While finishing up my last post, I saw information about the Hamas attack on Israel—the unfolding horror. The details were depraved even beyond the standard of horror Iisis established. How could this terror come about? What to do about it?

The Middle East was more peaceful than usual. The Abraham Accords were moving toward adding Saudi Arabia. Peace between the Arabs and Israel could lead to cooperation and a better life for everyone. Access to the Jewish state’s cutting-edge technology will only help the Arab world, while increased peaceful trade and tourism benefits everyone.

Everyone except Iran. This nation seeks to dominate the Middle East, and these accords threaten their plan. Worse, it increases their isolation. Reviving Moslem-Jewish enmity is that nation’s aim. However, directly attacking Israel would likely end badly.

Better to use their pawn, Hamas, who rules the Gaza Strip. A terror plan developed, financed, and supported by Iran and carried out in the most bloodthirsty way by Hamas received Iran’s go-ahead. How do we know this? Hamas depends on Iran for over 90% of its funding. Dirt-poor Gaza, on its own, doesn’t have the resources. Also, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have verified Iran’s input.

Sadly, it appears the Muslim world is rallying to Hamas. So far, not one Arab nation has supported Israel in the face of this abomination. At this point, Iran guessed right.

Have I crossed over to another dimension? Leaving a rational world for one where a few people with the goal of fixed outcomes are leading majorities by the nose is routine—the week started with eight Republican malcontents relieving their house leader of his role as speaker. Four percent of the House GOP achieved their goal of taking down a leader supported by the other 96%. 

This minute faction claimed to act as fiscal conservatives, demanding more budget cuts than the agreement the leader negotiated with the Democrats to keep the government open. This assertion is false. These people are Trump followers. The same Trump who spent trillions we didn’t have in an unnecessary COVID Lockdown. The one who still puts entitlements, two-thirds of the budget, off-limits.

Paul Ryan was the last Republican leader willing to reform Social Security and Medicare. Trump never supported him in the only way to get control of government spending. The ex-president even backed closing down the government while limiting cuts to less than a third of the budget. As I pointed out in my last post, Trump is no true conservative. Neither are his lackeys.

The eight are self-promoters pursuing their agendas while claiming moral superiority over the other house members. Yet these frauds achieved their goal. What now?

Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz led the overthrow. It is impossible to believe he moved without Trump’s tacit approval. The ex-president didn’t lift a finger to save McCarthy. Instead, Trump has endorsed his acolyte, Jim Jordan, for speaker.

Rather than spending time on the second Republican Debate, which was still too crowded to be meaningful, it is more important to catch up on the person not in attendance, Donald Trump. The former President tells us his program for the country if he’s returned to office, but people need to listen.

Instead of attending the debate, Trump headed to Detroit seeking the striking United Auto Workers Union endorsement. Strangely, he held his rally at a non-union parts operation. Still, the visual is he and President Biden, who joined a UAW picket line, favored the union over management instead of realizing the Auto industry is in an impossible situation.

The administration is forcing the industry to faze out gas-powered autos in favor of battery-powered electric vehicles (E.V.s). Even with generous government subsidies, they lose big bucks on every E.V. At the same time, these autos require much less labor, meaning fewer jobs. Instead of recognizing the problems facing the union and management, the present and former presidents have taken the union’s side.

We all get older. Even if we’re in good health, there comes a time to slow down and let others do the heavy lifting. Rupert Murdock is stepping down as chairman of his two companies. Great success came to him over his 92 years. Generally, achievement leads to plaudits at retirement, not for Murdock.

Rather than praising the longtime newsman, my morning paper, published by USA Today owner Gannett and the New York Times and Washington Post morning newsletters, depicted him as the destroyer of trustworthy journalism.

The Arizona Republic’s Media writer, Bill Goodykoontz, echoed a big part of the legacy media, saying, “Murdoch and his cronies have done incalculable damage to trust in the news. There are large groups of people who now believe a story only if they see it on Fox News. That’s where they can turn for a consistent stream of outrage. Because that’s what Murdoch and Fox News really specialize in — not reporting on stories so much as doubling down on the fear and anger that stroke Trump’s base.”

Murdock’s crown jewel, Fox News, filled a void in news and commentary from a more conservative point of view. It must have been an undeserved market because it became the most popular news channel. 

While Goodykoontz and other media critics, such as Washington Post’s Eric Wemple, decry Fox News for demolishing trust in the news, the channel’s news anchor Brett Beir, this week interviewed Saudia Arabia’s de facto leader and the Israeli Premier, as those nations are on the verge on a cementing a historic relationship. Obviously, some world leaders find Fox journalists trustworthy.

On the other hand, the news outlets that suppressed the Hunter Biden Laptop story promoted the Russian Collusion and trashed those who turned out to be right on COVID policy, earning the public’s scorn they enjoy.

I finally got around to reading my latest Nature Conservancy Magazine. The organization has had my support for decades, ever since it took the lead in restoring the San Pedro River in my home state of Arizona. With hands-on acquiring and trading of properties, the organization achieved the miracle of restoring this marvelous Riparian area. Rather than just lobbying, they did the hard work. Imagine my shock finding the Conservancy is involved in building windmills in Kenya’s Rift Valley.

Still on our bucket list, the Valley is a top tourist attraction for wildlife safaris and migratory birds. The flights through the Valley feature flamingos, vultures, pelicans, and others high on birdwatcher lists. Windmills are known as mass bird killers. Putting them right in the path of essential migration routes is folly. One might expect important conservation groups to be up in arms. Still, the well-known Nature Conservancy promotes putting windmills in the best position to wack these magnificent birds.

How does the Conservancy justify its support? It will help set up observation towers for thirty-two people with binoculars to look for “priority species” like vultures. If they see any, they tell the windmill operators to turn off the ones in the birds’ path. What could go wrong? What if several flights arrive from different directions at the same time? What happens to the “lesser birds?

I tried to imagine putting these windmills by the San Pedro River. Birdwatchers and conservationists would be up in arms. But the elites say Africa needs clean energy more than birds. Getting rid of coal and wood used for power is worth a few million birds. 

What about the effect on the other animals? Can we be sure a mass of these towers won’t mess with their life patterns? Do we have a handle on this rush to windmills?