Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Friday, Mar. 2, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
Judge Jeanine on gun control: ‘Not just no, but HELL no!’
Johnny Silvercloud / CCL
If progressives thought that conservatives were going to sit idly by and allow the gun grabbing narrative to take over, they were sorely mistaken.
Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro proved that during her keynote speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last week. “Here is this New Yorker’s answer to you. It is not only no, it is hell no!” she said.
Hell No.
The gun control debate was a central focus of CPAC this year and Pirro did not pull punches when she smashed the agenda being pushed by Democrats and the mainstream media.
“All (of) this nonsense about ‘we need to insure guns, we need to track guns, we need to register guns, we need to do this to guns,'” she said. “No, what you need to do is stop gun crime and start prosecuting those who are buying guns and using them illegally and stop being afraid to use the power of the law against those who are looking to hurt the rest of us.”
“And they want to hold us up to public disdain by telling people that we, the legal gun owners, are dangerous,” Pirro said.
“And they want to tell people, what kind of guns we should have, or whether we should even have a gun at all. How much ammunition is enough ammunition? And how big a magazine we should have,” she added.
“Here is this New Yorker’s answer to you. It is not only no, it is hell no!” she said to applause.
No Permission Needed.
Pirro explained that the Constitution enshrines American’s right to own a firearm for protection.
It is a natural right, confirmed by the Constitution, not given to citizens by politicians in Washington.
“I don’t need your permission or your sanctimonious condescension as to the reason why I should have or should not have a gun,” she said.
“I own guns because it’s my right. it’s my Second Amendment right and no one in Washington gave me that right,” she explained. “And you’re not going to take it away. It is a natural right confirmed by the very people who founded this nation.”
That is what progressives cannot comprehend.
They run to courts and petition lawmakers to change our natural human rights as enshrined in the Constitution, while at the same time they insist that nonexistent rights, like abortion, free healthcare and free college, to be made into laws.
They don’t get how America works — and they want everyone else to follow along in their dystopian fantasy.
Donald Trump slams the Democrats’ ‘memo’ response
La Moncloa - Gobierno de España / CCLThree weeks ago, President Donald Trump authorized the release of the so-called FISA memo, which alleged that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI illegally obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. On Saturday, the House Intelligence Committee offered their rebuttal in the form of a 10-page document purporting to exonerate the DOJ and FBI from any and all wrongdoing.
While some believe that the newly released memo accomplishes its intended goal — to discredit the original FISA memo — others are unconvinced. Chief among them is President Donald Trump, who has called the rebuttal memo “a total political and legal BUST.”
Trump responds to Schiff’s counter-memo
In response to the counter-memo’s release, the White House issued a statement saying that “while the Democrats’ memorandum attempts to undercut the president politically, the president supported its release in the interest of transparency.”
Subsequently, the president took to Twitter to express his belief that the newly released memo not only fails to rebut the FISA memo but actually supports it.
The Democrat memo response on government surveillance abuses is a total political and legal BUST. Just confirms all of the terrible things that were done. SO ILLEGAL!
Similarly, the author of the original FISA memo, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), after reading the counter-memo, stated:
What you’re not going to see is anything that actually rejects what was actually in our memo.
What you basically will read in the Democratic memo is they are advocating that it is okay for the FBI and DOJ to use for political dirt paid for by one campaign and use it against the other campaign.
According to the president, the memo failed in several ways, including by not mentioning that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign funded the Steele dossier, which was compiled by an individual who was strongly opposed to Trump, and which the FBI and DOJ’s warrants, however narrowly, still relied upon. The president tweeted:
Dem Memo: FBI did not disclose who the clients were - the Clinton Campaign and the DNC. Wow!
“Correcting the record”
After its release had been blocked on numerous occasions in order to redact sensitive information, the Democrats’ counter-memo, written by House Intelligence Committee member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), finally saw the light of day on Saturday. Schiff said of the memo:
The Democratic response memo released today should put to rest any concerns that the American people might have as to the conduct of the FBI, the Justice Department and the FISC.
Looking to “correct the record,” the memo begins with what it hopes to show. “FBI and DOJ officials did not ‘abuse’ the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign,” it reads.
Not content with merely discrediting the FISA memo, however, Schiff goes on to say that the DOJ and FBI had the duty to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump campaign member Carter Page. Schiff writes:
In fact, DOJ and the FBI would have been remiss in their duty to protect the country had they not sought a FISA warrant and repeated renewals to conduct temporary surveillance of Carter Page, someone the FBI assessed to be an agent of the Russian government.
DOJ met the rigor, transparency, and evidentiary basis needed to meet FISA’s probable cause requirement, by demonstrating: contemporaneous evidence of Russia’s election interference; concerning Russian links and outreach to Trump campaign officials; Page’s history with Russian intelligence; and Page’s suspicious activities in 2016, including in Moscow.
Counterarguments
The rebuttal specifically looks to set the record straight on two points. First, it alleges that the infamous dossier by Christopher Steele was not vital to the FBI’s decision to initiate its 2016 investigations into ties between Trump and Russia.
Rather, they were “based on troubling law enforcement and intelligence information unrelated to the dossier” — specifically, the information obtained from Trump campaign team member George Papadopoulos.
Second, the counter-memo claims, the FISA application to spy on Trump campaign member Carter Page, and its renewals, were only “narrowly” based on the Steele Dossier. Instead, according to the counter-memo, the DOJ focused on Page because of his 2016 meetings with Russian officials in Moscow, and Steele’s intel was used only to the extent that it corroborated what was known about these meetings.
Steele’s prior relationship with the FBI; the fact of and reason for his termination as a source; and the assessed political motivation of those who hired him.
Accordingly, the Democrats believe that this document completely rebuts the FISA memo, which they say drew “selectively on highly sensitive classified information” to produce a document full of “distortions and misrepresentations.”
Looking forward
The president seems to be right on this one.
Rather than rebut anything that the FISA memo’s accusations, the committee merely offered a “Democratic” interpretation of certain events in question while disregarding the key pieces of information that underpin the accusations of misconduct against the FBI and DOJ.
Contrary to Schiff’s hopes, the counter-memo is unlikely to justify what seems to be at the very least dubious activities on the part of the FBI and DOJ.
They can’t hide the truth.
Robert Ayers
Robert Ayers is a writer for Conservative Institute. He has a Bachelor’s degree from Quinnipiac University and a JD from the University of Connecticut.
REPORT: Broward County Sheriff Told Subordinates To 'Vigorously Support' Him
By BEN SHAPIRO @benshapiro
Michael Laughlin/Sun Sentinel/TNS via Getty ImagesOn Monday night, Laura Ingraham of Fox News reported that Sheriff of Broward County Scott Israel had issued an email to employees to defend him. According to Ingraham:
Just a few hours ago, the Ingraham Angle received copies of internal emails from a source close to the Broward Sheriff’s Office, which has since been confirmed by a second source. It urges all staff members to vigorously support Sheriff Israel.
That’s no shock. Israel is a political actor through and through. As the Ingraham segment shows, Israel got into hot water back in December for wrapping his face on Broward County Sheriff’s cars for political purposes — they were jokingly called “Israelmobiles,” according to Ingraham. And we know that the sheriff loves his politicking — he went on national television last week and tore into the NRA and Dana Loesch and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) for their supposed culpability in the Parkland shooting, knowing full well that his own deputy had stood outside, armed and waiting, while the shooting took place. And he also knows what went down to prevent EMTs from entering the premises. But he’s not saying.
His alleged new missive — a letter telling his subordinates to defend him — isn’t protocol, obviously. Imagine the shock that would hit the mainstream media if President Trump issued an email informing all members of the executive branch to defend him. It’s one thing for the members of the Sheriff’s Office to remain silent, as per their job requirements not to speak out publicly; it’s another thing for them to become propaganda tools for Israel.
But that sounds like just the sort of thing Israel would do. And then, of course, he’d pat himself on the back for an “amazing” job.
Plot Twist in Michael Flynn ‘Lying’ Case, He was Framed!
Conservative journalist and commentator Mike Cernovich is reporting that the former Federal Bureau of Investigation Deputy Director Andrew McCabe altered official FBI 302 notes after they interviewed Michael Flynn.
A “302” form is what FBI officials file after an interview with an individual. Altering or deleting such a file is a felony.
The only reason for altering the 302 was to make it appear as though Flynn lied when he did not. Flynn ultimately gave his resignation to President Trump because it appeared he had lied to Vice President Pence about conversations with a Russian diplomat.
Cernovich explained in a series of tweets why altering this form is not only illegal but more than enough reason for Judge Emmett Sullivan to order Special Council to disclose exculpatory evidence, which would include the revisions to agent’s notes.
He tweeted:
“Why did a federal judge order Muller to disclose exculpatory evidence AFTER Flynn pled guilty?”
“Do you know how unusual this is? Flynn waived the right to exculpatory evidence in his plea deal.”
“That’s because the 302 was altered, and everyone knows it.”
Judge Sullivan is known for being extremely tough on actions such as the one taken by the FBI agents. He dismissed an ethics conviction of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska just last week and took the unusual step of naming a special prosecutor. He has been charged with investigating whether the government lawyers who ran the Stevens case should be prosecuted themselves for criminal wrongdoing.
The judge, named to Federal District Court by President Bill Clinton, delivered a searing warning about what he called a “troubling tendency” that he had observed among prosecutors in “stretching the boundaries” of ethics restrictions and concealing evidence in order to win cases.
During the month-long trial, the judge pressed prosecutors to acknowledge that they had failed to turn over information to defense lawyers as required by law. “Again and again, both during and after the trial in this case, the government was caught making false representations and not meeting its discovery obligations,” said Judge Sullivan.
This story all began on Jan. 24, 2017 when Comey sent agents to the White House to speak with Flynn about whether he had lied to the Vice President or anyone else about the content of those phone calls.
On March 17th of that year, former FBI Director James Comey told Congress that the FBI agents who spoke with Flynn didn’t believe he ever lied to the bureau.
Comey’s testimony raises serious questions as to why Special Counsel Robert Mueller charged Flynn with lying to the FBI even though the former head of the bureau didn’t believe he had.
In spite of Comey’s doubts, Mueller charged Flynn with lying to the FBI about two telephone conversations he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in late 2016.
The Washington Examiner’s Byron York later reported that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn never believed he lied to them about the conversation with the Russian Ambassador. Both the agents and Comey left their interview with Flynn certain that he wouldn’t be charged with a crime especially that of divulging classified information to the Russians.
So if Comey told Congress that Flynn never lied to the FBI, why did Flynn plead guilty? Because setting Flynn up to plead guilty gave Special Counsel Robert Mueller the opportunity to charge him and use the charges to further advance Mueller’s phony Russia investigation.
To make matters more damning is one of the agents who altered those notes is Peter Strzok. Strzok, a veteran counterintelligence agent, was vitally involved in Clinton’s personal email server and Muller’s probe looking for possible collusion between Trump officials and Russians before the election.
Strzok was fired last summer from Mueller’s team after it was revealed he had been exchanging anti-Trump text messages with his lover Lisa Page, a high-ranking lawyer at the FBI. Now Andrew McCabe is retiring in March with a pension, paid for by the taxpayers.
One insider said that the FBI is in “full on freak-out mode” and that McCabe’s misstep may be the smoking gun that will bring down the whole Russian collusion hoax that’s been promoted by the Deep State.
Sooner or later those in Washington or the voters who put them there are going to connect the dots.
~ American Liberty Report
Charlottesville Judge Rules In Favor Of Confederate Monuments
By Rob Shimshock
A Charlottesville, Va., judge ordered the city Tuesday to uncover its two Confederate statues.
Richard E. Moore, judge for the Charlottesville Circuit Court denied the city’s request to keep its Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson covered in black curtains until a year after the death of Heather Heyer, slain at the August “Unite the Right” rally, reported The Washington Post.
“I cannot find that council ever intended for (the shrouds) to be temporary and they have never, until recently, even discussed that possibility,” said Moore.
Charlottesville’s city council voted to take down its Lee statue and then, after the August rally, the Jackson statue, as well.
Moore, however, interceded with an injunction preventing removal or alteration of the statues until the settlement of a lawsuit started by the Virginia chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the Monument Fund, Inc.
The group alleges that a 1904 Virginia law prohibiting the removal or alteration of public war monuments applies to the Jackson and Lee memorials.
“The statute that prohibits the moving or damaging of such memorials and monuments places on the locality the duty to protect, preserve, and care for such,” said Moore.
In honour of Your General Robert E. Lee and the dignified statue of this grand field marshal! God bless Charlottesville!
If it occurs, the projected price of the two statues’ removal is $700,000.
The next hearing in the lawsuit to determine the future of the Confederate statues will occur in April, city spokesman Brian Wheeler said to The Daily Caller News Foundation.
“I am not aware of any polls conducted by council or the city staff on this topic,” Wheeler told The DCNF, addressing public input on the decision to cover the Confederate statues.
One Twitter user expanded upon the covered statues, reportedly quoting Wheeler.
Supreme Court Backs Trump… Massive Changes Underway For Illegal Immigrants
By Kevin Daley
Immigrants detained for removal proceedings may be held indefinitely and are not entitled to a bail hearing, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
The ruling means that immigrant detainees, who are sometimes held for months and years on end, have no recourse to challenge their confinement.
Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion for the court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined most of Alito’s opinion, though they also wrote to say they do not believe the court had jurisdiction to hear the case.
In a rare move, Justice Stephen Breyer read part of his dissent in the courtroom during Tuesday’s proceedings. The justices only read their dissents from the bench when they mean to emphasize their disagreement with the majority.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined his opinion. Justice Elena Kagan was recused because she briefly participated in the case while serving in former President Barack Obama’s administration.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that individuals held in immigration jails pending deportation may have a hearing every six months to review the legitimacy of their detention. The 9th Circuit based its decision on a legal rule called the canon of constitutional avoidance.
The rule says that where a federal law has multiple interpretations, courts must rely on the interpretation that avoids constitutional problems.
Alito explained that this approach was mistaken, since the words of the statute clearly do not provide bail hearings for detained immigrants.
“That is not how the canon of constitutional avoidance works,” Alito wrote. “Spotting a constitutional issue does not give a court the authority to rewrite a statute as it pleases.”
The high court declined to say whether the Constitution requires bond hearings for aliens in detention. They asked the 9th Circuit to resolve that issue, and may review their determination at some future date.
The American Civil Liberties Union represents the immigrants who brought the action. They say detainees are eligible for bail under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
In dissent, Breyer made technical and conceptual points. As a definitional matter, he said that the word “detain” as it appears in the relevant law has sometimes meant simply “to restrain.”
Restraint, he says, could mean subjecting an individual to a number of restrictions (forbidding travel or contact with particular persons) that don’t include confinement. Therefore, by his telling, the word detain is consistent with bail.
He also said that bail is a basic, and important, component of the Anglo-American legal tradition.
“The bail questions before us are technical but at heart they are simple,” he wrote. “We need only recall the words of the Declaration of Independence, in particular its insistence that all men and women have ‘certain unalienable Rights,’ and that among them is the right to ‘Liberty.’”
Democrats are committing suicide by moving farther and farther to the left
By Wayne Allyn Root
By Wayne Allyn Root
Liberals are melting down. They’re on “full tilt.” President Donald Trump has routed them.
Look no further than the news of the past few days.
President Trump’s approval rating at Rasmussen (the most accurate poll of the 2016 election) is at 50 percent. That’s the highest of his presidency. Of greater importance, it’s far higher than Barack Obama’s approval rating at the same time of his presidency.
Two months ago, the generic congressional poll showed Democrats winning by an 18-point landslide. Today it shows the GOP winning.
The latest consumer confidence poll was out Tuesday. It shows consumers more optimistic than at any time since 2000. Who was president 18 years ago? Bill Clinton, the last president to preside over a booming economy.
The New York Times admitted days ago that the Trump tax law is now favored by a majority of Americans. Even more remarkable, The Times quoted this columnist in a recent article on Trump. When The Times quotes Wayne Root, either hell has frozen over or the political landscape has moved dramatically.
Then, on Tuesday, actress Jennifer Lawrence announced in a Vanity Fair interview that it was a mistake for Hillary Clinton to belittle Trump supporters … and an even bigger mistake for actresses and entertainers like her to get involved in politics. She admitted only 25 percent of Americans call themselves liberals, but she recognizes she’ll need more than 25 percent of Americans to buy her movie tickets if she wants to have a
successful career.
So you’d think — maybe — in light of all this news, at least some Democrats might see the light and come to their senses. Nope.
First, a look at what’s happening in California. My friends have sent me photos of billboards popping up all over Los Angeles that proclaim, “DISOBEY TRUMP.” These signs are touting the re-election campaign of a Democrat state senator. She is openly committing sedition — defined as inciting people to disobey the laws of the state.
The attorney general of California, Xavier Becerra, warned publicly recently that California will prosecute any business owner who cooperates with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. California’s AG is threatening to put business owners in prison for obeying the laws of our land and obeying a federal law enforcement agency. He is also committing sedition.
But wait, it gets better. At the California Democratic convention over this past weekend, the delegates preferred AG candidate Dave Jones over Becerra. They thought Becerra wasn’t radical enough!
Then there’s five-term incumbent U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. California’s Democrat delegates voted overwhelmingly not to endorse Feinstein. They favored her opponent, radical progressive (i.e., Marxist) Kevin de Leon. He supports single-payer, the immediate legalization of Dreamers without any restrictions or compromise and massive taxes to pay for the needs of illegals. He criticizes Feinstein for supporting vouchers for poor students in Washington, D.C.
Obama led the Democrat Party to disaster. Under his leadership, Democrats lost hundreds of seats in Congress and in state legislatures. Obama’s radical policies and ideas helped the GOP take power at all levels of government.
But Democrats didn’t learn a lesson. They’ve moved left. They’re looking for a second helping of landslide defeat. The Democrat Party of your father and grandfather is dead.
California is now a foreign state. The Democrat Party there is set up to support radical causes that repulse the rest of America. It fights for the rights of illegals over legal citizens.
The future of the Democrat Party is radicals such as Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, Michelle Obama and Kamala Harris. None of them can win a national election. Not as long as America is still dominated by people born in America.
Remember the hit single, “Video Killed the Radio Star”? Who would have thought it possible just 18 months ago? But Trump has killed the Democrat Party. He’s driven them so far left, Trump now looks reasonable to the vast majority of Americans.
Look no further than the news of the past few days.
President Trump’s approval rating at Rasmussen (the most accurate poll of the 2016 election) is at 50 percent. That’s the highest of his presidency. Of greater importance, it’s far higher than Barack Obama’s approval rating at the same time of his presidency.
Two months ago, the generic congressional poll showed Democrats winning by an 18-point landslide. Today it shows the GOP winning.
The latest consumer confidence poll was out Tuesday. It shows consumers more optimistic than at any time since 2000. Who was president 18 years ago? Bill Clinton, the last president to preside over a booming economy.
The New York Times admitted days ago that the Trump tax law is now favored by a majority of Americans. Even more remarkable, The Times quoted this columnist in a recent article on Trump. When The Times quotes Wayne Root, either hell has frozen over or the political landscape has moved dramatically.
Then, on Tuesday, actress Jennifer Lawrence announced in a Vanity Fair interview that it was a mistake for Hillary Clinton to belittle Trump supporters … and an even bigger mistake for actresses and entertainers like her to get involved in politics. She admitted only 25 percent of Americans call themselves liberals, but she recognizes she’ll need more than 25 percent of Americans to buy her movie tickets if she wants to have a
successful career.
So you’d think — maybe — in light of all this news, at least some Democrats might see the light and come to their senses. Nope.
First, a look at what’s happening in California. My friends have sent me photos of billboards popping up all over Los Angeles that proclaim, “DISOBEY TRUMP.” These signs are touting the re-election campaign of a Democrat state senator. She is openly committing sedition — defined as inciting people to disobey the laws of the state.
The attorney general of California, Xavier Becerra, warned publicly recently that California will prosecute any business owner who cooperates with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. California’s AG is threatening to put business owners in prison for obeying the laws of our land and obeying a federal law enforcement agency. He is also committing sedition.
But wait, it gets better. At the California Democratic convention over this past weekend, the delegates preferred AG candidate Dave Jones over Becerra. They thought Becerra wasn’t radical enough!
Then there’s five-term incumbent U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. California’s Democrat delegates voted overwhelmingly not to endorse Feinstein. They favored her opponent, radical progressive (i.e., Marxist) Kevin de Leon. He supports single-payer, the immediate legalization of Dreamers without any restrictions or compromise and massive taxes to pay for the needs of illegals. He criticizes Feinstein for supporting vouchers for poor students in Washington, D.C.
Obama led the Democrat Party to disaster. Under his leadership, Democrats lost hundreds of seats in Congress and in state legislatures. Obama’s radical policies and ideas helped the GOP take power at all levels of government.
But Democrats didn’t learn a lesson. They’ve moved left. They’re looking for a second helping of landslide defeat. The Democrat Party of your father and grandfather is dead.
California is now a foreign state. The Democrat Party there is set up to support radical causes that repulse the rest of America. It fights for the rights of illegals over legal citizens.
The future of the Democrat Party is radicals such as Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, Michelle Obama and Kamala Harris. None of them can win a national election. Not as long as America is still dominated by people born in America.
Remember the hit single, “Video Killed the Radio Star”? Who would have thought it possible just 18 months ago? But Trump has killed the Democrat Party. He’s driven them so far left, Trump now looks reasonable to the vast majority of Americans.
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2018/03/www.html
Related Posts :
Zombie Brothers | Full Short By Andrea Gerstmann | Nickelodeon Animated Shorts
School of Rock: Comic Book Heroes; Bunsen Is a Beast: Masa Mission | Nickelodeon UK
Power Rangers Ninja Steel | All Zord Fights!
Cosmo and Wanda think they're slick... [Fan Mail Unboxing] | Butch Hartman
Words beginning with P! - Featuring PAW Patrol; Shimmer and Shine: The Pirate Genie | Nick Jr. UK
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment