Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Wednesday, Mar. 28, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
A few thoughts on Stormy Daniels
Did you see Stormy Daniels' interview on 60 minutes? Her pupils are extremely dilated. For those that have been through our training know that this happens when high on certain drugs like stimulants.
https://ift.tt/2GlVKIj
Did you see Stormy Daniels' interview on 60 minutes? Her pupils are extremely dilated. For those that have been through our training know that this happens when high on 
Stormy Daniels was very pretty woman. Still a pretty good looker. My guess is she is 40ish.
She has a young daughter. Obviously she chose life for her baby. In her “profession” abortion is often the solution to pregnancy. Choosing life tells me more about the character of the woman than what she does for a living. Abortion probably would have been a simple and inexpensive solution for he motherly condition.
She has a young daughter. Obviously she chose life for her baby. In her “profession” abortion is often the solution to pregnancy. Choosing life tells me more about the character of the woman than what she does for a living. Abortion probably would have been a simple and inexpensive solution for he motherly condition.
Now that I’ve had an opportunity to think through the life of Stormy, we find a beautiful woman conflicted by whatever need compelled her to chose the life she did.
She reminds me of little league ballplayers with dreams of Fenway. No doubt all that knew Stormy as she grew up told her that her good looks and gentle manner could lead her into a false sense that her beauty and the fawning she no doubt had from men was beginning as soon as she took on the shape of a woman.
I’ll resist the temptation of judging her, that is the job of a higher authority.
I must admit watching that interview I could only feel sympathy for her. The direction of her life will not change. I can only hope for her that she gets the guidance of some who genuinely care about Stormy the person and not only the image of her.
As the father and grandfather and great grandfather of more than a dozen girls I understand how easy it is to fall for the siren song Stormy obviously responded to.
A close observation of the pupils of her eyes possibly reveal something very unhealthy lifestyle for her. I hope she has not turned to drugs to help her cope with her obviously complicated life. Her daughter needs a clear headed Mom in today’s world.
Outside of the purely physical there is a seoul, flesh and blood. I hope she gets out of her present lifestyle before it destroys her and her child.
Roseanne Barr Slams Jimmy Kimmel: Americans Don’t Want Trump to Fail
BY BRISTOL PALIN
95
Well, this was interesting. Roseanne Barr — the comedienne who is reviving her old show — was on Jimmy Kimmel’s show, when he made things political. (Why does he have to make everything political these days?) Kimmel is famous for saying that late night show hosts are “liberal” because the job requires “a measure of intelligence.”Mr. Kimmel, a frequent President Trump critic who has spoken out on a number of issues ranging from health care to gun control, said he decided to get into political comedy and advocacy due to a “real serious concern for the future of this country.”
He said political comedy can be dangerous because hosts risk alienating half of their audience, but it’s more important to be honest with viewers than to be universally funny.
But recently, the tables were turned when Kimmel began questioning Barr.
“I know you are a very political, socially liberal person in general,” he began while interviewing Barr on his show.
“I’m still the same,” she said. “You all moved.”
Kimmel laughed. “You’re probably right, by the way.”
“You all went so f***ing far out, you lost everybody… A lot of your audience — including me — no matter who we voted for, don’t want to see our President fail.”
Boom! The audience went wild in studio, and you know that many Americans watching at home were thrilled that finally someone said what they were thinking.
“I know,” he said. “And yet we’ve seen him fail over and over again.”
Then, Roseanne — who actually ran for President in 2012 on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket with Cindy Sheehan as her running mate — asked Kimmel if he wanted to have Mike Pence as President. The universal feeling on stage was that this was not acceptable. (Though, I think Pence would be a great President.)
“No, I don’t,” said Kimmel.
“Then zip that bleeping lip,” Roseanne quipped.
He said political comedy can be dangerous because hosts risk alienating half of their audience, but it’s more important to be honest with viewers than to be universally funny.
But recently, the tables were turned when Kimmel began questioning Barr.
“I know you are a very political, socially liberal person in general,” he began while interviewing Barr on his show.
“I’m still the same,” she said. “You all moved.”
Kimmel laughed. “You’re probably right, by the way.”
“You all went so f***ing far out, you lost everybody… A lot of your audience — including me — no matter who we voted for, don’t want to see our President fail.”
Boom! The audience went wild in studio, and you know that many Americans watching at home were thrilled that finally someone said what they were thinking.
“I know,” he said. “And yet we’ve seen him fail over and over again.”
Then, Roseanne — who actually ran for President in 2012 on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket with Cindy Sheehan as her running mate — asked Kimmel if he wanted to have Mike Pence as President. The universal feeling on stage was that this was not acceptable. (Though, I think Pence would be a great President.)
“No, I don’t,” said Kimmel.
“Then zip that bleeping lip,” Roseanne quipped.
Obama Continues To Prove His Narcissism
Daily Wire by: Joseph Curl
Think Donald Trump is the most narcissistic, egotistical president ever?Think again. That honor goes to his predecessor, hands down. Barack H. Obama was obsessed with himself. The mainstream media, of course, fawned over his every breath, swelling his head to elephantine proportions, but Obama has always thought he's all that and a bag of chips.
In one speech on the economy, Obama talked for 40 minutes, some 5,500 words (the Gettysburg Address was 271). And Obama said "I" or "me" 199 times. In Obama’s first State of the Union speech in 2010, he said “I” or “me” 98 times. Trump in his first SOTU had just 26 personal references.
"If I could do that effectively, then -- you know -- I would create a hundred or a thousand or a million young Barack Obama or Michelle Obama’s," Obama said. "Or, the next group of people who could take that baton in that relay race that is human progress."
Attorneys: Father of Pulse Nightclub Killer Omar Mateen Was FBI Informant
by JOHN HAYWARD
Attorneys for Noor Salman, the wife of Pulse nightclub killer Omar Mateen, moved to dismiss the charges or declare a mistrial on Sunday night after the prosecution revealed on Saturday that Mateen’s father, Seddique Mateen, worked as an FBI informant from 2005 through the summer of 2016.
According to defense lawyers, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sara Sweeney sent them an email on Saturday night that revealed Seddique Mateen was a confidential FBI source and is also under investigation for suspicious money transfers to Turkey and Afghanistan, based on documents that were discovered in his home on the day of the nightclub massacre. Noor Salman’s trial had already been in progress for a week when this disclosure was made.
“It is apparent from the Government’s belated disclosure that Ms. Salman has been defending a case without a complete set of facts and evidence that the Government was required to disclose,” the defense attorneys declared.
The defense said the new revelations present two theories of the case that should have been on the table since the beginning of Salman’s trial: “1) Omar Mateen and his father, rather than Ms. Salman, conspired to support ISIS; or 2) the FBI’s focus on Ms. Salman was based on its own motive to avoid responsibility for its failures with its own informant, Seddique Mateen, as well as his son.”
The defense pointed out that one of the allegations against Noor Salman is that she helped Omar Mateen cook up a cover story to help him slip away and carry out the Pulse shooting, but if Seddique Mateen had “some level of foreknowledge” about the terror plot, such a cover story “would have been completely unnecessary.”
Salman’s attorneys also argued that Seddique Mateen used his connections with the FBI to block an investigation into his son in 2013. That investigation was launched after a joint operation between the FBI and the local sheriff’s department received a credible tip that Omar Mateen was planning a terrorist operation. After investigating him, putting him under surveillance, interviewing him twice, and even obtaining a written statement in which Omar Mateen admitted he lied to agents during the interviews, the operation concluded in March 2014 that he was not a threat.
“Mateen’s father played a significant role in the FBI’s decision not to seek an indictment from the Justice Department for false statements to the FBI or obstruction of justice against Omar Mateen,” the motion from the Noor Salman defense claimed, referring to the 2013-2014 investigation.
The defense further accused the FBI of choosing not to administer a polygraph test to Salman “based on the FBI’s desire to implicate Noor Salman, rather than Seddique Mateen, in order to avoid scrutiny of its own ineptitude with the latter.”
As for Seddique Mateen’s curious money transfers to Turkey and Afghanistan, the government’s email to defense lawyers said that an anonymous tip was received in 2012 stating that the elder Mateen was “seeking to raise $50,000-$100,000 via a donation drive to contribute toward an attack against the government of Pakistan.”
The money transfers occurred in March and June 2016, before the June 12 attack on the Pulse nightclub. The last transfer occurred only a week before the shooting.
Seddique Mateen infamously attended a rally for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign less than two months after the Pulse massacre and was seated directly behind the candidate during a speech. The Clinton campaign claimed it did not know he was present, although he did some media appearances afterward and showed off a sign he made supporting Clinton.
Seddique Mateen was on the prosecution’s witness list for the Noor Salman trial but was not called to testify, although his wife Shahla Mateen testified.
Joe Scarborough Slams Stormy Daniels’ Credibility After Salacious Trump Interview
Joe Scarborough questioned Stormy Daniels’ credibility Monday on “Morning Joe” after her “60 Minutes” interview and then criticized Anderson Cooper for not being more thorough in his follow-up questions.Scarborough slipped into an Italian gangster accent before saying there may have been a deal in place, preventing Cooper from covering certain topics.
“I mean we shouldn’t hold [Cooper] to a lawyer’s standard but [Daniels] goes, some man threatened me and said, boy, that baby sure looks nice, it would be a shame if she loses her mother. And he doesn’t go, who was it,” Scarborough said.
“What did he look like? Did he look like this person this who works for Donald Trump?” Scarborough continued.” That’s not that hard to follow up on. You wonder if they had some deal before the interview.”
George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley agreed and said Daniels has very little credibility and any fallout from the interview will be apparent in a matter of days.
“There’s a lot of lack of follow-up, including on credibility. Stormy Daniels saying I just didn’t want my kids to find out about this and it sort of left you with, what? You had a career with dozens of porn movies and you were afraid your kid would find out you had a consensual relationship with the president?” Turley said. “Those types of disconnects weren’t followed up and the fact is Stormy Daniels is not very credible. She’s signed false statements. That doesn’t mean that what she’s saying is not true.”
“What is clear now is this ball’s in play,” Turley concluded. “That nondisclosure agreement has been blasted into small bits. And so what we’re going to see in the next few days is going to be very important.”
Washington Post Publishes The Biggest Bald-Faced Anti-Gun Lie We’ve Seen
The Washington Post isn’t even trying anymore when it comes to hiding their anti-gun slant.
As part of their coverage of the anti-gun March for Our Lives, Saturday’s Washington Post contained an especially sensationalistic gun stat on the front page: “More Than 187,000 Children Have Been Exposed to Gun Violence At School Since Columbine in 1999.” According to the article, “Beginning with Columbine in 1999, more than 187,000 students attending at least 193 primary or secondary schools have experienced a shooting on campus during school hours, according to a year-long Washington Post analysis.”
Scary stuff. It’s outrageous. It’s inhumane. It’s something that should never happen in America. It’s…… a complete lie.
The Washington Post is playing so loose with the facts that by “exposed to gun violence at a school,” they literally just mean “were at a school with a shooting.” If there was a school with 5,000 students, and one was shot, then 5,000 were “exposed to gun violence.” It doesn’t matter if they saw or heard the shooting at all. This would be like saying an entire school was exposed to cigarettes because one student decided to light up in the bathroom.
Schools are an odd thing to focus on, given that there’s statistically one of the safest places to be in America. Of the 10,000 or so gun murders each year, how many occur within a school? In most years, fewer than 20, and schools are only becoming safer.
A study recently conducted by James Alan Fox, a professor of criminology at Northeastern University in Boston, found that school children are much more safe today than they were in the 1990s. His study found there have been only eight “mass shootings” on schools since 1996 if you define a “mass shooting” as a massacre with more than four deaths, not including the gunman.
“Four times the number of children were killed in schools in the early 1990s than today,” Fox said.
In the study, Fox noted that children today are much more likely to die from bicycle accidents or accidental pool drownings than in a mass shooting at school.
“Four times the number of children were killed in schools in the early 1990s than today,” Fox said.
In the study, Fox noted that children today are much more likely to die from bicycle accidents or accidental pool drownings than in a mass shooting at school.
Of course, the real reason schools have become central to the gun control debate has nothing to do with the safety of schools, and everything to do with marketing gun control. The majority of gun homicides in America are gang-on-gang shootings concentrated in the inner cities.
That raises a problem though for the Left; even if one were to accept that gun control works (which we don’t), how can one create effective gun control policies, when they’re only proposing gun control measures to solve 0.1% of gun deaths?
This May Be the Best Response We’ve Ever Seen to People Turning in Their Guns
BY CILLIAN ZEAL
Public opinion on guns, particularly around any sort of mass shooting, tends to be formed by hashtag activism and then amplified by a media hungry to show that America is losing patience with the Second Amendment.
Perhaps the most famous example of this was a tweet by Twitter user @RepWillBailey — who doesn’t appear to actually be a representative of anything except his own views, which are described in his profile with the hashtags #Resist and (of course) #NeverAgain.
“My kids learned about Parkland today at school,” Bailey tweeted on Feb. 20.
“After dinner my 9yo climbed onto my lap & asked if we own guns. I told her the truth. We do have one.
“She started crying & said ‘Please let’s don’t anymore.’ We just got home from the police dept where together we got rid of it.”
My kids learned about Parkland today at school.
After dinner my 9yo climbed onto my lap & asked if we own guns. I told her the truth. We do have one.
She started crying & said “Please let’s don’t anymore.”
We just got home from the police dept where together we got rid of it.
— Will Bailey (@RepWillBailey) February 21, 2018
As of now, Bailey’s tweet has over 147,000 likes and 29,000 retweets, which some stars can’t even manage. In fact, if you’ve been anywhere on social media since the shooting, you’ve probably seen it.
It’s the kind of thing that makes liberal hearts melt, the sort of sentiment that people who don’t usually think much about guns think is a really great opinion about guns.
One Twitter user, @PugPoppa, managed to absolutely pop (so sorry, I had to) the narrative with a perfectly placed truth barb:
As a Vox reader might say at this point, YAASSSSSSSSSS. THIS!
Will Bailey (given that he’s not an actual politician, I’m going to assume that’s a pseudonym invoking the Joshua Malina character on “The West Wing,” but it’s all we have to go on, so) is, or was, likely a legal, responsible gun owner. His daughter didn’t want him to be. He turned the gun in.
He made his daughter temporarily happy. As long as she lives in that house, however, she’ll be less safe.
See, most of the threat doesn’t come from legal gun owners, and certainly not ones who are going to go down to the police station to turn in their weapon because their 4-year-old wanted them to.
The threat, instead, comes from those who get guns illegally. They don’t care what their daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, fathers or mothers think, and they certainly don’t care what the law thinks.
They’re the people we protect ourselves from by exercising our Second Amendment rights. This could have been a teachable moment — one where Bailey took his daughter aside and explained the issue.
Instead, he decided to make his daughter less safe in her own home. But I’m sure if he ever faces an armed home invader, those 147,000 people who liked his post will rush to his side and protect him. Right?
After dinner my 9yo climbed onto my lap & asked if we own guns. I told her the truth. We do have one.
She started crying & said “Please let’s don’t anymore.”
We just got home from the police dept where together we got rid of it.
— Will Bailey (@RepWillBailey) February 21, 2018
As of now, Bailey’s tweet has over 147,000 likes and 29,000 retweets, which some stars can’t even manage. In fact, if you’ve been anywhere on social media since the shooting, you’ve probably seen it.
It’s the kind of thing that makes liberal hearts melt, the sort of sentiment that people who don’t usually think much about guns think is a really great opinion about guns.
One Twitter user, @PugPoppa, managed to absolutely pop (so sorry, I had to) the narrative with a perfectly placed truth barb:
As a Vox reader might say at this point, YAASSSSSSSSSS. THIS!
Will Bailey (given that he’s not an actual politician, I’m going to assume that’s a pseudonym invoking the Joshua Malina character on “The West Wing,” but it’s all we have to go on, so) is, or was, likely a legal, responsible gun owner. His daughter didn’t want him to be. He turned the gun in.
He made his daughter temporarily happy. As long as she lives in that house, however, she’ll be less safe.
See, most of the threat doesn’t come from legal gun owners, and certainly not ones who are going to go down to the police station to turn in their weapon because their 4-year-old wanted them to.
The threat, instead, comes from those who get guns illegally. They don’t care what their daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, fathers or mothers think, and they certainly don’t care what the law thinks.
They’re the people we protect ourselves from by exercising our Second Amendment rights. This could have been a teachable moment — one where Bailey took his daughter aside and explained the issue.
Instead, he decided to make his daughter less safe in her own home. But I’m sure if he ever faces an armed home invader, those 147,000 people who liked his post will rush to his side and protect him. Right?
Storm clouds: Media casts doubt on Stormy Daniels story
by Paul Bedard
In this Feb. 10, 2008 photo, adult film star Stormy Daniels arrives at the 50th Annual Grammy Awards in Los Angeles. CBS News President David Rhodes says that a "60 Minutes" interview with Daniels needs more journalistic work. Rhodes' statement at a conference in Israel Tuesday was the first time CBS publicly confirmed it had interviewed Daniels, who has alleged an extramarital affair with Donald Trump before he became president. (AP Photo/Chris Pizzello)
Allegations from porn star Stormy Daniels about an affair with President Trump and threats from Trump backers to stay quiet, cheered by the media leading up to Sunday’s 60 Minutes interview, are now being greeted with skepticism by the very same media.
The lack of evidence provided in the interview and the weak pressure she faced from interviewer Anderson Cooper are also being called out.
MSNBC Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough, for example, said Monday morning that “a lot of questions actually were raised at least for me by that interview.”
He hit on the promise of evidence by Daniels’ lawyer. “What exactly are they waiting for if this about truth, justice, and the American way?”
Scarborough added, “It seemed to me a lot more inconsistencies and a lot more questions about her motives…sometimes the story didn’t line up and just to be honest there were a lot of questions that should have been asked.”
The Examiner this morning took note of Scarborough's skepticism, highlighting this from the former lawmaker: "As a young lawyer, I remember being told never over-promise. ... It seems to me that we have an attorney that’s done just the opposite."
One of his panelists, national political reporter Heidi Przybyla, said that ‘we were expecting to see some kind of evidence” and she questioned whether Daniels and her team “actually have that evidence.”
The Washington Post wrote, “It is clear that Team Daniels wants Team Trump, and the public, to think there are incriminating photos and text messages. But there is no sign of them yet.”
And some in the media is starting to feel they’re being used in a drawn out story. “Drip, drip, drip,” said CNN’s media reporter Brian Stelter noting a tweet from her lawyer.
In this Feb. 10, 2008 photo, adult film star Stormy Daniels arrives at the 50th Annual Grammy Awards in Los Angeles. CBS News President David Rhodes says that a "60 Minutes" interview with Daniels needs more journalistic work. Rhodes' statement at a conference in Israel Tuesday was the first time CBS publicly confirmed it had interviewed Daniels, who has alleged an extramarital affair with Donald Trump before he became president. (AP Photo/Chris Pizzello)Allegations from porn star Stormy Daniels about an affair with President Trump and threats from Trump backers to stay quiet, cheered by the media leading up to Sunday’s 60 Minutes interview, are now being greeted with skepticism by the very same media.
The lack of evidence provided in the interview and the weak pressure she faced from interviewer Anderson Cooper are also being called out.
MSNBC Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough, for example, said Monday morning that “a lot of questions actually were raised at least for me by that interview.”
He hit on the promise of evidence by Daniels’ lawyer. “What exactly are they waiting for if this about truth, justice, and the American way?”
Scarborough added, “It seemed to me a lot more inconsistencies and a lot more questions about her motives…sometimes the story didn’t line up and just to be honest there were a lot of questions that should have been asked.”
The Examiner this morning took note of Scarborough's skepticism, highlighting this from the former lawmaker: "As a young lawyer, I remember being told never over-promise. ... It seems to me that we have an attorney that’s done just the opposite."
One of his panelists, national political reporter Heidi Przybyla, said that ‘we were expecting to see some kind of evidence” and she questioned whether Daniels and her team “actually have that evidence.”
The Washington Post wrote, “It is clear that Team Daniels wants Team Trump, and the public, to think there are incriminating photos and text messages. But there is no sign of them yet.”
And some in the media is starting to feel they’re being used in a drawn out story. “Drip, drip, drip,” said CNN’s media reporter Brian Stelter noting a tweet from her lawyer.
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_27.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment