++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Several weeks ago, I mentioned I was reading a book entitled: "Lifespan Why We Age- And Why We Don't Have To," by David Sinclair,PHD. I am about 62% through this interesting explanation why we need to look at aging as a disease for several reasons. First, because it is, in the author's view, second, because funding would increase and accelerate the solution to this disease.
The author writes very well, makes science understandable notwithstanding the fact I am totally unfamiliar with many of the scientific words etc.
He indicates prior to the Guttenberg Press individual man was the fountain of knowledge and the older one was the more knowledge and importance he was to his society.
The invention of the press opened the world to knowledge and ever since age has been looked at less favorably. Sickness associated with aging is costly, youth in the workforce have been elevated beyond an aging workforce . The author points out the failure to associate age with experience and knowledge and the ability to impart wisdom has been curtailed because we no longer hire the aged. Societies that mandatorily retire people younger grow at a slower GDP rate.
The author believes if we age in a healthy manner we have more options to expand our learning, can make greater contributions to society and this benefits all. In his view, and that of other scientists, committed to expanding life, greater funding can result in leaps towards extending a healthy lifespan.
Obviously more people raises the question of how many can the earth sustain and here there is much conflict but the author rightly points out the progress we have made beyond the naysayer's projections due to technology and man's persistence etc.
I have every confidence 115 will, within this century, become an expanded and achievable age and the extension will be associated with good health . I doubt I will be around to see my and his prediction come to pass.
Once we solve quality of life issues with expanded life Sinclair believes the length man can live a good life is extensive and positive accomplishments are within the grasp of scientists.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am constantly bombarded with emails stating; "Time for Biden to resign." I reject the idea. I want him to remain in office as long as he wishes so the prospects of this current radical Democrat Party diminish with the passing of each day.
We are and will remain a two party nation, in all likelihood, and what we need to return to is two healthy parties focused on the nation's best interests. Tall order, unlikely to happen but that should be the objective goal.
Meanwhile, Democrats must go through a political blood transfusion before this can happen.
When I look at the tragedy called Chicago where blacks relish killing their own the above will not happen until we become a more educated society and give more of a damn to what is happening in our nation
American Education Is Rotten from Top to BottomIn the fifteen years since Jill Biden became a "doctor," the average school of education has gone from being merely a bad joke to becoming scarily woke. More
And:
Nihilism Is Not a Good Look for the USAA spiritual catastrophe is now before us. More
Worth reposting :
Arrogant Democrats thought they could launch a missile that was not smart enough to turn back on them.
Biden and the Left-wing Standard of Attacking PresidentsIn just a few months Joe Biden has wrought a series of disasters that will invoke outrage that dwarfs the concocted anger directed at Donald Trump.By Victor Davis Hanson
As Joe Biden entered office in January 2021, there still roared a left-wing revolution, a woke madness spreading through popular culture and Congress, much of which he indirectly has aided and abetted. It has redefined not just politics but the rules of the presidency. And the eventual casualty of these radical shifts in protocols and customs will be—Joe Biden.
Take impeachment, which heretofore had been rare and has still never led to a Senate conviction. Prior to Trump, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were the only presidents to have been impeached (Richard Nixon resigned to avoid it), and both were acquitted in the Senate.
Yet leftist congressional representatives introduced articles of impeachment the very first week Trump was in office, on the absurd allegation of profiting from his office (the presidency cost the Trump corporations hundreds of millions). The House later went on to impeach him twice, without writs of “treason” and “bribery” or even “high crimes and misdemeanors” as set out by the Constitution. Instead, Trump was, first, successfully impeached for supposedly abusing his power and obstructing Congress. I don’t think the average American has ever been pulled over by the police for the high crime “of obstructing Congress” (historically a presidential pastime) or has been charged with “abuse of power” (said of every president from Thomas Jefferson to Barack Obama).
Trump’s second impeachment was even flimsier. He was accused of “incitement of insurrection” concerning disturbances on January 6 that supposedly led to the violent death of Officer Brian Sicknick, the fatal shooting of an unarmed Ashli Babbitt, and the entire fable of an “armed insurrection.” Post-impeachment, we would learn that Sicknick died of natural causes. Strangely, for months no information about the shooter of Ashli Babbitt or the inquiry into that fatal act was ever fully released to the public. No one was charged with armed insurrection, largely because none of the buffoonish rioters were found either to have carried or used a firearm that day or were exposed as master plotters with plans to destroy the U.S. government. They may well have been guilty of felonies, but armed insurrectionary conspiracy was not one of them.
No matter, the precedent had been set that serial impeachments now will be normative when a president in his first term loses party control of the House. Charges may not follow constitutional definitions. There will be no need to appoint a special counsel, to build a case on evidence, or to hold a formal hearing where witnesses present testimonies and are subject to cross-examination. There will be no expectation that the Senate will even come close to convicting an impeached president. Impeachment is simply now a political gambit to embarrass a party or a president before a reelection. Biden and future presidents as private citizens could be hounded after exiting office with a Senate impeachment trial.
Joe Biden by such new standards would then be in jeopardy should the Democrats lose the House in 2022, on the precedent that the Republicans could bring up anything they wished—unwillingness to enforce existing federal immigration law, deliberately misleading the American public on the growing catastrophe in Afghanistan, leveraging a foreign leader to lie with threats of withholding U.S. airpower to enhance his own political agenda, or empowerment of and collusion with his son Hunter Biden in past efforts to massage foreign governments for cash on the expectation of future advantageous U.S. government treatment. These may be flimsy charges for traditional impeachment; they are certainly not under the new Democratic model.
When Donald Trump’s confidential phone calls with foreign leaders were leaked to the press it was celebrated by the media and the Left as a sort of blood sport. Now are we to think the same of the embarrassing leaked phone call between Biden and the Afghan president?
Donald Trump was impeached over a phone call with the Ukrainian president for supposedly pressuring Ukraine, by the threat of holding up foreign aid, to conduct an investigation of the Biden family syndicate’s shenanigans. So, what are we to make then of Biden’s demand that the Afghan president lie to the world so that his fragile government did not appear in jeopardy, even if, Biden acknowledged, it, of course, was—with the added insinuation that Biden’s commitment to support the Afghan government with U.S. military power was predicated on his compliance with parroting such lies?
We saw from 2017 to 2021 the precedent that both active and retired top Pentagon brass would either leak derogatory assessments of the commander-in-chief to the press, or overtly declare him to be morally unfit to hold office—all in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. What then is the country to do, amid the Afghanistan catastrophe, when lots of retired generals are now going public with calls for their president’s key military and civilian office holders to resign for culpability for a series of foreign policy disasters? Is it a good thing for our generals and admirals to become editorialists and critics of an elected president’s administration or ill-conceived, both, neither—or sometimes, depending on who is president?
In the Trump years, the Left institutionalized the new idea that threatening to invoke the 25th Amendment was a casual affair, a strategy appropriate to harming or removing a president. So the acting heads of the FBI and Justice Department apparently discussed plots to wear eavesdropping equipment to entrap Trump in recorded conversations that might reveal his alleged dementia. An Ivy League psychiatrist was called to Congress to swear that the president was non compos mentis and in need of a forced intervention. The media demanded proof of Trump’s sanity to the point he took—and aced—the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.
Joe Biden is obviously suffering from some sort of organic illness that has reduced his mental faculties to the point he is often dazed. When he is rarely able to craft complete sentences, he says things that are incoherent, offensive, and occasionally racist. He seems to have no knowledge of current events and so reassures trapped Americans in Kabul that they can simply go to the besieged airport, show their passports, and waltz on in.
Under the new protocols, are we to expect high Justice Department officials to record stealthily Biden’s private conversations, to subpoena an appropriate ivy league psychiatrist, or to ask the president to take a simple cognitive assessment test?
Under Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, sought to ingratiate himself to the woke movement, to his woke Secretary of Defense, and to Joe Biden by assuring Congress he would get to the root of “white rage” and in general recommend to his troops the relevant woke texts such as those of Professor Ibram X. Kendi.
Milley produced no evidence that there were lots of insurrectionary white supremacists in the military. He cared little in his virtue signaling that “white” male soldiers had died in Iraq and Afghanistan at twice their numbers in the general population—a cardinal sin under woke disparate impact and proportional representation canons.
Again, fine. But given the sometimes violent nature of Black Lives Matter, and its apparently proud Marxist origins, is it now equally OK for some future chairman to testify that he will go through the ranks to understand black rage as his Pentagon roots out would-be BLM extremists?
These hypocrisies are endless, given the pernicious precedents that so casually have now been embraced for cheap political advantage.
Will the next Speaker of the House ritually tear up Biden’s State of the Union address, as he hands the text to him on national television?
Will the Congress appoint a special counsel, allot him 22 months and $40 million to scour the Biden team to find the causes, origins, and those culpable of the greatest foreign policy debacle since the last days of Vietnam—with occasional side trips along the tortured family money trail and indifference to the IRS of Hunter Biden’s international grifting?
Will retired Trump-era CIA and high-ranking intelligence officials go on cable television to wink and nod about their privileged security clearance information to accuse Biden of treasonous behavior?
Will they tweet that he and his policies are similar to those of the German death camps, or stamp him as Mussolini or Hitler-like?
And will some “brave” disillusioned Democratic “loyalist” be canonized in the media as he falsely reassures the nation, as “Anonymous II,” that he is both high-ranking and representative of a large, dissident, and grassroots resistance to Biden within his own administration and party? Will the New York Times print his warning that an army of idealists is ready and willing to resist any Biden presidential order that it finds distasteful? Is that the political culture that Biden should now operate under?
Did the NATO allies find Trump’s brashness—which resulted in a considerable increase in alliance military funding and readiness—as bad as Biden’s soothing words that betrayed our European partners and have all but ruined the alliance?
Was all this hypocrisy predicated on the idea that the Left will never lose power, or that its atrocious behavior was defensible for the moment given the accident of Donald Trump? Or do Democrats really believe there must be one standard for leftist moralists and another for their supposed inferiors, on their blinkered assumption that there would never be a Democratic president as controversial and disliked by the Right as Donald Trump was by the Left?
The truth is that in just a few months Joe Biden has wrought a series of disasters that will invoke outrage that dwarfs the concocted anger directed at Donald Trump. And it may be vented through the very protocols that the Left invented for its own short-term advantage.+++About Victor Davis HansonVictor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness and the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is an American military historian, columnist, a former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush. Hanson is also a farmer (growing raisin grapes on a family farm in Selma, California) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism. He is the author most recently of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won and The Case for Trump.
And:
Nihilism Is Not a Good Look for the USAA spiritual catastrophe is now before us. More
Worth reposting :
Arrogant Democrats thought they could launch a missile that was not smart enough to turn back on them.
Biden and the Left-wing Standard of Attacking PresidentsIn just a few months Joe Biden has wrought a series of disasters that will invoke outrage that dwarfs the concocted anger directed at Donald Trump.By Victor Davis Hanson
As Joe Biden entered office in January 2021, there still roared a left-wing revolution, a woke madness spreading through popular culture and Congress, much of which he indirectly has aided and abetted. It has redefined not just politics but the rules of the presidency. And the eventual casualty of these radical shifts in protocols and customs will be—Joe Biden.
Take impeachment, which heretofore had been rare and has still never led to a Senate conviction. Prior to Trump, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were the only presidents to have been impeached (Richard Nixon resigned to avoid it), and both were acquitted in the Senate.
Yet leftist congressional representatives introduced articles of impeachment the very first week Trump was in office, on the absurd allegation of profiting from his office (the presidency cost the Trump corporations hundreds of millions). The House later went on to impeach him twice, without writs of “treason” and “bribery” or even “high crimes and misdemeanors” as set out by the Constitution. Instead, Trump was, first, successfully impeached for supposedly abusing his power and obstructing Congress. I don’t think the average American has ever been pulled over by the police for the high crime “of obstructing Congress” (historically a presidential pastime) or has been charged with “abuse of power” (said of every president from Thomas Jefferson to Barack Obama).
Trump’s second impeachment was even flimsier. He was accused of “incitement of insurrection” concerning disturbances on January 6 that supposedly led to the violent death of Officer Brian Sicknick, the fatal shooting of an unarmed Ashli Babbitt, and the entire fable of an “armed insurrection.” Post-impeachment, we would learn that Sicknick died of natural causes. Strangely, for months no information about the shooter of Ashli Babbitt or the inquiry into that fatal act was ever fully released to the public. No one was charged with armed insurrection, largely because none of the buffoonish rioters were found either to have carried or used a firearm that day or were exposed as master plotters with plans to destroy the U.S. government. They may well have been guilty of felonies, but armed insurrectionary conspiracy was not one of them.
No matter, the precedent had been set that serial impeachments now will be normative when a president in his first term loses party control of the House. Charges may not follow constitutional definitions. There will be no need to appoint a special counsel, to build a case on evidence, or to hold a formal hearing where witnesses present testimonies and are subject to cross-examination. There will be no expectation that the Senate will even come close to convicting an impeached president. Impeachment is simply now a political gambit to embarrass a party or a president before a reelection. Biden and future presidents as private citizens could be hounded after exiting office with a Senate impeachment trial.
Joe Biden by such new standards would then be in jeopardy should the Democrats lose the House in 2022, on the precedent that the Republicans could bring up anything they wished—unwillingness to enforce existing federal immigration law, deliberately misleading the American public on the growing catastrophe in Afghanistan, leveraging a foreign leader to lie with threats of withholding U.S. airpower to enhance his own political agenda, or empowerment of and collusion with his son Hunter Biden in past efforts to massage foreign governments for cash on the expectation of future advantageous U.S. government treatment. These may be flimsy charges for traditional impeachment; they are certainly not under the new Democratic model.
When Donald Trump’s confidential phone calls with foreign leaders were leaked to the press it was celebrated by the media and the Left as a sort of blood sport. Now are we to think the same of the embarrassing leaked phone call between Biden and the Afghan president?
Donald Trump was impeached over a phone call with the Ukrainian president for supposedly pressuring Ukraine, by the threat of holding up foreign aid, to conduct an investigation of the Biden family syndicate’s shenanigans. So, what are we to make then of Biden’s demand that the Afghan president lie to the world so that his fragile government did not appear in jeopardy, even if, Biden acknowledged, it, of course, was—with the added insinuation that Biden’s commitment to support the Afghan government with U.S. military power was predicated on his compliance with parroting such lies?
We saw from 2017 to 2021 the precedent that both active and retired top Pentagon brass would either leak derogatory assessments of the commander-in-chief to the press, or overtly declare him to be morally unfit to hold office—all in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. What then is the country to do, amid the Afghanistan catastrophe, when lots of retired generals are now going public with calls for their president’s key military and civilian office holders to resign for culpability for a series of foreign policy disasters? Is it a good thing for our generals and admirals to become editorialists and critics of an elected president’s administration or ill-conceived, both, neither—or sometimes, depending on who is president?
In the Trump years, the Left institutionalized the new idea that threatening to invoke the 25th Amendment was a casual affair, a strategy appropriate to harming or removing a president. So the acting heads of the FBI and Justice Department apparently discussed plots to wear eavesdropping equipment to entrap Trump in recorded conversations that might reveal his alleged dementia. An Ivy League psychiatrist was called to Congress to swear that the president was non compos mentis and in need of a forced intervention. The media demanded proof of Trump’s sanity to the point he took—and aced—the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.
Joe Biden is obviously suffering from some sort of organic illness that has reduced his mental faculties to the point he is often dazed. When he is rarely able to craft complete sentences, he says things that are incoherent, offensive, and occasionally racist. He seems to have no knowledge of current events and so reassures trapped Americans in Kabul that they can simply go to the besieged airport, show their passports, and waltz on in.
Under the new protocols, are we to expect high Justice Department officials to record stealthily Biden’s private conversations, to subpoena an appropriate ivy league psychiatrist, or to ask the president to take a simple cognitive assessment test?
Under Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, sought to ingratiate himself to the woke movement, to his woke Secretary of Defense, and to Joe Biden by assuring Congress he would get to the root of “white rage” and in general recommend to his troops the relevant woke texts such as those of Professor Ibram X. Kendi.
Milley produced no evidence that there were lots of insurrectionary white supremacists in the military. He cared little in his virtue signaling that “white” male soldiers had died in Iraq and Afghanistan at twice their numbers in the general population—a cardinal sin under woke disparate impact and proportional representation canons.
Again, fine. But given the sometimes violent nature of Black Lives Matter, and its apparently proud Marxist origins, is it now equally OK for some future chairman to testify that he will go through the ranks to understand black rage as his Pentagon roots out would-be BLM extremists?
These hypocrisies are endless, given the pernicious precedents that so casually have now been embraced for cheap political advantage.
Will the next Speaker of the House ritually tear up Biden’s State of the Union address, as he hands the text to him on national television?
Will the Congress appoint a special counsel, allot him 22 months and $40 million to scour the Biden team to find the causes, origins, and those culpable of the greatest foreign policy debacle since the last days of Vietnam—with occasional side trips along the tortured family money trail and indifference to the IRS of Hunter Biden’s international grifting?
Will retired Trump-era CIA and high-ranking intelligence officials go on cable television to wink and nod about their privileged security clearance information to accuse Biden of treasonous behavior?
Will they tweet that he and his policies are similar to those of the German death camps, or stamp him as Mussolini or Hitler-like?
And will some “brave” disillusioned Democratic “loyalist” be canonized in the media as he falsely reassures the nation, as “Anonymous II,” that he is both high-ranking and representative of a large, dissident, and grassroots resistance to Biden within his own administration and party? Will the New York Times print his warning that an army of idealists is ready and willing to resist any Biden presidential order that it finds distasteful? Is that the political culture that Biden should now operate under?
Did the NATO allies find Trump’s brashness—which resulted in a considerable increase in alliance military funding and readiness—as bad as Biden’s soothing words that betrayed our European partners and have all but ruined the alliance?
Was all this hypocrisy predicated on the idea that the Left will never lose power, or that its atrocious behavior was defensible for the moment given the accident of Donald Trump? Or do Democrats really believe there must be one standard for leftist moralists and another for their supposed inferiors, on their blinkered assumption that there would never be a Democratic president as controversial and disliked by the Right as Donald Trump was by the Left?
The truth is that in just a few months Joe Biden has wrought a series of disasters that will invoke outrage that dwarfs the concocted anger directed at Donald Trump. And it may be vented through the very protocols that the Left invented for its own short-term advantage.+++About Victor Davis HansonVictor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness and the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is an American military historian, columnist, a former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush. Hanson is also a farmer (growing raisin grapes on a family farm in Selma, California) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism. He is the author most recently of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won and The Case for Trump.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
OUCH!
Regrets, they have a few: One out of five Democrat voters regret casting vote for Biden
By KAREN TOWNSEND
We could have told them but they wouldn’t listen. Democrats were dragged kicking and screaming to polling places to vote for Joe Biden because he wasn’t Donald Trump. NeverTrumpers and Democrats were so Trump-deranged that they settled for voting against Trump by voting for Biden. They didn’t vote for Biden because they thought he’d be a good president – he just wasn’t Trump. That was good enough for them. Now that Biden has so bungled absolutely everything across the board, Democrats voters are feeling buyer’s (voter’s) remorse.
In the Real Clear Politics averaging, Biden is underwater by 4.1 points. Biden’s disapproval is 49.3% and his approval is 45.2%. It’s not a good trend, especially so soon into his presidency. For example, a ABC News/Washington Post poll taken from 8/29 to 9/1 has him at 44% approval and 51% disapproval, which is 7 points underwater. Left-leaning Zogby Analytics released the results of a survey taken which show that one-fifth of likely voters regret voting for President Biden. That may not seem like a big number but when you take the size of the electorate into consideration and remember that the last two presidential elections were decided by, in some cases, a few thousand votes in a handful of swing states, you can quickly see that this kind of survey results are not good news for Team Biden. It certainly isn’t good for Democrats’ chances in 2024 if Biden runs for re-election. I seriously doubt Biden will either last that long or will run for re-election in 2024 but Kamala’s chances would likely be affected by these numbers, too. We already know that Kamala is unpopular, especially for a vice-president.
Americans are clearly seeing Joe Biden is not the man he claimed to be on the campaign trail. He was presented as a longtime Washington politician who could restore us back to normal, someone who would return calm to Washington. He was already failing at keeping the southern border secure and ending the pandemic as he promised he would do, but then the withdrawal from Afghanistan happened. The man who has a history of being wrong about foreign policy his entire political career has not improved with age. He’s now seen as a stubborn, petulant old man who doesn’t bother to listen to his military or intelligence officers. Biden goes it alone in his decisions and Americans die. It should be noted that this survey was taken before things went so horribly wrong in Afghanistan. The next survey will undoubtedly be worse for Biden.
As for the poll, when we drill down and look at the demographics of the surveyed voters, some very important groups, who normally lean left and Democrat, were even more regretful about voting for the president in 2020. For example, younger voters aged 18-29 (27% yes/67% no/6% not sure) and middle aged voters aged 30-49 (30% yes/67% no/4% not sure) were much more likely to regret voting for Biden than older voters aged 50-64 (10% yes/87% no/3% not sure) and 65+ (6% yes/91% no/3% not sure). Regarding politics, nearly three in ten Republicans (29% yes/65% no/7% not sure) regretted voting for Biden, while one-fifth of Democrats (21% yes/77% no/3% not sure) also regretted voting for Joe Biden. Independents (14% yes/81% no/6% not sure) were the least likely to regret voting for Biden in 2020.
Men (27% yes/70% no/3% not sure) were twice as likely to regret voting for Joe Biden than women (13% yes/82% no/5% not sure). Ethnicity also factored in how much voters expressed regret about voting for Biden: Hispanics (33% yes/63% no/4% not sure) and African Americans (25% yes/70% no/5% not sure) were more likely than white voters (16% yes/80% no/4% not sure) to regret voting for Biden.
Where voters lived was also of significance when it came to whether voters’ regretted voting for President Biden. Urban voters (28% yes/67% no/4% not sure) were twice as likely to regret voting for Biden than suburban (14% yes/83% no/4%not sure) and rural voters (12% yes/86% no/3%not sure).
Some of the consumer subgroups we track also expressed regret voting for Biden, such as, weekly Walmart shoppers (27% yes/69% no/4% not sure), weekly Amazon shoppers (29% yes/68% no/3% not sure) and likely voters who had invested money in cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Litecoin (44% yes/53% no/3% not sure). One must assume that inflation and the potential of the federal government to reign in cryptocurrencies were driving these sentiments. The opposite held true for consumers who did not shop at Walmart (5% yes/94% no/1% not sure) and Amazon (11% yes/86% no/3% not sure) and voters who had not invested in cryptocurrency (11% yes/86% no/4% not sure).
Here is the method Zogby used:
Zogby Analytics conducted an online survey of 2,173 Biden voters in the US.
Using internal and trusted interactive partner resources, thousands of adults were randomly invited to participate in this interactive survey. Each invitation is password coded and secure so that one respondent can only access the survey one time.
Using information based on census data, voter registration figures, CIA fact books and exit polls, we use complex weighting techniques to best represent the demographics of the population being surveyed. Weighted variables may include age, race, gender, region, party, education, and religion. The party breakdown for this survey is as follows: 38% Democrat, 38% Republican and 24% Independent/unaffiliated.
Based on a confidence interval of 95%, the margin of error for 2,173 is +/- 2.1 percentage points. This means that all other things being equal, the identical survey repeated will have results within the margin of error 95 times out of 100.
As far as the Afghanistan withdrawal fiasco, one group of Biden voters is being particularly quiet. Remember those 500 plus national security professionals who endorsed Biden in 2020 over Trump? Remember they said Trump was unfit to be commander-in-chief and Biden had the experience to be a calm and able leader? Last week Real Clear Politics reached out to more than two dozen of the highest-ranking military and civilian leaders on the list of nearly 500 endorsers but only a handful of them responded. John Negroponte, for example, sticks with his endorsement of Biden but hedges his opinion admitting he did it as a vote against Trump.
John Negroponte, who served as the first director of national intelligence during the George W. Bush administration and previously as its ambassador to Iraq, was one of just two contacted by RCP who came forward to stand by their endorsement of Biden. The rest either did not respond to the inquiries or said they were too busy to weigh in, including Michele Flournoy, who served as undersecretary of defense in the administrations of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
Flournoy was a top contender to become Biden’s defense secretary, but her connections to the defense industry ultimately sank her candidacy. A spokeswoman for Flournoy late Tuesday told RCP over email that the former senior Pentagon official is “tied up at this time and unable to comment.”
Negroponte, however, didn’t hesitate when asked whether, in retrospect, he has second thoughts about the Biden endorsement. Within 30 minutes of RCP’s inquiry, he emailed to say that he “definitely” stands by his decision, which he called a “choice between two candidates.” The veteran diplomat and top intelligence official added that he never supported either Donald Trump’s or Biden’s withdrawal policy in Afghanistan. “I happen to disagree with both him and Mr. Trump on the issue of how we end our military involvement in Afghanistan,” he said.
Pressed on his views of how history will view Biden’s chaotic and deadly pullout form the country, Negroponte demurred for now. “Let’s let the dust settle and leave some time/space for those kind of judgments,” he replied.
History will not judge the Biden presidency kindly, especially his withdrawal from Afghanistan. He’s been exposed as a callous and arrogant narcissist. Heaven help us through the next three years.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Biden diagnosis?
A DOCTORS VIEW OF POTUS....
In my 42 years of practicing medicine, at an academic medical center, the U.S. Navy, and private practice, I always felt comforted that our President was physically and mentally capable of performing the duties of his office, UNTIL NOW.
Please allow me to elaborate on Biden's health. In February 1988, Biden sustained the rupture of the cerebral (brain) aneurysm and almost died, except for the heroic efforts of his neurosurgeon. Three months later, a second aneurysm had to be clipped. After the second procedure his neurosurgeon gave him less than a 50% chance of a full recovery.
With that history one would think that the media would have questioned him during his presidential campaign about whether any diagnostic studies had been done in the interim, but they did not.
His health status was never seriously questioned. On his most recent published physical exam it was noted that he has persistent atrial fibrillation.
This diagnosis alone would not qualify him for standard life insurance because of a 5-fold increase for a stroke. The treatment for this condition is chronic anti coagulation, which in a feeble, unsteady 78 year old male, who falls three times while ascending the stairs of Air Force One is extremely risky.
A severe fall with a head injury could result in a fatal cerebral hemorrhage. His mental and cognitive status has obviously deteriorated as is apparent to anyone who watches him speak, despite his handlers' attempts to protect him as much as possible. Speaking in short sentences with frequent pauses, the need for notes to answer questions, using jumbled words without meaning short term memory lapses (forgets the name of General Austin, and two female generals he is honoring) are all definite signs of brain damage.
It surprises me that his wife, (Jill) who knew his shortcomings better than anyone else, could not have talked him out of taking the most difficult job in the world.
Of interest also is the fact that since 9/11 it has been the U.S. Government policy to have the president and vice president travel separately, NOT ANYMORE. Kamala Harris is only a few steps behind him whether by air, land or sea. This is obviously because he may say the wrong thing, fall or have a medical emergency. He would also be the first president to have the nuclear button removed from his sole use. So, where does this lead us? It tells me that Kamala Harris will be our President sooner rather than later.
This alone sends shivers up my spine. The Democratic party, directed of course by Barack, knew this would be the case despite the fact that she received the fewest votes of any candidate for President in the crowded Democratic primaries. Harris was second only to Bernie Sanders on the Socialist/Marxist scorecard and this resonates very well with Obama's ideology, nurtured by the Saul Alinsky playbook.
So what can we do about this?
First of all, I recommend that you *PRAY FERVENTLY,* because divine intervention may be necessary.
Secondly, I recommend that you pay very close attention to the midterm elections next year and vote for the people who love America and our Democracy.
Leonard J. Hertko, M.D. Orland Park
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ And so it goes. This is just the beginning. It will drip,drip,drip until Biden caves, caves, caves.
[VIDEOS] Taliban Holds Americans Hostage
› Terrifying...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If true, as I suspect it is, this lab should be sued for everything they are worth and thrown out of business: Liberals cannot tolerate conservative blacks who think for themselves, have strong views that do not accord with their deep seated prejudice and hypocrisy.
No comments:
Post a Comment