it cost them collectively or did a former president foot the entire bill?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This was sent to me by a retired Marine Officer, a very dear friend and fellow memo reader. Semper Fi (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Listened to Trump Thursday. He was in Ohio. Same basic speech but had a few things to say about the desire to make him talk with Congress before deciding how to protect America and do his job. I guess what I find appealing about our "vulgar" president is he gets away with what I would never be able to get away with yet wish I could. He is the inner crude little anti PC devil who lives in all males and many women are attracted to but can't admit it today but swooned over Bill Clinton when it was his time in office.
Times have changed, Tearing down our history has become acceptable. and we are supposed to feel better as a result.
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Celebrities, activists using Australia bushfire crisis to push dangerous climate change myth: Devine
Celebrities and posturing greenies the world over have seized the opportunity of Australia’s bushfire catastrophe to push the dangerous myth that climate change is to blame.
“When one country faces a climate disaster, we all face a climate disaster,” Cate Blanchett declared at the Golden Globes on Sunday.
“Make no mistake. The tragedy unfolding in Australia is climate change-based,” said Russell Crowe.
“Australia is on fire,” tweeted teenage climate evangelist Greta Thunberg, decrying the lack of “political action [to combat] the climate crisis.”
“Australia is committing climate suicide,” ran the headline in the New York Times.
I’m sorry, but I lived in Australia through the past two decades of escalating fire crises and it’s not climate change that has caused today’s disaster, but the criminal negligence of governments that have tried to buy green votes by locking up vast tracts of land as national parks, yet failed to spend the money needed to control ground fuel and maintain fire trails.
Instead, they bowed to an ideology that obstructs necessary hazard reduction and prevents landowners from clearing vegetation around their own properties, all in thrall to the god of “biodiversity.”
How’s that biodiversity now on incinerated land sterilized of all life forms?
I’ve interviewed local volunteer firefighters who bitterly recounted the bureaucratic obstruction they faced in performing prescribed burns in the offseason to prevent uncontrollable summer conflagrations.
One of my guides was Australia’s foremost bushfire researcher, Dr. Phil Cheney, who has spent 30 years trying to convince authorities that if ground fuel is reduced in a scientific, systematic fashion every year, fire intensity is reduced to a manageable level, no matter what the weather conditions. A quadrupling of ground fuel means a 13-fold increase in the heat generated by a fire. Hazard reduction won’t prevent fire but it will reduce its intensity so that it can be controlled.
So whether or not you believe the most dire predictions of climate alarmists makes no difference. We can’t dial down the Earth’s temperature any more than we can lock up every teenage arsonist.
The only practical way to prevent unmanageable fires is to reduce the one variable we control: ground fuel.
“Climate change has not caused the current fire crisis,” says Australian Capital Territory forester and former acting fire control officer Ian McArthur.
“Long unburnt fuels in national parks are the primary cause. Basic fire management states that a fire needs oxygen, a heat source and fuel. The only one of those that can be manipulated is fuel. The more fuel, the more intense the fire, the harder it becomes to suppress the fire.”
As dangerous fuel loads have been allowed to build up in southeast Australia, ever more cataclysmic fires have erupted until, finally, this season came a perfect storm of the country’s most extreme drought since the turn of the 20th century and record high temperatures.
At least 26 people have been killed as bushfires burned more than 12 million acres — an area more than one-third the size of New York state.
It is an ecological disaster. The fires are estimated to have spewed into the atmosphere the equivalent of two-thirds of Australia’s entire annual carbon emissions.
But it could have been avoided if the warnings had been heeded.
For more than 20 years, Australia’s Greens party and greenies infiltrating government bureaucracies have obstructed the hazard reduction that experts like Cheney and McArthur recommend.
Despite their attempts to rewrite history, submissions to bushfire inquiries from as far back as 1992 are evidence of green opposition to hazard-reduction burning as a threat to “biodiversity,” and their urging that resources be spent instead on water-bombing helicopters, as well as on the amorphous task of stopping climate change.
Anecdotes illustrate the problem.
Last September, protesters in East Gippsland in the state of Victoria stopped a hazard-reduction burn that they said was “killing baby birds alive.”
“I’m more worried about climate change,” one protesting grandmother told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. As a result, the hazard reduction was reduced to 3 percent of the area planned. Two months later, East Gippsland was burned out.
Punishment for unauthorized hazard reduction has been brutal. For instance, when electricity authority TransGrid in 2001 cleared a 200-foot-wide firebreak to protect high-voltage lines that ran through rugged bushland near the national capital of Canberra, the authority was sued by four government agencies and fined $1 million. A year later, when a calamitous fire swept the Snowy Mountains in New South Wales, TransGrid’s firebreak was the only safe haven for kangaroos, wallabies and three forest workers.
In the dairy town of Taree, farmer Warren Buttsworth was charged with “unlawful clearing of native vegetation” because he dug out the roots of casuarina trees still smoldering underground weeks after a bushfire was extinguished.
In rural Victoria, volunteer firefighter Liam Sheahan was almost bankrupted when he was fined $50,000 for clearing trees to create a firebreak around his property. Five years later, when the deadly 2009 Black Saturday fires swept through the area, his was the only house left standing.
Last year, under pressure from green activists, the government of New South Wales, home to much of the fire destruction today, even listed prescribed burning as a “key threatening process” under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
Climate change has become an excuse for green mismanagement.
Fake-news dragon $lain
Bravo to Nick Sandmann, the Covington, Ky., Catholic high school student who scored a victory this week over fake news. In a case of David defeating Goliath, CNN has settled Sandmann’s $275 million lawsuit for an undisclosed amount.
That’s a legal remedy, but where is the contrition from news organizations that smeared a 16-year-old as a racist and threatened his safety? Remember former CNN host Reza Aslan’s tweet: “Have you ever seen a more punchable face than this kid’s?”?
It was the Covington boys who were victims of racism when they were accosted by members of the anti-white, anti-Semitic Black Hebrew Israelite movement while waiting for a bus home from an anti-abortion march in Washington last year. Instead, they were falsely accused of racism toward a Native American activist.
Sandmann’s real crime was to be Catholic and anti-abortion and wear a MAGA cap. That’s why news outlets maliciously leaped to judgment without basic due diligence.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Prison Video Related to Jeffrey
Apparent Suicide Attempt Is Lost,
Prosecutors Say
Video footage of the area around Jeffrey Epstein‘s jail cell on a day he apparently tried to kill himself “no longer exists,” Federal prosecutors told a judge Thursday.
Officials at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York believed they had preserved footage of guards finding Jeffrey Epstein after he appeared to have attempted suicide, but actually saved a video from a different part of the jail, prosecutors said.
The FBI also has determined that the footage does not exist on the jail’s backup video system “as a result of technical errors,” Assistant U.S. Attorneys Maurene Comey and Jason Swergold wrote in a court filing.
The revelation came despite assurances prosecutors made that jail officials were preserving the footage at the request of a defense attorney for Nicholas Tartaglione, a former police officer who shared a cell with Epstein in July when the wealthy financier was after discovered with bruises on his neck and then placed on suicide watch.
Epstein later hanged himself on Aug. 10 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges, officials said.
Tartaglione’s defense attorney, Bruce Barket, told The Associated Press he intends to ask U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas to hold a hearing with “live testimony” to determine what happened to the missing video.
Tartaglione’s defense attorney, Bruce Barket, told The Associated Press he intends to ask U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas to hold a hearing with “live testimony” to determine what happened to the missing video.
“The various and inconsistent accounts of what happened to that video are deeply troubling,” Barket said in an email.
Tartaglione is charged in what prosecutors have described as the “gangland-style” killings of four men who disappeared during a cocaine-related dispute.
Barket said the jailhouse video would have supported his position that Tartaglione “acted appropriately” on the day in question, alluding to questions about whether Epstein had been attacked.
A spokeswoman for the Bureau of Prisons declined to comment, citing an ongoing investigation.
One of Epstein’s attorneys, Marc Fernich, said the missing video “only adds to the unanswered questions and deepens the air of mystery surrounding (Epstein’s) death, feeding the perception that the public will never really know what happened — and that the powers that be aren’t really interested in finding out.”
“Nothing about Jeffrey Epstein’s prosecution and death in federal custody surprises or could surprise me at this point,” Fernich added.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan said in Thursday’s court filing that jailhouse officials had preserved video for the “correct date and time” but captured the wrong part of the jail. They said the jail’s computer system listed a “different, incorrect cell” for Tartaglione.
“The Government further understands from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that it has reviewed that backup system as part of an unrelated investigation and determined that the requested video no longer exists on the backup system and has not since at least August 2019 as a result of technical errors,” the prosecutors wrote.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)See if you can guess the right answer and then figure out the message in this story??
Young King Arthur was ambushed and imprisoned by the monarch of a neighboring kingdom. The monarch could have killed him but was moved by Arthur's youth and ideals. So, the monarch offered him his freedom, as long as he could answer a very difficult question. Arthur would have a year to figure out the answer and, if, after a year, he still had no answer, he would be put to death.
The question?...What do women really want? Such a question would perplex even the most knowledgeable man, and to young Arthur, it seemed an impossible query. But, since it was better than death, he accepted the monarch's proposition to have an answer by year's end.
He returned to his kingdom and began to poll everyone: the princess, the priests, the wise men and even the court jester. He spoke with everyone, but no one could give him a satisfactory answer.
Many people advised him to consult the old ugly woman, for only she would have the answer.
But the price would be high; as the woman was famous throughout the kingdom for the exorbitant prices she charged.
The last day of the year arrived and Arthur had no choice but to talk to the old woman. She agreed to answer the question, but he would have to agree to her price first.
The old ugly woman wanted to marry Sir Lancelot, the most noble of the Knights of the Round Table and Arthur's closest friend!
Young Arthur was horrified. She was hunchbacked and hideous, had only one tooth, smelled like sewage, made obscene noises, etc. He had never encountered such a repugnant creature in all his life.
He refused to force his friend to marry her and endure such a terrible burden; but Lancelot, learning of the proposal, spoke with Arthur.
He said nothing was too big of a sacrifice compared to Arthur's life and the preservation of the Round Table.
Hence, a wedding was proclaimed and the woman answered Arthur's question thus:
What a woman really wants, she answered...is to be in charge of her own life.
Everyone in the kingdom instantly knew that the woman had uttered a great truth and that Arthur's life would be spared.
And so it was, the neighboring monarch granted Arthur his freedom and Lancelot and the ugly woman had a wonderful wedding.
The honeymoon hour approached and Lancelot, steeling himself for a horrific experience, entered the bedroom. But, what a sight awaited him. The most beautiful woman he had ever seen lay before him on the bed. The astounded Lancelot asked what had happened.
The young beauty replied that since he had been so kind to her when she appeared ugly, she would henceforth, be her horrible deformed self only half the time and the beautiful maiden the other half.
Which would he prefer? Beautiful during the day....or night?
Lancelot pondered the predicament. During the day, a beautiful woman to show off to his friends, but at night, in the privacy of his castle, an old ugly woman? Or, would he prefer having a hideous woman during the day, but by night, a beautiful woman for him to enjoy wondrous intimate moments?
What would YOU do?
What Lancelot chose is below.
BUT....make YOUR choice before you scroll down below.
OKAY?
Noble Lancelot said that he would allow HER to make the choice herself.
Upon hearing this, she announced that she would be beautiful all the time because he had respected her enough to let her be in charge of her own life.
Now....what is the moral to this story?
The moral is.....
If you don't let a woman have her own way...
Things are going to get ugly..
3)See if you can guess the right answer and then figure out the message in this story??
Young King Arthur was ambushed and imprisoned by the monarch of a neighboring kingdom. The monarch could have killed him but was moved by Arthur's youth and ideals. So, the monarch offered him his freedom, as long as he could answer a very difficult question. Arthur would have a year to figure out the answer and, if, after a year, he still had no answer, he would be put to death.
The question?...What do women really want? Such a question would perplex even the most knowledgeable man, and to young Arthur, it seemed an impossible query. But, since it was better than death, he accepted the monarch's proposition to have an answer by year's end.
He returned to his kingdom and began to poll everyone: the princess, the priests, the wise men and even the court jester. He spoke with everyone, but no one could give him a satisfactory answer.
Many people advised him to consult the old ugly woman, for only she would have the answer.
But the price would be high; as the woman was famous throughout the kingdom for the exorbitant prices she charged.
The last day of the year arrived and Arthur had no choice but to talk to the old woman. She agreed to answer the question, but he would have to agree to her price first.
The old ugly woman wanted to marry Sir Lancelot, the most noble of the Knights of the Round Table and Arthur's closest friend!
Young Arthur was horrified. She was hunchbacked and hideous, had only one tooth, smelled like sewage, made obscene noises, etc. He had never encountered such a repugnant creature in all his life.
He refused to force his friend to marry her and endure such a terrible burden; but Lancelot, learning of the proposal, spoke with Arthur.
He said nothing was too big of a sacrifice compared to Arthur's life and the preservation of the Round Table.
Hence, a wedding was proclaimed and the woman answered Arthur's question thus:
What a woman really wants, she answered...is to be in charge of her own life.
Everyone in the kingdom instantly knew that the woman had uttered a great truth and that Arthur's life would be spared.
And so it was, the neighboring monarch granted Arthur his freedom and Lancelot and the ugly woman had a wonderful wedding.
The honeymoon hour approached and Lancelot, steeling himself for a horrific experience, entered the bedroom. But, what a sight awaited him. The most beautiful woman he had ever seen lay before him on the bed. The astounded Lancelot asked what had happened.
The young beauty replied that since he had been so kind to her when she appeared ugly, she would henceforth, be her horrible deformed self only half the time and the beautiful maiden the other half.
Which would he prefer? Beautiful during the day....or night?
Lancelot pondered the predicament. During the day, a beautiful woman to show off to his friends, but at night, in the privacy of his castle, an old ugly woman? Or, would he prefer having a hideous woman during the day, but by night, a beautiful woman for him to enjoy wondrous intimate moments?
What would YOU do?
What Lancelot chose is below.
BUT....make YOUR choice before you scroll down below.
OKAY?
Noble Lancelot said that he would allow HER to make the choice herself.
Upon hearing this, she announced that she would be beautiful all the time because he had respected her enough to let her be in charge of her own life.
Now....what is the moral to this story?
The moral is.....
If you don't let a woman have her own way...
Things are going to get ugly..
++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment