China Now Richest Nation. Reasons Why Electric Cars Will Take Time To Be Accepted. History Will Reveal Truth. Democrats Become Trump-like. More.

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

DHS Warns That Terrorist Groups are Ramping Up Online Activities

The Department of Homeland Security issued a terror threat bulletin warning that al Qaeda and ISIS-linked terrorists are ramping up online activity to try to inspire attacks on the U.S. homeland.
Officials also see an uptick in publications by online magazines encouraging U.S.-based actors and providing advice on different methods of attack.

The recent threat bulletin warns of calls for violence against "elected officials, political representatives, government facilities, law enforcement, religious communities or commercial facilities, and perceived ideological opponents."

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

China Is Now The Richest Nation, Passing The US

According to a recent economic study of the world’s wealthiest nations’ “national balance sheets,” China has surpassed the United States...

 

Read More »

+++

 Sent to me by a dear friend and fellow memo reader.

Perhaps not all correct and when Ford came out with his auto people defended horses and buggies but in time and the rest is history..  On the other hand does raise some interesting issues and the value of some of the electric companies. You decide.

Subject: Fwd: Electric cars - published by an on line Auto site

REASONS ELECTRIC CARS AREN’T TAKING OVER JUST YET

19: Charging Stations

Electric cars are becoming close to a norm, and with that said there are more and more charging stations. But if you live in rural America you probably won’t see a charging station for miles on end. For someone who lives in that part of the country, an electric car just isn’t a practical option yet. It can be miles between the nearest town and not being able to charge your vehicle just isn’t an option.

 

Likewise, the lack of charging stations might make it difficult for electric pickup trucks to find a niche in the market as well. Unless the ability to recharge is within reach, most consumers are just going to go for the traditional method of transportation.

 

18: Their Heavy Weight

Believe it or not, an electric car is heavier than a gas-powered car. This is because an electric car uses a massive battery to power it. Sometimes these batteries can weigh thousands of pounds, which adds to the weight of the vehicle. While you might think you’re driving a lightweight car, in reality, you aren’t. Of course, there are exceptions to this like the Tesla Roadster, which was amazingly agile for its size.

 

Then you have the Tesla Cybertruck, a beast of a metal creation. Most drivers just can’t fathom driving something so heavy if it’s not a heavy-duty pickup truck or something of substance. That Model S is often too much of a heavyweight for the average consumer to consider.

 

17: Inability To Repair (am told less parts less repairs.)

Unless you have an advanced engineering degree, you aren’t going to be working on an electric car. For most consumers, this is a major problem. Having the freedom to work on their vehicles has inspired thousands of people. Not to mention the fact that fixing your owncar is financially sound. But, when it comes to repairing an electric vehicle, you aren’t going to be able to do this in your garage.

 

Until electric cars can be repaired by the owner, there’s going to be a small portion of the market that turns their nose up. Sadly, based on the kind of technology that goes into these cars, there’s probably never going to be a time to fix them on your own.

 

16: The Range Isn’t There

For most families, hopping in the car and hitting the road is a fun thing to do. Unfortunately, in an electric car, you are limited to the range that it can go. You have to plan your trip out ahead of time and find charging stations for your car. Many electric car drivers fear not being able to find a charging station and getting stuck somewhere along the trip.

 

Most electric cars have a range of about 258 miles, but this is not enough for a full-featured cross-country trip. So drivers tend to still go for gasoline-powered cars because you can always find a fueling station.

 

15: Slow Charging Times

Just because you are going to find a charging station doesn’t mean you’ll be done in time. The typical charging time for an electric car is around eight hours. New technology has been advancing the charging time, but that doesn’t cover the thousands of used electric cars on the road. Most common car buyers can’t afford a brand-new electric car, and thus the vast majority of consumers will go used.

 

Until the charging times and battery technology advance, most consumers will avoid electric cars altogether. For most consumers, we need to go right now, and can’t wait around for the charging to be complete.

 

14: High Price Tag (probably not true based on  gas car prices.)

Electric cars cost a lot more upfront than most gasoline-powered vehicles. This source of sticker shock is a piece of contention for most consumers. Although there’s a tax break of $7,500 for new vehicle purchases, it just doesn’t matter to most people. That high price tag makes the electric car almost in the same league as a luxury car. When you just want affordable transportation, you aren’t trying to spend the price of a Lexus.

 

There have been attempts to build an entry-level electric car, such as the Nissan Leaf for instance. However, the car was so scaled down that most consumers didn’t go for it.

 

13: Batteries Will Wear Out

Because electric cars are still fairly new to the mainstream, the timeframe for battery degradation is still a mystery. An average gasoline engine has a lifespan of 140,000 miles, whereas an electric battery is iffy. Until the reliability of these batteries is figured out most consumers will steer clear of electric vehicles. While some aspects of the vehicle are more reliable other aspects just bring up questions.

 

The reliability of a vehicle is one of the most important aspects of the purchase. If you have no idea as to how reliable the car is going to be, you probably won’t make the purchase. Electric vehicles are still a new thing and there hasn’t been much proven about them when it comes to reliability.

 

12: Fire Hazard

There have long been reports of electric cars catching on fire, and it’s always in the back of people’s minds. Because an electric car is completely electric, the risk of fire is a lot higher than your average gas-powered vehicle. Likewise, there are also fears about how an electric car would fare in an accident without catching fire.

 

These are just some of the things that prevent people from purchasing electric vehicles. Because these cars are still fairly new on the market the worries that accompany them are valid. Consumers should also take the time to check the vehicle’s track record thus far.

 

11: Subpar Performance

Before the current crop of electric cars from Tesla and Ford, performance and electricity weren’t equated in the same sentence. The thing that made most electric cars stand out was the fact that they were painfully slow. Take the GM EV1 or the early Toyota Rav4 EV, both of which were not comparable to a gasoline-powered engine. Performance-wise, most electric cars are quite fast nowadays.

 

But getting drivers to see that is another thing, and electric cars have a long road ahead of them to replace gasoline-powered vehicles. Drivers need to understand that an electric car can compete in every sense of the word.

 

10: Lack of Availability

Electric cars are still a brand new concept when you put into perspective the age. This means that finding an electric car is not easy for a vast majority of the country. Tesla for instance only has dealerships in the large metropolitan cities. And car companies like Nissan and Ford are only ordering these cars in small numbers. Quite a few electric cars such as the Fisker Karma were in a special order, which made it even harder to acquire.

 

The Rivian Truck is another prime example of an electric car that might be hard to get. Until dealerships, in the middle of the country start carrying these cars, it might be a tough sell. At the moment, an electric car is more of a luxury item than a mainstream vehicle.

 

9: Lack of Service Centers

An electric car is not an average vehicle, which means that finding a place to service it isn’t easy. Most run-of-the-mill automotive mechanics that you are going to come across are not equipped to work on one of these vehicles. Finding a suitable service center for your electric vehicle is few and far between, and quite costly to boot. Most vehicle owners look for a mechanic who is trustworthy and gets the job done.

 

But this is a bit harder with an electric car because most mechanics are not familiar with these vehicles just yet. You’ll be in for a bit of sticker shock if you do manage to find a mechanic who can do the job right the first time.

 

8: Lack of Charging Infrastructure

It’s not just the fact that there aren’t a lot of charging stations, it’s also the fact that most power grids are not equipped to handle millions of charging vehicles. The whole concept of electric vehicles was only mainstream in the last decade. As such, most of the power companies in the country have not been able to upgrade.

 

 

Likewise, most new homes are not built with a dedicated charging station either, which means you need to outfit a spot to charge your car. This is next to impossible if you live in an apartment complex or a condominium. If the charging infrastructure is upgraded in the next couple of years more people will be accepting electric vehicles.

 

7: High Electric Bill

Upfront, owning an electric vehicle might seem cheaper than paying for gasoline. But when you are charging the vehicle in your home, you are going to pay a higher bill. This is something that scares a lot of potential electric car drivers. Many of whom are already dealing with higher energy costs across the board. Again, electric cars are such a new concept that most people haven’t factored in what it would cost to own one.

 

Until homes are built to handle these types of vehicles owning one might be a difficult proposition. If you live in a large city, you can park at a public charging station when you are at work. That will eliminate the need to charge at your home for the most part, which is a good thing.

 

6: Limited Cargo Capacity

Another problem in the earliest days of electric cars was the limited cargo capacity. Because of the massive size of the battery, it can take up a good deal of the trunk or engine bay. There is the advantage of no moving parts in the engine but it still takes up a lot of space. In the Tesla Model 3, this isn’t a problem because it is a crossover style vehicle but in a sedan or coupe could be a problem.

 

The Tesla Roadster for instance had a limited amount of cargo space, which made a lot of buyers turn the other way. Again, the electric car makers are working to change this but a lot of shoppers still need to be convinced.

 

5: Electric Car Cost

Let’s face the facts, right now electric cars are expensive to buy. The new Hummer EV is going to be upwards of $70,000. This means that the average pickup truck buyer is probably going to look toward Nissan or Toyota. As long as electric cars are priced so high it is going to limit the marketing potential of these vehicles. The high price of the vehicle is to compensate for the cost of the battery and design.

 

But still, if you are marketing to a certain class it can be hard to justify the price. And right now electric cars cost a pretty penny to own. There are tax incentives but that just isn’t enough to justify the high price for an electric car right now.

 

4: Zero Emissions Is A Lie

While an electric car itself doesn’t burn fuel or put emissions into the atmosphere, the power for the vehicle has to come from somewhere. The majority of power is still coming from a coal-powered plant somewhere. So when they say an electric car is zero emissions that isn’t always the case. You are still going to contribute to ozone depletion, just not upfront like you would with a gas vehicle.

 

For a lot of buyers, the fact that these vehicles are still polluting in one way or another makes the appeal limiting. Coupled with the high price tag you just have a recipe for disaster that is going to cost an arm and a leg.

 

3: Quick Charging Can Damage Batteries

A new thing that has been popping up in big cities across the country is rapid charging stations. Sometimes these rapid charging stations can get a vehicle fully charged in under thirty minutes. But there is a problem with that and it comes to the battery. When you rapidly charge something you will degrade the battery a lot sooner. Because these batteries cost thousands of dollars, most consumers are not willing to take that risk.

 

Maintenance on an electric car can cost a lot of money, and having a battery go out is just not something that most people want to deal with. Quick charging might be convenient, but it’s not something drivers want to do every time.

 

2: Resale Value Is Questionable

It seems like electric cars are changing every month with a new feature or design. This means the used market is going to be saturated. On top of the fact that these cars are extremely expensive to repair, you also have a flood of models. Older models like the Chevy Volt or the Nissan Leaf have fallen out of favor. With unstable resale values, the electric car just doesn’t make a well-used car option.

 

This will change in the future as more electric cars make their way onto the market. Places like California are making it to where the electric car will be the only new car sold on the market at one point.

 

1: Parts Are Hard To Find

Electric cars are still new, and finding parts can be next to impossible. If you have a 1996 Toyota Corolla, you can find everything online from engine replacement parts to body panels. If you have a Tesla Roadster, this is not as easy of a task, and that scares most consumers away. Electric cars are not mainstream enough for the average consumer to be able to repair and own.

 

Until this changes, you won’t see a good number of the vehicles on the road being electric. It just won’t make sense for the consumers who enjoy being do-it-yourselfers. If you can’t even find a replacement fender, it will be costly to own an electric car.

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

Lay Down and Take the Left's Beatings, Peasants  Larry O'Connor

The Press That Recoils at 'Enemy of the People' Caught Tracking Down Rittenhouse Jury Members  Brad Slager +++++++

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

 Yes, but it always takes so long and loses some of it's impact.

History Will Grind Out the Truth

By Victor Davis Hanson 

Five years ago, most of the corporate media insisted that Donald Trump had colluded with Russia to rig the 2016 election, fixated on the so-called Steele dossier. It was a supposedly independent research effort detailing "proof" of Trump-Russian cooperation to rob Hillary Clinton of the election. 

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and author of the book "The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won." You can reach him by e-mailing authorvdh@gmail.com.

“History will figure that out on its own.” That is what Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., recently replied to Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

In a heated congressional exchange, Fauci derided the idea that the COVID-19 pandemic was due to the leak of a dangerous virus, engineered in the Chinese Wuhan virology lab—and in part funded by U.S. health agencies, on the prompt of Fauci himself.

Fauci offered arguments from authority by citing his own expertise, as well as that of “card-carrying” specialists.

But in truth, there is little evidence that any animal species has been found infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus or a close relative that causes COVID-19 or a similar illness.

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

Many federal health experts increasingly believe the virus was manmade. A number argue that it was likely a product of gain-of-function research that was funded in part by a U.S. government grant.

Others concede that Fauci and Dr. Peter Daszak—who was involved in gain-of-function research, often in cooperation with the Chinese—were not candid about the full extent of their ties to the Wuhan lab. But despite Chinese resistance to releasing pertinent data, history eventually will sort the truth out—as it does with most controversies of the moment.

Five years ago, The New York Times, The Washington Post, most of the mainstream media, and the majority of the bipartisan Washington, D.C., political and government establishments insisted that Donald Trump had colluded with Russia to rig the 2016 election.

In support of such conspiracy theories, they fixated on the so-called Steele dossier. It was a supposedly independent research effort detailing “proof” of Trump-Russian cooperation to rob Hillary Clinton of the election.

That supposed evidence was the unspoken ground swell for a 22-month, $40 million special counsel investigation of Trump conducted by former FBI head Robert Mueller.

For over 650 days, the country was consumed with “Russian collusion.” Cable news outlets, public television and radio pundits, along with high-ranking Democratic politicians, almost daily announced the impending end of the colluding Trump administration.

They peddled rumors of Trump’s supposed obscene activity in Moscow. They spun tales of mysterious meetings between Trump’s family and Russian operatives, and of Trump surrogates’ supposed trips to meet with Russian colluding officials.

Christopher Steele, the architect of the “dossier,” had not been to Russia in decades. He was a rank partisan in the pay of the Clinton campaign—and for a time the FBI itself.

Five years later, history has almost sorted out the fable that the most powerful, wealthy, and influential Americans in the nation once foisted upon the public.

Special prosecutor John Durham seems to be slowly indicting the promulgators of the hoax. The earlier lengthy internal audit by Inspector General Michael Horowitz cited wrongdoing on the part of the Department of Justice and FBI.

The Mueller investigation failed to find any proof of Russian-Trump collusion. The 2018 majority report of the House Intelligence Committee came to the same conclusion.

The admission of false statements by former FBI acting Director Andrew McCabe, along with the felonious altering of a court document by FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, were other elements of the warped and unprofessional behavior of the FBI.

Both Mueller and former FBI Director James Comey were unable to answer fundamental questions while under oath about the dossier and the role of its authors in spreading the collusion hoax. Mueller’s legal team and Comey himself habitually leaked rumors that fed the collusion hoax.

History, however, is slowly sorting it out—despite the approved narrative of the well-connected who misled the country to pursue their own political agendas.

Someday historians of public health will unravel the full costs of locking down most of America in reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic. What are now near-taboo topics—the vigorous natural immunity offered from prior infection, and the terrible damage done by the quarantines—earn cancel culture damnation, employment suspension, and media calumny. But soon they likely will become matter-of-factly accepted as truth.

The same will be said of the hysterical myths that surround the unfortunate January 6 riot at the Capitol. Five years from now history will show that there was no conspiracy, no pre-planned “insurrection”—as the FBI has already concluded.

The late Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was not murdered, as was alleged. Those “armed” inside the Capitol did not carry—much less use—guns. The one violent death, that of Ashli Babbitt, was of an unarmed female who was lethally shot by an officer for attempting to enter through a broken window.

The solitary confinement, indefinite incarceration, and inhumane jail conditions accorded some of the accused will be shown contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.

In other words, history eventually will sort it all out.

Or as the second-century A.D. skeptic philosopher Sextus Empiricus noted, eventually the truth emerges and cosmic justice is rendered: “The millstones of the gods grind late, but they grind fine.”

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

+++++++++++++++++ 

The Rittenhouse jury decided today and in my opinion, based on my legal studies, they made the founding father's proud.  The verdict was justified based on facts, based on law, based on the constitution.  The jury also rejected a biased media, Biden's despicable campaign comment accusing this 17 year old  he was a white supremacist, without any evidence, and a district attorney's poor trial efforts based on a rush to judgement approach that did not hold water.

Now that the verdict is not guilty, radical Democrats and their co-conspirator mass media lackeys are  repeating their racialization crap and are unwilling to accept the verdict like Stacey Abrams. 

Have Democrats become Trump-like?

+++ 

In today's world he who scores first has a winning advantage. 

A blog about the struggle to keep the Jewish state

A Drastic Proposal

Posted on November 4, 2021 by Victor Rosenthal

In my morning paper there is a discussion of the home front defense drill that will be taking place today, simulating an all-out war with Hamas and Hezbollah. Warning sirens will be activated in various places, and note will be taken of whether schoolchildren and others are able to reach shelter in time. My personal situation is good compared to that of most Israelis; there is a shelter on every floor of the apartment building I live in, and we get about a minute’s warning of rockets from Gaza (flight time is 90 seconds). Rockets from Hezbollah will take a bit longer.

Unfortunately, only about 42% of Israelis (according to my newspaper) have shelters in their homes. That means that they can’t possibly make it to the nearest public shelter in time, so they end up spending long hours or even days in them when there are rocket attacks. Or they depend on the somewhat dubious protection of stairwells. Even a shelter in the basement of a multistory building takes too much time to reach.

Iron Dome and other antimissile systems have provided good protection during the small conflicts that we’ve had in recent years, but in a war with Hezbollah, which is said to have some 130,000 rockets aimed at all parts of Israel, including some dozens of rockets with precise guidance systems that will be targeted at airbases, power stations, fuel depots, and other critical infrastructure, there will not be enough systems to protect most civilians.

There is money budgeted to fix this, but nowhere near enough, and the process is slow and (of course) bogged down by bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, the prospect of a conflict with Iran draws ever more likely as the Iranian regime plays for time with the Western powers. Unless something unexpected happens, like a revolution in Iran, the moment is near when Israel will have to decide: do we permit Iran to become a nuclear power or will we go to war? There is no third option.

War with Iran will involve Hezbollah, which has no other reason for existing. It will certainly trigger Hamas, and the other terror providers in Gaza. It will probably include missile and drone attacks on Israel from the territory of Syria and Iraq, and possibly directly from Iran. Estimates are of more than 1,000 rockets per day; the worst damage will be to border communities, which are in range of Hezbollah’s massive mortars. There will be ground incursions in the north, to try to overrun military installations and civilian communities, kill people and take hostages. We can expect a wave of terrorism from Judea and Samaria, and perhaps even the participation of Palestinian Authority “security” forces. Finally, terrorists among Israel’s Arab citizens will certainly join in, as they did in the last small war with Gaza.

Such a war would extremely traumatic for Israel’s home front, maybe worse than any of her previous wars. Nobody would be safe, and the country would not be the same afterwards, even if we win.

At the same time, war, no matter how it starts, would be portrayed in the international media as a vicious attack by Israel on helpless Lebanese, Gazans, and others. The international anti-Israel conspiracy – there is no other expression that adequately describes the coalition of organizations dedicated to the extirpation of the Jewish state from the world – will launch a coordinated antisemitic campaign throughout the world. This isn’t speculation: we’ve seen it in action every time Israel has acted to defend herself against rocket attacks from Gaza. The objective will be to pressure the international community to prevent an Israeli victory and allow our enemies to prepare for the next round.

I expect that the Biden Administration, like that of Barack Obama, will try to embargo shipments of essential weapons and ammunition to Israel. I believe that the overall climate in the administration and Congress is more anti-Israel today than in the days of Obama, although they have tried to avoid direct public confrontations so far.

What, then, is the best strategy for Israel in this situation?

Can we avoid war by appeasement? We can only delay it. The Iranian leaders do not want a conventional war at this time; the regime prefers to wait until it has prepared its nuclear shield. Once it is in place, it can unleash Hezbollah against Israel while deterring us from retaliating directly against them.

But even without war, a nuclear Iran would be disastrous for Israel. Iran would proceed to establish a sphere of influence over the entire region. It would gain economic and political power. The regime could demand concessions from Israel – a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem, prisoner releases, withdrawal from all or part of Judea and Samaria, an airport in Gaza – and Israel, without allies, would be forced to comply. Each time, the alternative would be war; conventional war, but backed by a nuclear threat.

Little by little our sovereignty would evaporate, foreign investment and trade would dry up, Israelis with foreign passports would leave – and then there would be more demands. It would not be as dramatic as nuclear bombs on Tel Aviv, but just as final.

Israel needs to act soon, and with overwhelming force, against both Iran and Hezbollah simultaneously, in order to prevent massive damage on our home front. Their military capabilities and leadership must be destroyed, and very quickly, before they can strike back and before the US and Europe can intervene. I am talking about a few days, not weeks. It might be that the only way to do that is with unconventional weapons. We need to be prepared to use them.

I understand that this is a drastic proposal. Do you have a better one?

Posted in Iran, Terrorism, War

+++++++++++