Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Saturday, Mar. 31, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
Pope Francis Just Reversed 2,000 Years of Christian Belief!
When it comes to the fanciful whims of His Holiness, many have believed that Pope Francis had already reached the peak of his odd behavior.
Francis is, in many ways, a liberal Pope – a designation that often has Christian conservatives scratching their heads. After all, the Pope is the voice of God, and as such, speaks for the church as well.
As it turns out, however, Pope Francis seems a little more concerned with headlines than he is with hymnals.
Seemingly out of the blue, Francis took a hard left stance on sexuality, conveniently just a few weeks before the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Pope Francis has called for transsexuals and homosexuals to be accepted and embraced by the Catholic Church, but said he was staunchly opposed to schools promoting or endorsing such “tendencies”.
He said he had ministered to such people when he was a priest, then as a bishop and now as Pope.
The Vatican maintains that homosexual acts are sinful, but homosexual orientation is not.
Of course, this fit right into former President Barack Obama’s public relations push in the transgender community that was meant to galvanize the fringe groups’ support for struggling democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Now the “look at me” Pope has done it again, making headlines for now declaring that hell doesn’t exist?
In another interview with his longtime atheist friend, Eugenio Scalfari, Pope Francis claims that Hell does not exist and that condemned souls just “disappear.” This is a denial of the 2,000-year-old teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of Hell and the eternal existence of the soul.
The interview between Scalfari and the Pope was published March 28, 2018 in La Repubblica. The relevant section on Hell was translated by the highly respected web log, Rorate Caeli.
Scalfri says to the Pope, “Your Holiness, in our previous meeting you told me that our species will disappear in a certain moment and that God, still out of his creative force, will create new species. You have never spoken to me about the souls who died in sin and will go to hell to suffer it for eternity. You have however spoken to me of good souls, admitted to the contemplation of God. But what about bad souls? Where are they punished?
Pope Francis says, “They are not punished, those who repent obtain the forgiveness of God and enter the rank of souls who contemplate him, but those who do not repent and cannot therefore be forgiven disappear. There is no hell, there is the disappearance of sinful souls.”
This leaves us begging to know; is Pope Francis interested in being the vessel of Holy knowledge, or is he more concerned with making a name for himself on the world stage?
Dick Morris: Big Blow to Mueller — Flynn May Walk
By Dick Morris
The office of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller just turned over to Judge Emmitt Sullivan any “Brady” material that might be helpful to former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn in defending himself against charges of lying to the FBI to which he pleaded guilty last year.
This could be the key to letting Flynn off the hook.
Judge Sullivan wants to know all about the relationship between Judge Rudy Contreras, who accepted Flynn’s guilty plea, and Peter Strzok, the FBI attorney whose interview with Flynn led to the charges. Contreras’ friendship with Strzok was exposed in text messages sent to and from the FBI agent and his paramour Lisa Page.
Immediately after accepting Flynn’s guilty plea, Contraras rescued himself from the case.
Sullivan also wants to know about the basis for the FISA warrant to surveil Flynn in the first place, which Judge Contraras also signed, largely based on the ill-famed dossier. The special counsel’s office did not tell the court, as it applied for a FISA warrant, that the dossier had been funded by the Hillary campaign and the Democratic Party.
Sullivan, in an unusual move, ordered the Special Counsel to produce any evidence in its possession that is “favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.”
Sullivan’s order is unusual in that it was issued after his predecessor, Contreras, accepted Flynn’s guilty plea and raises the question of whether Flynn will be able to withdraw his plea once he sees the new evidence.
Sullivan also demanded that the Special Counsel turn over all potentially exculpatory evidence to him rather than — as it is usually done — to the defendant, saying he would make the decision as to whether the evidence was “material.”
Sullivan has a history of tossing convictions where exculpatory material was not given to the defendant. In the case of Senator Ted Stevens, R-Alabama, he held the federal prosecutors in contempt for failing to turn over to defense a statement by a key government witness that the witness said would have undercut the government’s case. The ruling came after Stevens was defeated for re-election largely because of his conviction.
And, Mueller has withheld exculpatory evidence in the past. That may have been a factor in raising Judge Sullivan’s suspicions.
During Mueller’s time as Assistant and then as Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston from 1986-1987, his office prosecuted and convicted four men in connection with the 1985 murder of Teddy Deegan. The men were involved with the gang of notorious gangster Willy (Whitey) Bulger. Three of the four were sentenced to death.
However, all were exonerated by the courts in 2001 when it came out that the FBI withheld evidence from the court that would have cleared the men. According to Fox News Contributor Sara Carter, the Bureau “withheld evidence…to protect Vincent “Jimmy” Flemmi, an informant.
So withholding evidence from the court is not a new thing for Robert Mueller.
If the evidence Mueller has had to turn over shows a close enough relationship between Judge Contreras and FBI agent Peter Strzok or finds that the prosecution of Flynn was based on an improper reliance on the dossier in the first place, Flynn will probably seek to withdraw his guilty plea and the case against him is unlikely to survive.
And Mueller may not survive either.
Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as a political author, pollster and consultant. His most recent book, “Rogue Spooks,” was written with his wife, Eileen McGann.
Trump Refuses to Surrender, Says 2nd Amendment Will ‘Never Be Repealed’
The push by the anti-gun left received a huge boost on Tuesday by way of a The New York Times op-ed by former a former Supreme Court justice who claimed the Second Amendment is “a relic of the 18th century.”
Former Justice John Paul Stevens argued there is no longer a need for citizen militias to be armed and asserted that the Court’s D.C. v Heller decision — which he dissented against — was wrong in its recognition of the Second Amendment applying to the individual.
He called for the “simple but dramatic action” of repealing the Second Amendment as a means to remove the legal basis upon which the gun industry and gun ownership rests.
Set aside for a moment that his opinions of the Second Amendment and the Heller decision are wrong — let’s look at his “simple” proposal of repealing a Constitutional amendment and one of Americans’ most treasured rights.
There is nothing “simple” about getting rid of an amendment to the Constitution, as it would require a new amendment countermanding or striking the old one, and would require the support of 2/3 of both chambers of Congress and the support of 3/4 of the states for ratification.
That simply is not going to happen any time soon, if ever, as was noted in a forceful tweet by President Donald Trump on Wednesday, according to the Washington Examiner.
“THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED!” Trump tweeted. “As much as Democrats would like to see this happen, and despite the words yesterday of former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, NO WAY. We need more Republicans in 2018 and must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!”
THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED! As much as Democrats would like to see this happen, and despite the words yesterday of former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, NO WAY. We need more Republicans in 2018 and must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 28, 2018
That tweet followed an official response from the White House that also made clear that the Second Amendment isn’t going anywhere as far as the Trump administration is concerned.
“The president and the administration still fully support the Second Amendment,” stated press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, according to The Washington Times. “We think that the focus has to remain on removing weapons from dangerous individuals, not on blocking all Americans from their constitutional rights.”
Our readers no doubt recall how significant of an issue the Second Amendment was in the 2016 election, as failed Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton made it clear that she was largely opposed to the individual right to keep and bear arms and would likely seek legislative or executive actions to restrict that right if she were elected.
Then-candidate Trump expressed just as clearly how he would protect and defend the Second Amendment if elected, and garnered the rare early endorsement of the National Rifle Association in his bid for the White House.
His plan included enforcing and strengthening existing laws instead of adding new gun control measures, and was couched in an understanding that the natural right to self preservation supersedes even the Constitution and U.S. government.
Since being elected, Trump has made a curious comment or two in regard to gun rights, but has come nowhere close to threatening the Second Amendment as those on the left have.
His latest assertion should leave little doubt among gun-owners and anti-gunners alike that a repeal of the Second Amendment simply isn’t going to happen, at least not on Trump’s watch.
If Democrats really want to run in 2018 and 2020 on a platform that includes stripping away a fundamental right of American citizens, be my guest. I have a feeling it won’t turn out so well.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 28, 2018
That tweet followed an official response from the White House that also made clear that the Second Amendment isn’t going anywhere as far as the Trump administration is concerned.
“The president and the administration still fully support the Second Amendment,” stated press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, according to The Washington Times. “We think that the focus has to remain on removing weapons from dangerous individuals, not on blocking all Americans from their constitutional rights.”
Our readers no doubt recall how significant of an issue the Second Amendment was in the 2016 election, as failed Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton made it clear that she was largely opposed to the individual right to keep and bear arms and would likely seek legislative or executive actions to restrict that right if she were elected.
Then-candidate Trump expressed just as clearly how he would protect and defend the Second Amendment if elected, and garnered the rare early endorsement of the National Rifle Association in his bid for the White House.
His plan included enforcing and strengthening existing laws instead of adding new gun control measures, and was couched in an understanding that the natural right to self preservation supersedes even the Constitution and U.S. government.
Since being elected, Trump has made a curious comment or two in regard to gun rights, but has come nowhere close to threatening the Second Amendment as those on the left have.
His latest assertion should leave little doubt among gun-owners and anti-gunners alike that a repeal of the Second Amendment simply isn’t going to happen, at least not on Trump’s watch.
If Democrats really want to run in 2018 and 2020 on a platform that includes stripping away a fundamental right of American citizens, be my guest. I have a feeling it won’t turn out so well.
Clintons Took Money from Accused Sex Traffickers
Image via Foreign and Commonwealth Office / CCLWill the country ever get out from underneath these disgusting Clinton scandals?
Based on a just released report, the answer would be no, as Bill and Hillary Clinton have now been tied to a secret group in New York engaged in brainwashing sex “slaves.”
The Connection
If there is one thing that we have learned over the years, it is the Clintons have no qualms about taking money from the lowest of the low.
Keith Raniere, the co-founder of NXIVM, was recently charged with sex trafficking.
Nancy Salzman, the president of the same organization, had her home raided earlier this week by the FBI.
She is also reportedly a member or the Clinton Global Initiative.
These two leaders of this disgusting organization have funneled thousands of dollars into the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.
The Secret Society
While the group portrays itself as some sort of therapy organization, reports say it is anything but.
There has already been a criminal complaint filed against Raniere for sex trafficking.
According to the complaint, he was forcing female followers to have sex with him.
Afterwards, the women were forced to keep the interactions with Raniere on the down low or risk public humiliation at the hands of Raneire.
It Gets Much Worse
As if being sexually assaulted was not enough, Raniere had yet another crime for his victims.
The organization allegedly had a “branding” ceremony these women were required to attend.
They would have to stand naked in front of Raniere and would then be branded with a cauterizing pen.
The brand was supposed to be representative of Raniere’s nickname, “The Vanguard.”
CBS reported, “As punishment for not following orders, women were forced to attend classes where they were ‘forced to wear fake cow udders over their breasts while people called them derogatory names,’ or threatened with being put in cages.’”
Of course, Raniere denies the allegations, calling them the obligatory “disturbing.”
With the past of the Clintons, it is no surprise they have ties to such disgusting, deplorable people.
Conservative Radio Host Pulls Out Wallet, Makes Stormy an Offer She Can’t Refuse
BY BEN MARQUIS
Over the past several weeks, the media has been salivating over an alleged affair that occurred a dozen years ago between then-porn actress Stormy Daniels and then-businessman/TV star Donald Trump. These reports culminated Sunday during a CBS “60 Minutes” interview of Daniels by CNN anchor Anderson Cooper.
During that interview — which by many accounts failed to live up to the hype — Daniels asserted that the affair was consensual, but nevertheless maintained that she was required to sign a non-disclosure agreement and keep their tryst a secret.
She also spoke of an unknown man who approached her in a parking lot at some point after the alleged incident and threateningly reminded her to remain quiet.
That particular assertion caught the ear of conservative TV and radio host Steve Malzberg, who in an appearance on RT America with host Ed Schultz expressed his disbelief of Daniels’ claim and offered to financially assist her in identifying that man via a professional sketch artist.
I challenged #StormyDaniels to go to a sketch artist and let's see who "threatened" her in a parking lot. Remember #StormyDanielsInterview she said she would recognize him in a minute. .@MalzbergShow @realDonaldTrump#tcot @andersoncooper https://t.co/EBDStU91cn
— Steve Malzberg's Own (@SteveMTalk) March 27, 2018
Asked if he thought Daniels’ story would hurt President Trump’s popularity, Malzberg replied, “It’s not only not hurting the president it’s helping the president.”
— Steve Malzberg's Own (@SteveMTalk) March 27, 2018
Asked if he thought Daniels’ story would hurt President Trump’s popularity, Malzberg replied, “It’s not only not hurting the president it’s helping the president.”
“When the center of attention becomes a porn star accusing the president really of nothing. It was consensual. She did it because she wanted to. He treated her kindly,” he continued. “The Playboy model said the same thing. She was in love with him. I mean, people don’t want to see this trash.”
“And the double standard is insane,” Malzberg stated. “First of all, Stormy Daniels said she lied. She signed an affidavit. She admitted she lied. She lied. She lied. She lied. And now she says she was threatened in a parking lot. She told Anderson Cooper, ‘If I see that guy again I’ll know exactly who he is.’ Challenge: Go to a sketch artist. Describe him. And let’s see it now. I’ll pay for it.” (Emphasis added)
Later in the segment, Malzberg said members of Congress really have no room to criticize Trump over the alleged affair given the revelation of their own “slush fund” designed to pay off victims of sexual harassment and other allegations.
He further expressed sorrow for first lady Melania and wondered how she was handling all of this, and chastised the media for the vastly different manner in which they treated Trump’s accusers versus those women who had accused former President Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct.
You can watch the entire segment right here:
Malzberg made it clear that he has some doubts about the veracity of Daniels’ claims — as do a few others in the liberal media — though many others have accepted her account rather uncritically.
It will be quite interesting to see if Malzberg’s challenge in regard to the sketch artist is taken up by Daniels. If she refuses the offer, it will only cast more doubt on her story, while if she accepts the offer then a whole new chapter in this salacious saga could be opened up.
Stormy Daniels may very well have been threatened by an unidentified man to remain silent about her alleged affair with Trump, but without any sort of tangible evidence in that regard it is little more than a baseless claim.
Is It Time for Nevada to Start Deporting…Californians?
(Chuck Muth) - As the story goes, there once was an entrepreneur in California – over 20 years ago - who wanted to build a new research, testing and manufacturing facility for his nutritional supplements company.
Frustrated by the mountains of paperwork and bureaucratic red tape required to get permits in the Land of Fruits and Nuts, our hero ventured across the border to Nevada in search of a more business-friendly Promised Land.
His search led to the Nye County government center where he asked to see the building inspector, only to be told, “We don’t have anyone like that here. We figure if you put it up and it falls down, that’s YOUR problem.”
Vunderbar! And another freedom-loving California refugee loaded up his truck and moved to the greener pastures of the Silver State.
Unfortunately, too many other “bad” Californians have also moved here and brought with them all their old tax, spend and regulate habits. They soiled their nest and now want to foul ours.
Maybe WE need a wall, too!
“I’m concerned we’re heading in the wrong direction,” Republican gubernatorial candidate Adam Laxalt told a group in Fernley recently. “A consistent theme I hear is we are turning into California. Does anyone want to turn into California?”
Not surprisingly, the resounding response was, “NO!”
In fact, it’s not unusual to see Nevadans, especially in northern Nevada, sporting t-shirts and bumper stickers reading, “I don’t care how you did it in California!”
And yet, apparently, our Legislature has not gotten the memo. According to an Institute for Justice study, “Nevada is the second worst state in the nation for occupational licensing of lower-income occupations.”
For example, “Nevada is one of just four states that license interior designers,” requiring “four years of education and two years of experience (2,190 days total), $1,215 in fees, and one exam.” Insane.
Or consider that Nevada mandates that bill collectors “must demonstrate 730 days (two years) of experience” while “EMTs need just 26 days (110 hours) of education.” Beyond insane.
Oh, the #1 worst state? You got it. California!
Here’s another example of how bad we’ve gotten: According to a recent article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal a pet store owner in Henderson was fined $1,000 despite the fact that “There were no dogs that were injured, no dogs were distressed, and there were no allegations of cruelty.”
The business owner’s crime? Keeping two puppies in enclosures the government inspectors deemed “too small.” Oy vey.
Then there was a “sting” operation in early March in which one guy was issued a citation “who allegedly solicited landscape work requiring a license” and another who was pinched “who allegedly offered painting and garage floor epoxying.”
A government big enough to be sticking its nose into interior designing, grass cutting and slapping paint on a garage floor is too big, period. These are not “critical” or “essential” government services. This is out-of-control bureaucratic mission creep.
And this is the #1 reason voters should support candidates who sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge promising to “oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.”
Because the real problem with higher taxes isn’t so much the amount of additional money coming out of each of our pockets, but the amount of additional unnecessary government that cumulative money buys.
Which is also why it’s wrong-headed to say the government needs to do more with less. What we really need is for the government to do LESS with less.
Unless, of course, you want to turn Nevada into California. In which case, I have one simple request…
Go home!
(Mr. Muth is president of CitizenOutreach.org and publisher of NevadaNewsandViews.com. He blogs at MuthsTruths.com)
Libs Attack Supermodel for Loving Bacon, Learn They Picked Wrong Woman to Bully
BY JOE SAUNDERS
This just proves nobody’s all bad.
Model and Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue veteran Chrissy Teigen might be a standard entertainment world liberal, with a record of criticizing President Donald Trump long before he was ever even considered a candidate for the presidency.
But there’s one issue where Teigen has taken a stand that even a master of Twitter like Trump would have to admire.
In one of those social media wars that could only consume liberals with too much time on their hands, and too high a regard for their own opinions, Teigen has been engaged in a fiery back and forth with vegetarian activists over the benefits of eating meat.
It’s even led the vegetarian side to stoop so low as to question Teigen’s qualifications for motherhood.
But the spouse of singing star John Legend gives back as good as she gets.
And then she hits back a little harder.
The dustup started when Teigen took lighthearted part in an online poll by Hempler Foods Group asking which kind of bacon consumers prefer:
Let’s vote: Which #bacon is perfect? #poll pic.twitter.com/XhJrB1MusO
— Hempler Foods Group (@HemplersFoods) March 19, 2018
Teigen’s answer was spot on.
Model and Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue veteran Chrissy Teigen might be a standard entertainment world liberal, with a record of criticizing President Donald Trump long before he was ever even considered a candidate for the presidency.
But there’s one issue where Teigen has taken a stand that even a master of Twitter like Trump would have to admire.
In one of those social media wars that could only consume liberals with too much time on their hands, and too high a regard for their own opinions, Teigen has been engaged in a fiery back and forth with vegetarian activists over the benefits of eating meat.
It’s even led the vegetarian side to stoop so low as to question Teigen’s qualifications for motherhood.
But the spouse of singing star John Legend gives back as good as she gets.
And then she hits back a little harder.
The dustup started when Teigen took lighthearted part in an online poll by Hempler Foods Group asking which kind of bacon consumers prefer:
Let’s vote: Which #bacon is perfect? #poll pic.twitter.com/XhJrB1MusO
— Hempler Foods Group (@HemplersFoods) March 19, 2018
Teigen’s answer was spot on.
4. Chewy crispy fat, crispy juicy meat. https://t.co/WhFiLxOucw
— christine teigen (@chrissyteigen) March 27, 2018
For just about anyone, that would have been the end of the issue.
But vegetarians despise bacon, of course. And they certainly have no use for celebrities who enjoy it. (And let’s not discount the misogyny factor here. Liberals are harder on women who don’t toe the party line than conservatives ever would be.)
One whiner tweeted Teigen a picture of a slaughterhouse, with a plaintive note that said, “they’re better alive.”
0. They’re better alive. Why can’t they be a breed of dog so ppl would care? pic.twitter.com/IwpSceiuMz
— MELISSA (@Alectronarays) March 27, 2018
Teigen’s response was pitch perfect: “I do not like eating them alive.”
I disagree. I do not like eating them alive.
— christine teigen (@chrissyteigen) March 27, 2018
Since radical vegetarians are not known for their sense of humor, the jab was not taken well at all. As the dispute continued, some of the combatants even went so far as to imply Teigen — who already has one toddler with another child due in June — wasn’t fit for motherhood.
I have lost ALL the respect I had for @chrissyteigen before this disgusting thread of comments. Unfunny, disgusting human. Unfortunate that a person with such a lack in compassion is also a mother. https://t.co/FoEXmOKaHY
— Asvini ⓥ (@pawsnclawsTV) March 29, 2018
Teigen, however, had several responses to that. One that was a little too racy for publication here, but another summed up the reaction most normal meat-eating humans have to the nagging superiority of the vegetarian leftists (and they’re almost always leftists).
She banged their moral pretensions …
I can’t imagine thinking I’m a god because I don’t eat meat while simultaneously being a judgemental brat to strangers online.
— christine teigen (@chrissyteigen) March 28, 2018
… and slammed their sense of entitlement.
I always think that one day, I will probably give being a vegetarian a try. The thing that would stop me? I *never* want to feel as entitled and judgmental as the ones losing their minds in my mentions.
— christine teigen (@chrissyteigen) March 29, 2018
So, a model like Teigen might not be the average conservative’s cup of tea, but the incipient fascism of radical vegetarians makes just about anyone standing up to them look like an ally to the right.
And if that ally can look as good as Chrissy Teigen does, the tent of conservative politics is big enough to make room for a while.
After all, nobody’s all bad.
— christine teigen (@chrissyteigen) March 27, 2018
For just about anyone, that would have been the end of the issue.
But vegetarians despise bacon, of course. And they certainly have no use for celebrities who enjoy it. (And let’s not discount the misogyny factor here. Liberals are harder on women who don’t toe the party line than conservatives ever would be.)
One whiner tweeted Teigen a picture of a slaughterhouse, with a plaintive note that said, “they’re better alive.”
0. They’re better alive. Why can’t they be a breed of dog so ppl would care? pic.twitter.com/IwpSceiuMz
— MELISSA (@Alectronarays) March 27, 2018
Teigen’s response was pitch perfect: “I do not like eating them alive.”
I disagree. I do not like eating them alive.
— christine teigen (@chrissyteigen) March 27, 2018
Since radical vegetarians are not known for their sense of humor, the jab was not taken well at all. As the dispute continued, some of the combatants even went so far as to imply Teigen — who already has one toddler with another child due in June — wasn’t fit for motherhood.
I have lost ALL the respect I had for @chrissyteigen before this disgusting thread of comments. Unfunny, disgusting human. Unfortunate that a person with such a lack in compassion is also a mother. https://t.co/FoEXmOKaHY
— Asvini ⓥ (@pawsnclawsTV) March 29, 2018
Teigen, however, had several responses to that. One that was a little too racy for publication here, but another summed up the reaction most normal meat-eating humans have to the nagging superiority of the vegetarian leftists (and they’re almost always leftists).
She banged their moral pretensions …
I can’t imagine thinking I’m a god because I don’t eat meat while simultaneously being a judgemental brat to strangers online.
— christine teigen (@chrissyteigen) March 28, 2018
… and slammed their sense of entitlement.
I always think that one day, I will probably give being a vegetarian a try. The thing that would stop me? I *never* want to feel as entitled and judgmental as the ones losing their minds in my mentions.
— christine teigen (@chrissyteigen) March 29, 2018
So, a model like Teigen might not be the average conservative’s cup of tea, but the incipient fascism of radical vegetarians makes just about anyone standing up to them look like an ally to the right.
And if that ally can look as good as Chrissy Teigen does, the tent of conservative politics is big enough to make room for a while.
After all, nobody’s all bad.
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_30.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment