Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Friday, Mar. 30, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
Remember
The 2008 Clinton campaign reportedly downplayed the importance of the contributions.
“Over 100,000 people from across the country have contributed to Sen. Clinton’s campaign for change, and regardless of who supports her, she will always continue to stand up for what she feels is right,” campaign spokesman Blake Zeff told the Post at the time.
The Albany Times Union is also reporting that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office is probing a nonprofit organization linked to NXIVM that allegedly conducted brain-activity and other human behavioral studies with no oversight.
The Times Union reported:
The nonprofit Ethical Science Foundation was formed in 2007 by Clare E. Bronfman, who owns a horse farm in Delanson and is listed in public records as the trustee and donor of the foundation.
At the request of the attorney general’s office, a state Supreme Court justice recently signed an order directing Bronfman and Dr. Brandon B. Porter, who is involved with NXIVM and conducted the human studies, to turn over all documentation associated with the research, including any written communications, videos, conclusions, consent forms and the names and addresses of “individuals associated with Ethical Science Foundation who participated in any manner with the studies.”
Clare Bronfman, an heiress of the Seagram Company who has called herself the operations director of NXIVM, is a repeat Clinton donor, according to FEC records.
Last October, a Vancouver woman named Jennifer Kobelt, 28, said NXIVM President Nancy Salzman recruited her for brain studies. Kobelt said she was hooked up to an EEG machine to monitor her brain activity. She claims they showed her horrifying images and videos of murder, rape and mutilation, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has also received money from Bronfman, who reportedly gave $2,400 to the New York Democrat’s 2010 special-election campaign.
“The lawmaker’s dad, Doug Rutnik, worked as an attorney for Nxivm for four months in 2004 at a rate of $25,000 per month,” reported PageSix.com.
But when Rutnik tried to quit, a source told PageSix.com, he was sued and reportedly paid back $100,000.
Also, in December, The Sun reported “Smallville” actress Allison Mack is allegedly a “master” in NXIVM.
Study: Only 10% of D.C. ‘March for Our Lives’ Protesters Were Teenagers
by JOEL B. POLLAK
Shannon Finney / Getty
Research by University of Maryland sociologist Dana R. Fisher has revealed that about than 10% of the participants in the main “March for Our Lives” anti-gun protest in Washington, DC, on Saturday were under 18 years old.
Fisher, who is studying the demographic makeup of the so-called “Resistance” to President Donald Trump, published an op-ed in the Washington Post on Wednesday morning summarizing her findings:
Contrary to what’s been reported in many media accounts, the D.C. March for Our Lives crowd was not primarily made up of teenagers. Only about 10 percent of the participants were under 18. The average age of the adults in the crowd was just under 49 years old, which is older than participants at the other marches I’ve surveyed but similar to the age of the average participant at the Million Moms March in 2000, which was also about gun control.
About one in four participants were at their first political rally. However, Fisher says, they were not even motivated by gun control:
Even more interesting, the new protesters were less motivated by the issue of gun control. In fact, only 12 percent of the people who were new to protesting reported that they were motivated to join the march because of the gun-control issue, compared with 60 percent of the participants with experience protesting.
Instead, new protesters reported being motivated by the issues of peace (56 percent) and Trump (42 percent), who has been a galvanizing force for many protests.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named to Forward’s 50 “most influential” Jews in 2017. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
FLASHBACK: Bill Clinton’s Census Asked About Citizenship
How many actions of President Donald Trump have liberals expressed outrage over, when he’s simply done what other Democrat Presidents have?
One recent example that comes to mind is when Trump congratulated Putin after being reelected in Russia. No one in the liberal media blasting Trump for the decision seemed to remember that Obama did the exact same thing when he was President. Obama even congratulated more controversial leaders, like Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro.
More recently, liberals are outraged that Trump’s Commerce Dept. announced that a question on citizenship status will be added to the 2020 census. You know, that census that aims to garner statistics on U.S. citizens. The state of California has already sued to block the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 census. According to NPR, “The concern expressed by states with large undocumented immigrant populations is that asking about citizenship will scare people off, forms won’t get filled out and the count won’t be accurate, affecting federal funding and the number of congressional seats.”
Well, no wonder liberals are so scared. Among the other “fears” that opponents pretend to have, they include “reduced response rates and inaccurate answers” on Census questions. That’s really just another way of voicing fiscal concerns this change will have while allowing liberals to pretend their concerns are about accuracy. If illegals don’t respond to the survey or respond truthfully, that’s one less citizen the State they reside in has, making them qualify for less federal aid.
Ironically, it was a liberal who did the same when he was President. Former President Bill Clinton’s Department of Commerce asked about citizenship in their 2000 census.
The citizenship question was found in long-form censuses from 1970 to 2000. Citizenship questions have appeared in the U.S. census dating back to 1820.
Where was the hysterics then? There are 12 States suing the Trump Administration over this change, and it’s no surprise that every single one is a Blue State. I’m only confused as to why there’s outrage now. Anything to oppose Trump, I suppose?
2018: Top Dem Strategists Want Party to Double Down on Stormy Daniels
60 Minutes / YouTube
Top Democratic strategists reportedly want the party to double down on President Donald Trump’s alleged affairs with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal going into the 2018 midterms.
One top Democratic strategist told The Hill that playing up Trump’s affairs “will help rev up our base.” Jim Manley, who was former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s top strategist, told the outlet that Democrats “shouldn’t shy away from raising this issue to the extent they’re comfortable because it comes down to a question of credibility.”
“This is consuming the cable networks right now. It’s all people are talking about. Why shouldn’t we add this to the arsenal and make voters realize you can’t trust someone who is involved in any of these matters?” he reportedly said.
Another top Democratic strategist told The Hill that Democrats should play up Karen McDougal’s and Stormy Daniels interviews in which they said they had affairs with Trump because “even a small drop in evangelical support for Republicans would be devastating.”
“You want to dampen Republican enthusiasm. We should take a lesson from the Republican playbook and let an ‘all of the above’ strategy take hold from different messengers across different targeted platforms,” the strategist reportedly added.
Trump’s approval ratings have actually risen since Daniels and McDougal started going public and cable networks like CNN started their wall-to-wall coverage of all things Stormy and Karen. And a Morning Consult report found that Trump has not really lost support from evangelical voters, 80 percent of whom voted for Trump in 2016.
In addition, a 2016 Public Religion Research Institute poll taken after the Access Hollywood tape was released found 72% of white evangelicals believe that “an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically in their professional life, a stunning 42-point jump in their opinion on this issue since 2011.”
Another Morning Consult poll this week found that nearly half of those surveyed said Trump’s affair with Daniels “doesn’t change how they view Trump,” up from nearly 40 percent who thought the same a month ago.
“The Stormy Daniels scandal has had little discernible impact on voter opinions of President Trump this month,” Morning Consult Co-Founder and Chief Research Officer Kyle Dropp told Politico.
Legacy media reporters and Democrats have been gushing over the record ratings that 60 Minutes got for its Stormy Daniels interview in which she described spanking Trump with a Forbes magazine that had him on the cover and alleged that someone threatened her in a parking lot to keep silent about her affair. But they have conveniently left out the fact that 60 Minutes also lucked out by getting a phenomenal lead-in.
60 Minutes aired after much of the nation was transfixed by two of college basketball’s most blue-blooded teams (Duke and Kansas) who played an epic overtime thriller that determined the last Final Four spot in this year’s college basketball tournament. CBS could not have orchestrated a better lead-in, as many viewers, including plenty of sports fans on the east coast who may not normally watch the news program, just left their televisions on for the Daniels interview after Kansas defeated Duke, arguably the most polarizing team in the sport that draws plenty of eyeballs.
Though top Democratic strategists want the party to play up Trump’s alleged affairs, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who most likely has the most to gain from this year’s midterm elections, is reportedly not too enthusiastic about making 2018 all about Stormy and Karen.
“I don’t know that we necessarily have to get involved in any of that,” Pelosi reportedly told reporters last week.
Former Disney Channel Star Caroline Sunshine Joins President Trump’s Press Team…Another beautiful young woman on the Trump Train...Stormy Who?
ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images
President Donald Trump has hired former Disney Channel star Caroline Sunshine to work as a press assistant, according to CNN’s Betsy Klein.
Sunshine played Sylvie Garrett in the film Mommy, I Didn’t Do It and character Emily Jordan in the 2015 film The Outfield according to IMDB as well as her Disney Channel appearances.
Sunshine is now 22 and already served as a White House intern before taking the job. She also worked with the American Enterprise Institute, interned for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and worked for the California Republican party and the College Republicans.
Sunshine has over 500,000 followers on Twitter, but her account has been dormant since September 2017. The only mention of the president on her account is from 2011, when she said she was “chillin” like the former real estate mogul and reality TV star.
Chillin in the green room gettin' ready to go.....Donald Trump style ;) http://lockerz.com/s/141656498
Caroline Sunshine ✔@CSUNSHINEFound this when we arrived. Thanks for the water Mr. Trump ;) haha https://ift.tt/2pLnUTQ
In November 2016 she encouraged her followers to vote, writing, “‘Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.’ -The Lorax GO VOTE.”
Obama CIA use of foreign spies against the Trump campaign should be cause for alarm, no?
R. EMMETT TYRRELL, JR. --- Washington
What passes for the current wisdom today contains a great deal of solemn slop. Yet there are some solemnities in the current wisdom that one assumes are legitimate. For instance, it is said that today partisanship is more intense than it has been since — I suppose — the Civil War, or at least since the days of Senator Joe McCarthy. Americans on the left, the right, and those treading water in the middle cannot agree on anything. Well, I would have said this was a bit far-fetched until last week. That was when I experienced partisanship for myself.
We have been hearing for years that the existence of the CIA, the FBI, and other agencies of the intelligence community constitute a threat to our civil liberties. The alarums about tapping our telephones and otherwise snooping on us have been traditionally sounded by the left, but also — perhaps more pianissimo — by the right. Senator Rand Paul has been a peerless voice on the right sounding off for civil liberties. When he speaks out I listen. One of the rallying points of concern in America has been the concern for civil liberties. When the American Civil Liberties Union was founded it had its champions left, right, and center.
The excesses of former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover alarmed us all, but leading the chorus were what we then called liberals and, of course, those sturdy defenders of personal liberty, the libertarians. As the years have passed they could always be relied upon to speak out in defense of freedom, sometimes neurotically, sometimes out of a sober sense of urgency.
Last week, however, I personally discovered the left’s concern for civil liberties has vanished or at least become muted by partisanship. The right’s concern for civil liberties, too, seems muted. With my colleague, George Neumayr, I reported on a vast breach of the right to privacy by fellow Americans. We reported the existence of at least one intelligence agency, and possibly others, using foreign agents to eavesdrop on Americans. They thought that by using foreigners they would not be held accountable. Then another of my colleagues, Dan Flynn, repeated the charge. The result? Silence. No one seemed to care either on the left, the right, or in the middle.
As I intimated above I assume the left’s neglect was owing to partisanship, for we were reporting on a Democratic Administration’s surveillance of the Trump campaign. When candidate Trump claimed he was being “wiretapped” it turns out he was right: the Obama administration had been intercepting communications at Trump Tower by spying on Paul Manafort and Carter Page, and during the transition after Trump won through “unmasking.” But what explains the right’s neglect? It cannot be partisanship. I presume it is but another instance of the conservatives’ lifelong political problem, indifference.
What we reported is this. A source with a record of proven reliability over many years overheard FBI agents venting about John Brennan, the former head of the CIA, using British intelligence agents to spy on the Trump campaign. American contractors were also used. The British used American equipment. They had an extensive spying network here in America, using the twelfth floor of a building in Crystal City, Virginia and a building in San Antonio. Moreover, Brennan was not the only one who knew about the spying. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was another, and still more senior officials in the Obama Administration were aware of it. I am told that James B. Comey and Andrew McCabe were also aware of the surveillance of Trump. They had tried to get FISA warrants for snooping on Trump’s associates but were turned down, though they would later get a warrant to spy on Carter Page. So Brennan turned to the British. If they wanted to keep their spying a secret they were pretty sloppy, but then they thought they could afford to be sloppy. They knew that Hillary was going to win.
As I say, spying on American citizens one would think would be opposed by all sides in America today. One would expect a consensus to exist at least on this. But it does not appear to be the case. Members of the left have uttered not a peep. Even the ACLU is quiet. Yet there is one outspoken civil libertarian left, President Trump. He can notify his Department of Justice to take action. In fact, he can even release a Tweet. It is time for all defenders of the free society to be heard. American elections are best conducted without the involvement of our intelligence agencies. Not even her majesty’s agents should be invited in.
Porn again on “60 Minutes.”
By Ben Stein
Now for a few thoughts about Donald Trump supposedly having sex with a porn actress named “Stormy Daniels,” as discussed on CBS 60 Minutes Sunday night.
1. What a fantastically deluded and stupid person Stormy is. She said she was not bringing up the story about Mr. Trump and her for money. Instead, she was doing it so that he daughter would not be mocked and laughed at because Trump called her a liar.
Miss Daniels, get hip. You’re a pornographic actor. You make your living having men you barely know penetrate you and sodomize you for money. You sell your private parts for money. Don’t you think that maybe your daughter’s friends are already going to laugh at her and you? If you want to have your daughter’s friends speak better of her and you, why don’t you quit this work you’ve been doing and become a nurse?
2. History means nothing without context. Powerful men like to have sex with women besides their wives. (So do anonymous men.) John F. Kennedy had dozens if not hundreds of women who were not his wife. But we tear up and cheer at the mere mention of the Kennedy name. Teddy Kennedy actually caused the death of a much younger woman with whom he was having a relationship. But he was treated as a saint by the left.
As far as I’m concerned, Trump’s actions with Stormy are squarely in the mainstream of history. I don’t like them, but I don’t think I am in any way better than he is. (And I don’t think I am in any way better than she is.)
3. The really bad part of the story is that Mr. Trump supposedly lied about it so brazenly. But wait a minute. Not so fast, as Joe Welch said to Roy Cohn. How do we know that Stormy is telling the truth and Trump is lying? There were no eyewitnesses except the two of them. She makes her living EVERY SINGLE DAY by faking her feelings and emotions. Why would we believe her? Trump is a businessman and a tough SOB. But he could not have risen as high as he did without at least usually telling the truth.
The whole trick that CBS did — and I love CBS — was to treat the Stormy version of it as true and shift the emphasis to her motivation FOR TELLING THE TRUTH. Why not treat it as an aging porn star’s lunge for the pot of gold, as the fantasy of a fading would-be Lola Montez?
By having Anderson Cooper ask her tough questions, CBS was hammering home that the story was likely true. But who knows if it is? Who will ever know?
4. Having her lawyer come on and act tough was comic relief. Of course he’s going to act tough. That’s what trial lawyers do. It means nothing at all.
5. The one I really feel for is Melania Trump. It was incredibly cruel of CBS to air that interview and wreck her life. What happened between Stormy and Trump was mostly relevant to her and to her children. Why do we give Stormy a chance to protect her daughter and deny the same chance to Mrs. Trump?
6. In the New Testament, there is a glorious story about Jesus passing the woman taken in adultery. The crowd is about to stone her to death. Jesus asks her, “Woman, is it true? Did you commit adultery?”
The woman says, “I cannot lie. Yes, I sinned. I committed adultery.”
Jesus says, “Very well. Then she should be stoned. Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone.”
The crowd cowers and melts away. A good lesson for Anderson Cooper and the media today. We are all sinners and all have fallen short. Maybe we should remember it as we pick up the stones of self-righteousness.
Trump Just Popped The Giant Heads Of Egotistical Bureaucrats
President Donald Trump signed a bill into law Wednesday that makes it illegal to pay for portraits of government officials with taxpayer money.
Trump, his Cabinet, any current or future member of Congress, and any future president or vice president or government official will have to seek private donations to pay for a portrait, or fund it themselves.
The Eliminating Government-funded Oil-painting Act, abbreviated as the EGO Act, stipulates that no government money “may be used to pay for the painting of a portrait of an officer or employee of the Federal Government, including the President, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, the head of an executive agency, or the head of an office of the legislative branch.”
The enacted bill amends the legal code governing congressional appropriations and is not tied to specific spending bills.
Congress has included restrictions on using taxpayer money to commission portraits for politicians in appropriations bills since 2014, but the new law makes the ban permanent.
Former President Barack Obama’s portrait unveiled in February, commissioned by the National Portrait Gallery, was paid for in part through private donations.
Commissioning an oil portrait used to be a tradition for Cabinet appointees and members of Congress, but a few conservative senators began to draw attention to the spending during Obama’s first term.
Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, who first introduced the EGO Act in 2013, and others became upset about several government portraits.
One of the irksome paintings was commissioned by John Bryson, who served as commerce secretary under Obama for eight months before resigning after he was implicated in two suspected hit-and-run accidents.
The newly enacted law won’t do much to save the government money, as only about 20 portraits are commissioned each year.
The Congressional Budget Office’s 2017 report on the bill estimated the law will save around $500,000 annually.
Cassidy, who voted against the $1.3 trillion spending bill enacted Friday, believes the ban on using government funds for personal portraits of officials is a matter of fiscal responsibility.
“When America is trillions of dollars in debt, we should take every reasonable measure to reduce the burden passed on to our children and grandchildren,” Cassidy said when he first introduced the EGO Act in 2017.
“Tax dollars should go to building roads and improving schools — not oil paintings that very few people ever see or care about.”
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_29.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment