CAPITAL STORIES FOR CHILDREN

- Hallo friendsCAPITAL STORIES FOR CHILDREN, In the article you read this time with the title , We have prepared this article for you to read and retrieve information therein. Hopefully the contents of postings Article ADVENTURE, Article ANIMATION, Article LATEST DONGENG, Article WORLD OF ANIMALS, We write this you can understand. Alright, good read.

Title :
link :

WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Saturday, Mar. 24, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****

Developing: Ohio Makes Explosive Move to Stop ALL Abortion

By Rebekah Baker

A bill introduced in Ohio would ban abortion in the state, and would recognize the unborn as people protected under Ohio’s criminal code regarding murder, manslaughter and homicide, Cleveland.com reported.

Two Republican lawmakers, Reps. Ron Hood and Nino Vitale, joint sponsored House Bill 565 or the “Life at Conception Act” which would ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy, and in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger.

Eighteen other House Republicans are co-sponsors of the bill.

“I believe life begins at conception so the goal of this bill is to first of all continue to get the word out that life does begin at conception and move the debate in that direction, and to protect unborn Ohioans from being aborted,” said Rep. Hood.

“We make it very clear in the state of Ohio we consider the unborn child a person just like you, me or any other person that has a right to life,” he continued.

According to The Hill, this legislation would mean women who seek abortion could be charged with a crime. Hood explained that a prosecutor would be responsible to decide the appropriate punishment and who to charge.

The other sponsor of the bill, Rep. Vitale, said that while the bill doesn’t have an exception for the life of the mother, it takes a “save them both” approach. According to Cleveland.com, the bill provides immunity for physicians who indirectly or unintentionally cause the death of the unborn child.

In regards to rape, Vitale said the violence of rape shouldn’t be compounded by an abortion.

“Life isn’t always giving us things by our choice and I don’t want to put a woman through a second trauma after she’s been through such an awful first one,” Vitale said.

The bill was immediately attacked by abortion activists.

“Anti-choice extremists from the Ohio Statehouse to the White House are lining up their dominoes to topple Roe v. Wade and punish those who seek or provide abortion care,” read a statement from NARAL pro-choice Ohio executive director, Kellie Copeland.

Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio responded on Twitter: “Extremist politicians in the #OHLeg are back at it again… HB 565, the Life at Conception Act, was introduced in the House earlier today. ACT NOW by contacting your House Rep. and telling them to vote NO. #StopTheBans.”

Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio@PPAOhio

Extremist politicians in the #OHLeg are back at it again... HB 565, the Life at Conception Act, was introduced in the House earlier today.  ACT NOW by contacting your House Rep. and telling them to vote NO. #StopTheBanshttp://bit.ly/2IDIk8K

5:30 PM - Mar 19, 2018

According to Cleveland.com, pro-life Ohio lawmakers have typically taken an incremental approach toward banning abortion, and have passed 20 abortion restrictions since 2011.

In December last year, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed a bill that would ban abortions if a Down syndrome diagnosis was the reason a pregnant woman wanted the procedure.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Black, a federal judge in Ohio, said the ban was unconstitutional and temporarily blocked the law from going into effect.

Report: Kellyanne Up for Huge New White House Position

BY JOE SAUNDERS

She’s the woman in the White House liberals love to loathe.

But Kellyanne Conway, the woman who played such a huge role in making Donald Trump the president of the United States, might be taking on an even bigger role in the Trump administration.

And judging by the early reaction to the news, liberals are going to hate her even more.

According to a report by The Atlantic, Conway is close to accepting the position of White House communications director to replace the Hope Hicks, who announced her resignation in February.

Trump has offered Conway the job, and White House figures like first lady Melania Trump and Nick Ayers, Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff, have tried to convince Conway to take it, The Atlantic reported. And Conway might just accept it now.

“It’s becoming increasingly difficult for her to say no,” one unnamed White House official told The Atlantic.

Particularly since Trump himself has been pushing it.

“He’s basically told her she’s no longer allowed to say no,” another source told The Atlantic.

It’s a move that Trump supporters should be cheering.

Conway was one of the most visible, and articulate, public faces of the Trump campaign, which she managed in the final stretch from August to November 2016.

She was everywhere in the media, tirelessly pushing Trump’s candidacy to skeptical commentators and presenting an effective answer to Democrats’ “Trump hates women” attacks. (Her appearance on “The View” shortly before the election was legendary for how she handled the rabid anti-Trump harridans.)

When it was time for Hillary Clinton to concede the election in the early hours of Nov. 9, 2016, it was Conway’s phone that rang.

Since Trump’s inauguration, it’s tough to think of a woman in the administration whom liberals vilify more than Conway.

“Saturday Night Live” portrayed her as a sexually depraved obsessive in a skit modeled on “Fatal Attraction.” Trump-hating late-night “comedian” Stephen Colbert called her “Satan’s trophy wife” on national television.  The cast of “Morning Joe” basically called her a prostitute who personally couldn’t stand Trump but was only in it for the money.

The mainstream media had a field day earlier this month when the Office of Special Counsel (a federal agency that’s not connected to special counsel Robert Mueller) issued a ludicrous opinion that Conway had violated the Hatch Act twice by advocating the election of Republican Roy Moore to the Senate in Alabama. (A member of a Republican White House plugging on national television for a Republican candidate to win a Senate election? Whoever heard of such a thing?)

And when word of Conway’s potential new job at the White House began to spread, the social media response from liberals was unhinged, insulting and downright juvenile. (This Twitter thread is a good example.)

In short, Trump is driving liberals batty again.

The communications director slot has been a tough one for the Trump White House. After the foul-mouthed Anthony Scaramucci lasted only 10 days in the job, Hicks held it for almost six months, but it’s coming open again.

NOAA 2.5 Degrees F Data Tampering – ‘Science Doesn’t Get Any Worse Than This’

by JAMES DELINGPOLE

2603

NOAA

The data tampering at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is even worse than we thought: over the last century it has exaggerated “global warming” in the U.S. by as much as 2.5 degrees F.

In other words, pretty much the entirety of the 20th century warming in the U.S. “measured” by the world’s primary temperature record gatekeeper may be fake.

Tony Heller has the details:

NOAA’s US temperature record shows that US was warmest in the 1930’s and has generally cooled as CO2 has increased.  This wrecks greenhouse gas theory, so they “adjust” the data to make it look like the US is warming.

Note the blue actual measurements: not much warming.

Then look at the red adjusted data: now that’s what a global warming trend looks like. A faked global warming trend, that is.

The effect of all this data tampering is to produce a hockey stick shape not dissimilar to the one cooked up by the discredited Michael Mann.

Heller explains:

The NOAA data tampering produces a spectacular hockey stick of scientific fraud, which becomes the basis of vast amounts of downstream junk climate science. Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895.

But surely a government-funded organization like NOAA, staffed by actual scientists with PhDs, can’t literally be making stuff up?

Oh yes it can.

Heller explains:

Most of these adjustments are due to simply making up data.  Every month, a certain percentage of the 1,218 United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) stations fail to report their data, and the temperature gets estimated by NOAA using a computer model. Missing data is marked in the USHCN database with an “E” – meaning “estimated.” In 1970, about 10% of the data was missing, but that number has increased to almost 50%, meaning that almost half of the current adjusted data is fake.

Of course, just because nearly half the current adjusted data is “fabricated” – ie, in this case, estimated rather than physically measured by actual thermometers and then adjusted – doesn’t automatically mean it is inaccurate or misleading. Not necessarily…

But this brings us to the most damning part of Heller’s investigation. The adjusted temperature data may be pretty dodgy, but it turns out the fabricated data is as bent as a nine bob note.

See how cavalier the NOAA gatekeepers have grown with the most recent data? The odd one or two degree embellishment here and there might be not be too noticeable. But fourd egrees? That’s just taking the mickey.

We know why they’re doing it too.

They’ve got these computer models which are programmed to tell us that as anthropogenic CO2 emissions rise so will global warming. But reality isn’t playing ball. So rather than correct their computer models, they’ve decided it’s much easier to adjust reality to match their increasingly threadbare-looking global warming theory.

As Heller says:

Science doesn’t get any worse than how NOAA handles US temperature data. NASA uses the NOAA data as the basis for their temperature graphs, which have also been massively altered to turn cooling into warming.

This cannot be stressed too often. One of the great lies told by climate alarmists is that the world’s various temperature gatekeepers operate independently of one another – and that the fact they have all reached the same conclusions is confirmation that they must be right. But they’re not independent of one another at all.

Asked for a comment Heller told me today:

There are many problems with what NOAA is doing. The first is that they are turning an 80 year cooling trend into a warming trend, which has massive implications for both climate scientists, journalists, voters and policy makers who depend on the accuracy of their work. The second problem is that they release graphs with no annotation that the data has been altered – people assume that the data is representative of the thermometer record, and it isn’t. The third problem is that they are altering the data to match their theory, the exact opposite of how science necessarily must operate.  And the fourth problem is that the alterations are largely due to modeled data, generated in lieu of missing thermometer data – which they are losing at an alarming rate. Almost half of NOAA’s monthly US temperature data is now fake. Their handling of data would make even Enron accountants blush.

Man Who Sold App to FB for $16 Billion Warns: Delete Facebook Now

Breaking: Senator Demands Zuckerberg Appear, Testify Under Oath

Breaking: Senator Demands Zuckerberg Appear, Testify Under Oath

BY GEORGE UPPER

Mark Zuckerberg can’t catch a break — even from people to whom he’s paid literally billions of dollars, like WhatsApp creator Brian Acton.

For over a year, he’s been battling accusations that he helped throw the 2016 presidential election Donald Trump’s way — a cardinal sin among Silicon Valley types — through the promulgation of “fake news,” some of which originated and/or was funded by Russians, who spent a whopping $100,000 on Facebook ads.

(Never mind that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spent $1.2 billion on her losing campaign. Obviously, the .0083 percent of that figure spent by the Russians on Facebook, much of it after the campaign was over, was far more influential.)

Prompted perhaps by guilt over Facebook’s involvement in the election (however great or small it might have been in reality) and certainly fearing regulation from overzealous politicians looking to score points by appearing to “do something about fake news” on social media, Zuckerberg then decided to take a public political stand — sort of. Hiding behind half-hearted claims of semi-objectivity, Facebook declared that it would now have a “point of view” when it came to news appearing news feeds.

Of course, it also claimed that we’d all be seeing about 20 percent less news in our feeds, and the impact has obviously been significantly higher than that, so you can take any claims Facebook makes with a shaker full of salt.

Regardless of Zuckerberg’s intent, the result, as analysis by The Western Journal pointed out, was an estimated 2 percent increase in desktop traffic from Facebook for left-leaning publishers and a 14 percent decrease in traffic for right-leaning publishers. (And those are conservative estimates.)

If he thinks that’s how a company goes about avoiding government regulation, he’s got another think coming. Facebook officials are scheduled to appear on Capitol Hill this week, Fox News reported.

And the hits just kept on coming. First, it was revealed Friday that Cambridge Analytica had misused some Facebook data on behalf of Trump’s presidential campaign (which, to be fair, is hardly Facebook’s fault).

But on the heels of that news came the revelation that liberals had used similar data in similar ways on behalf of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012, with Facebook’s tacit (and perhaps explicit) approval — and that’s clearly Facebook’s fault.

All of that combined led to the trending #DeleteFacebook hashtag on Twitter Wednesday — and one of the users who tweeted it was Acton, who, along with co-founder Jan Koum, sold WhatsApp to Facebook in 2014 for $16 billion.

“It is time,” Acton wrote.

Brian Acton@brianacton

It is time. #deletefacebook

7:00 PM - Mar 20, 2018

Both WhatsApp and the billionaire Acton himself decline further comment to TheVerge for a story about the tweet and the trending hashtag.

Of course, Acton, who recently invested $50 million to WhatsApp alternative Signal, may have been acting in a spirit of competition, hoping to create more market space for his new app.

All of this has led to a decline in Facebook’s stock price of almost 11 percent this week, according to The Wall Street Journal. The company is worth about $54 billion less than it was just a week ago.

The Verge noted that other former Facebook insiders had expressed serious concerns about the company:

“Acton is not the first former Facebook executive to express unease about the company after leaving it. Last year, former head of growth Chamath Palihapitiya caused a firestorm after saying ‘we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works.’ Other former executives to express regrets include Sean Parker, Justin Rosenstein, and investor Roger McNamee.”

Zuckerberg himself broke his silence about the ongoing controversies in a Facebook post Wednesday. “We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can’t then we don’t deserve to serve you,” he wrote.

Justice Kennedy Calls Out Sotomayor for Breaking Very Basic Rule All Judges Know

BY BEN MARQUIS

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in NIFLA v. Becerra, a case out of California centered around abortion that has big ramifications regarding the issue of free speech versus state-compelled speech, according to Fox News.

At issue is a 2015 statute passed by the state of California which requires all pregnancy-related facilities to conspicuously post a disclosure informing women of the state-provided “free or low-cost access” to various forms of prenatal care, such as abortion. The law also requires unlicensed, non-medical facilities to prominently inform their clients that they are not licensed medical providers.

However, the law was written with so many carve outs and exemptions that it ended up solely targeting a number of explicitly pro-life, nonprofit “crisis pregnancy centers,” which counsel women on options other than abortion, such as adoption. However, the law compelled these centers to inform the women of their abortion options.

David French of National Review noted that during arguments in front of the Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to step outside the traditional norms of evidence submitted in the case and earned a rebuke for it from her colleague, Justice Anthony Kennedy.

In questioning the attorney representing the plaintiffs — Mike Farris of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates — Sotomayor referenced information she had obtained herself from the website of one of the unlicensed pro-life pregnancy centers, and asked several questions in regard to licensed versus unlicensed facilities providing what amounts to medical advice.

According to a transcript of the arguments (page 22), Sotomayor was followed by Kennedy, who began his line of questioning with a not-so-subtle criticism of Sotomayor for side-stepping the normal bounds of Court procedure.

Kennedy stated, “Well, in this case I didn’t go beyond the record to look on the internet because I don’t think we should do that, but I do have a hypothetical.”

French, who has a legal background, pointed out that court cases are fought over evidence that has been submitted ahead of time and placed into the record in such a manner that both sides have an equal opportunity to examine the same set of facts.

This is done so that unverified or misleading claims don’t end up deciding the outcome of a case.

“Simply put, judges should not act as freelance investigators in the cases before them. In fact, this is judging 101,” French wrote.

Sotomayor nevertheless took it upon herself to do some “freelance investigating,” thus going above and beyond the set of facts already put forward through arguments and evidence in lower courts by questioning an attorney with whom she no doubt disagreed ideologically.

Of course, The Associated Press was quick to rush to Sotomayor’s defense after she was rebuked by Kennedy.

The AP noted that there have been a handful of previous instances in other cases where justices or their clerks will have looked something up online to better inform their line of questioning, and even cited examples where Kennedy and Roberts had done so, as well as Breyer, Justice Sam Alito and the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Yet, given the thousands of cases heard over the years by the Supreme Court that have strictly kept to the presented record, a mere five examples of a justice going outside the record in their questions or written opinions doesn’t give Sotomayor any excuse.

Kennedy was right to call out Sotomayor for stepping outside the record, and his rebuke should serve as a reminder going forward to all current and future justices.

They need to stick to the arguments and evidence before them, not whatever information they can pull up with a quick internet search.

G’ day…Ciao…
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_23.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: