TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
Electric Vehicles Leave Outsized
Carbon Footprint
Business Review Board
.
F.B.I. Warns of Russian Interference in 2020 Race and Boosts Counterintelligence Operations
by Julian E. Barnes and Adam Goldman.
How the Palestinians Created Their Own Plight
by Aaron Kliegman
{ freebeacon.com } ~ It is easy to forget that, in 1947, when the United Nations recommended the creation of a Jewish state in Mandatory Palestine, the international body also recommended the creation of an Arab state... what would today be a national home for the Palestinians. The idea was to partition the land into two separate entities—in other words, a two-state solution. Indeed, in 1988, the Palestine National Council described the partition resolution as what "still provides those conditions of international legitimacy that ensure the right of the Palestinian Arab people to sovereignty." Yet at the time of the resolution, the Arabs—no one used the term "Palestinians" then—boycotted the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine, which the General Assembly empowered to make recommendations about the future government of the territory, rejecting both the partition and a single, binational state. Then the Arabs completely, and unambiguously, rejected the General Assembly's partition plan, believing that, once the British left Mandatory Palestine, they would defeat the Jews and control the entire area. Of course the Arabs failed, despite the help of several armies. The Jewish state of Israel, established in 1948, endured, and the Palestinian Arabs, who could have had their own state, remained stateless. Since then, the Palestinians have repeatedly turned down offers of statehood. First, they did not seek the West Bank when Jordan controlled it from 1949 to 1967. Only when the land was back in Israeli control following the Six-Day War did the Palestinians again call it disputed. Twelve years later, Israel worked to offer the Palestinians autonomy, which would have been a major step toward full independence, to no avail. Then in 2000 and 2008, Israel offered the Palestinians control of virtually all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with a capital in East Jerusalem. Each time the Palestinians rejected the offer, even waging a violent uprising against the Israelis following the failure in 2000. One would be hard-pressed to find another national independence movement, beyond the Palestinian one, that has turned down formal offers of statehood in the territory they claim. Indeed, the Palestinians have, time and again, set new standards for stubbornness. And yet, despite this history, most of the world seems to blame Israel for the Palestinians' situation. Just look at the recent wave of articles and comments assailing the Jewish state that followed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's election victory earlier this month. Naturally, the New York Times led the charge, "reporting" that, with Netanyahu's reelection, Palestinian families see "no light at the end of the tunnel." In a front-page feature, the Times discusses how the Palestinians are despairing about the stalemate in the peace process. Importantly, the article notes that many Palestinians see the Palestinian Authority, or P.A., for the corrupt, ineffective regime that it is, and that at least some want to make peace with Israel. But look at how the Times portrays the general state of the peace process: Palestinians have wanted to shake free of Israeli domination since the West Bank was first occupied in the Arab-Israeli War of 1967. For more than a quarter-century they have waited for the United States-led peace process to deliver them a state of their own... https://freebeacon.com/national-security/how-palestinians-created-own-plight/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=effd8c91c2-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_04_26_08_34_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-effd8c91c2-45611665 .
Pence hits back after speculation that
FBI tried to infiltrate his team
by Jonathan Swan and Alayna Treene .
In Going After Carter Page, Did the FBI
and DOJ Abuse the FISA Process?
by Eric Felten{nationalreview.com} ~ Department of Justice inspector general Michael Horowitz announced in March 2018 that his office was reviewing the DOJ’s and FBI’s “compliance with legal requirements, and with applicable DOJ and FBI policies and procedures... in applications filed with the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) relating to a certain U.S. person.” In other words, he was asking whether the agencies abused their power in getting warrants to surveil by then, former Trump-campaign foreign-policy adviser Carter Page. More than a year later, we still don’t know much about the course of the IG’s investigation. But that may finally be changing. Horowitz has one of the best-caulked tubs in town: His team doesn’t leak. But that’s not the only reason info on the Horowitz investigation has been so hard to come by. In addition, his job doesn’t entail bringing revealing indictments along the way. dirty cop-Robert Mueller’s shop wasn’t particularly leaky either, but long before the special counsel filed his final report, we had learned a lot about where that report was headed. We learned it from looking at who got indicted, what they were indicted for, and the many details in each indictment and descriptive “criminal information.” Those who were paying attention to the special counsel’s various prosecutions couldn’t help but notice that Paul Manafort was jailed for sundry financial improprieties and sheer tackiness don’t forget the ostrich jacket, but not for conspiring with Russia. Similarly, when the special counsel’s office brought a raft of indictments against a group of Russian-military-intelligence hackers, missing was any knowing connection between team Trump and the accused. Indeed, so professional were the hacking operations described in dirty cop-Mueller’s indictment of the Russians that it is hard to imagine what the hackers could possibly have needed from the amateurs in Trump’s orbit. Such details led many to surmise that dirty cop-Mueller had yet to find collusion, deductions that proved correct...
.
Union Returns Seized Dues
by Bill McMorris
{ freebeacon.com } ~ A Connecticut professor will recover thousands of dollars that his university's union improperly seized from his paycheck... The American Association of University Professors union (AAUP) at the University of Connecticut has returned $5,251.48 to Steven Utke under a settlement filed on April 5. The agreement headed off litigation that could have further cemented legal precedent barring labor organizations from continuing to reinforce dues deductions from worker paychecks. AAUP entered into it on the condition that the payment "shall not be considered or construed as an admission of a liability or wrongdoing," while pledging to no longer go after Utke, an accounting professor, for further payments. "The AAUP agrees that it will neither seek to collect nor accept future dues or fees deducted from the Plaintiff's wages unless he affirmatively chooses to become a member of AAUP and authorizes the deductions," the agreement says. The union did not respond to request for comment about the suit or settlement....
.
.
Electric Vehicles Leave Outsized
Carbon Footprint
Business Review Board: A new study performed by scientists in Germany has found that electric vehicles account for more CO2 emissions than diesel cars. The authors of the study also criticized European Union legislation, saying, “[It] allows electric vehicles to be included in calculations for fleet emissions with a value of ‘zero’ CO2 emissions, as this suggests that electric vehicles do not generate any such emissions. The reality is that, in addition to the CO2 emissions generated in the production of electric vehicles, almost all EU countries generate significant CO2 emissions from charging the vehicles’ batteries using their national energy production mixes. The authors also take a critical view of the discussion about electric cars in Germany, which centers around battery-operated vehicles when other technologies also offer great potential: hydrogen-powered electric vehicles or vehicles with combustion engines powered by green methane, for instance.”
One of the most obvious objections to how electric vehicles are marketed is the dubious claim that these cars are essentially pollution free. While it is true that during operation the vehicles produce no polluting emissions, what is conveniently overlooked is the emissions given off when producing the electricity that powers these vehicles. Moreover, the process for constructing the batteries needed for these vehicles to run produces a high amount of pollution given the overall energy output.
As the Brussels Times reports, “Mining and processing the lithium, cobalt and manganese used for batteries consume a great deal of energy. A Tesla Model 3 battery, for example, represents between 11 and 15 tonnes of CO2. Given a lifetime of 10 years and an annual travel distance of 15,000 kilometres, this translates into 73 to 98 grams of CO2 per kilometre, scientists Christoph Buchal, Hans-Dieter Karl and Hans-Werner Sinn noted in their study. The CO2 given off to produce the electricity that powers such vehicles also needs to be factored in, they say. When all these factors are considered, each Tesla emits 156 to 180 grams of CO2 per kilometre, which is more than a comparable diesel vehicle produced by the German company Mercedes, for example.”
The study’s authors conclude that “hydrogen-powered electric vehicles or vehicles with combustion engines powered by green methane” would be a better means to reduce vehicle pollution than battery-powered vehicles. ~The Patriot Post
Comments