Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Thursday, Apr. 12, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
Rod Rosenstein Skips Speaking Engagement After Unexpected White House Meeting
by IAN MASON
Associated Press
Rod Rosenstein was unexpectedly seen leaving the White House Friday morning, then was noticeably absent from a press conference at which he was scheduled to appear, fueling speculation the Deputy Attorney General may be slated for the chopping block.
“Unfortunately, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has been called away on another matter today, so [Acting Associate Attorney General Jesse] Panuccio will have the honor of introducing the attorney general later in our program,” acting DOJ Civil Rights Division head John Gore told reporters at a major press conference at the Main DOJ building in Washington, DC.
Rosenstein appeared on the program for the event – distributed to reporters that day – as scheduled to appear alongside Attorney General Jeff Sessions, HUD Secretary Dr. Ben Carson, and Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Fair Housing Act.
Hours earlier, reporters saw Rosenstein exiting the White House after an unexpected meeting. Some cited sources claiming he was there to discuss the ongoing controversy over the speed of document production for the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena and other requests from Congress.
From what I understand, Rod Rosenstein, along with the FBI general counsel, went to the White House today for a meeting on Congressional document requests. I don't know with whom he spoke. He remains the Deputy Attorney General, to the best of my knowledge as of this writing.
A White House official, meanwhile, told Fox News that “Rod Rosenstein met with the president at the White House regarding routine department business.”
President Donald Trump has found himself in an increasingly antagonistic relationship with Rosenstein, and the number two man’s future at the Justice Department is now rumored to be in question. Crucially, firing Rosenstein would bring Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whom he appointed after Sessions recused himself from matters concerning the 2016 presidential election, under new supervision.
The FBI’s raid, at Mueller’s direction, of the New York offices of Trump’s personal lawyer MichaEl Cohen – later reported to have been devised to obtain information on the infamous “Access Hollywood tape” that came to light during the 2016 presidential election – appears to have soured the relationship further, perhaps irrevocably.
On Wednesday, the president turned his frustrations directly at Rosenstein, calling him “conflicted” because of his role in drafting the memo used to justify the firing of then-FBI Director James Comey and his role in approving a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application regarding one-time Trump associate Carter Page:
Much of the bad blood with Russia is caused by the Fake & Corrupt Russia Investigation, headed up by the all Democrat loyalists, or people that worked for Obama. Mueller is most conflicted of all (except Rosenstein who signed FISA & Comey letter). No Collusion, so they go crazy!
9:00 AM - April 11, 2018
The criticism was amplified by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), who threatened Rosenstein with impeachment Saturday.
CNN is reporting Friday not only that sources tell them Trump is considering firing Rosenstein, but that the White House is rolling out a plan to undermine the Deputy Attorney General’s credibility.
Trump had long been critical of Mueller’s investigation – that appeared at times to go far beyond its original gambit of Russian interference in the 2016 election – frequently referring to it as a “witch hunt” or similar. The investigation, by the terms of Rosenstein’s original order of appointment, was only to cover:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. §600.4(a).
Due to Paul Manafort’s criminal trial, a much more detailed memo from Rosenstein to Mueller defining the scope of the special counsel’s investigation came to light, but remains heavily redacted. Rosenstein had reportedly once considered recusing himself from the “Russia investigation” but took on the role – appointing Mueller and then drafting this memo defining his role in August.
Rosenstein has since defended Mueller from accusations of misconduct related to his one-time underling Peter Strzok’s bias-laden texts with his extramarital lover, FBI attorney Lisa Page. “I am not aware of any impropriety,” Rosenstein told Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) in December.
Some Senate Republicans, in the meantime, are preparing a vote on a new law that would protect Mueller further.
8 of George Washington’s Rules For Civility, Trump-ified!
Years ago, we could count on Americans to be a respectful, yet passionate people, especially when it came to the machinations of the nation’s novel, liberty-forward government.
After all, you need to be passionate and powerful if you’re going to tell the world that you have a right to pursue happiness. Don’t let us forget, that was a very, very unique concept in the 1770’s, when work was done from dawn to dusk, and no job was finished until it was finished.
Nowadays, we put off reading large legislation before voting on it, and taking more vacation as a public servant than as a member of the public. Even all the way back in 2014, things were fairly cushy for these elected officials
The House is scheduled to be in session in Washington a total of 133 days this year. The Senate will be in session about the same amount or a few days more.
But if you’re an ordinary American worker with two weeks of vacation and federal holidays off, you’re likely clocking in around 240 days a year at the office.
Of course, when lawmakers are on recess, it’s often considered a “work week” in their districts –- but they’re not getting much legislating done away from the nation’s capital. And though lawmakers often participate in constituent meetings and fundraisers, they’re not actually required to work at all. In fact, the summer break is mandated by law, though members could postpone or abridge it if they chose.
BY BEN MARQUIS
There has been a concerted effort by the left in recent months to undermine the Second Amendment through strict gun control legislation.
There has been a concerted effort by the left in recent months to undermine the Second Amendment through strict gun control legislation.
However, new legislation is not the sole focus of the gun grabbers. They have also launched attacks on gun manufacturers and gun owners via the corporate world.
According to The Washington Times, Bank of America announced Tuesday that they would no longer conduct business with any firearms manufacturer that produces and sells “military-style” weapons for civilian use.
That means the second-largest banking firm in the United States will drop Remington, Sturm Ruger and Vista Outdoors, and will refuse to provide financial services to any other manufacturers of such weaponry.
That announcement came from BoA vice chairman Anne Finucane during an interview with Bloomberg TV, which coincidentally is owned by billionaire gun control financier and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Bank of America will no longer extend loans or underwrite securities for manufacturers that continue to produce and sell “military-style” firearms like the ubiquitous AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and others modeled after it.
“It’s our intention not to finance these military-style firearms for civilian use,” stated Finucane, who added that her firm has had “intense conversations over the last few months” with firearms manufacturers to let them know they will no longer be doing business with them.
Asked about the reaction the firm received from those manufacturers upon learning the news, Finucane said it has been “mixed.”
“There are those that will reduce their portfolios, and we’ll work with them, and others that will do something else,” she said.
According to USA Today, when Finucane was asked if the prohibition against working with certain gun manufacturers would be extended to the retailers that sold the firearms, she dodged the question but left the door open for such a decision in the future.
“The problem with that is it gets into civil liberties and the Second Amendment,” said Finucane. “That’s a good public dialogue, but that’s a long way off.”
USA Today noted that, aside from the corporations that had already cut ties with the National Rifle Association, Bank of America now joins Citigroup and Amalgamated Bank in using their corporate power against the gun industry.
Citigroup recently announced they would no longer do business with retailers that sold firearms to anyone under the age of 21, or any retailer that sold bump stocks or “high-capacity magazines” to anyone at all. Amalgamated Bank announced they will no longer invest any assets “in companies that manufacture or distribute firearms, weaponry or ammunition.”
Unsurprisingly, the anti-gun lobby was thrilled at the news that Bank of America had joined forces against gun owners and the Second Amendment.
“We were heartened to see Bank of America join the list of companies stepping up to keep America safe,” Avery Gardiner, co-president of the anti-gun Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told Bloomberg. “Why would anyone want to help finance assault weapons that are regularly used in mass shootings?”
But the move was decried by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which informed Bloomberg that the gun and ammunition industry contributed more than $51.1 billion to the economy in 2017.
“We as an industry would welcome the opportunity to sit down with Bank of America executives and explain our industry’s perspective to discuss what really would work to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them,” said NSSF spokesman Michael Bazinet. “We should be part of the discussion.”
This is nothing short of an assault on the Second Amendment, gun manufacturers and gun owners by the increasingly liberal corporate America — a despicable effort to use their financial clout to subvert and undermine a constitutionally protected civil right.
Surprise Zuckerberg Admission to Senator Opens FB to TRILLIONS in Losses
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg spent hours testifying before Congress Tuesday and Wednesday, but it was one sentence of his testimony that may end up having the biggest impact on the company’s bottom line.
It came in response to a question from Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas.
“We’ve been told that platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and the like are neutral platforms, and the people who own and run them for profit … bore no responsibility for the content,” Cornyn said. “Do you agree now that Facebook and other social media platforms are not neutral platforms but bear some responsibility for the content?”
Zuckerberg’s somewhat surprising response was, “I agree that we’re responsible for the content.”
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg: "I agree that we're responsible for the content" on Facebook. https://abcn.ws/2vaxogz
That could be a game-changer for Zuckerberg and his company.
Companies like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Craigslist, Google, Instagram and dozens of others have always described themselves as technical platforms for their users. If people say something offensive, try to sell something that’s counterfeit, or do an internet search and come across something that claims to be true but isn’t, the sites can always claim, “Hey, we’re not responsible for what’s put on our site. We’re just the provider of the platform.”
And there’s legal precedent to back up that claim. The publisher of a newspaper that runs a classified ad for a used car can’t be held liable if you buy that car and it breaks down on the way home, just like you can’t sue Craigslist if you buy a used lawn mower for $50 and it never starts when you get it home.
There’s also a law protecting internet platforms called the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 of the CDA states, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
But if Zuckerberg believes his company is indeed responsible for the content on its site, he may have opened a legal can of worms.
Ben Shapiro of The Daily Wire explains why Zuckerberg’s admission could spell trouble for Facebook..
“Zuckerberg may have just opened himself up to a world of legal hurt,” Shapiro said. “Platforms are generally not held legally responsible for the content posted on those platforms — so liability issues ranging from copyright violation to.
“Zuckerberg may have just opened himself up to a world of legal hurt,” Shapiro said. “Platforms are generally not held legally responsible for the content posted on those platforms — so liability issues ranging from copyright violation to slander aren’t serious concerns for platforms. You can’t sue AT&T if somebody slanders you on a telephone call carried by their satellites. But that’s not the case with publishers. Publishers are responsible for the content that is added to their platforms. The Daily Wire bears legal liability for the content that goes up at The Daily Wire.
“If the same were held to be true for Facebook, the company would immediately become subject to hundreds of millions of dollars in legal liability. For example, copyright violation bears a statutory penalty of between $750 and $30,000 per violation. How many unlicensed photos are posted on Facebook daily? On a minute-by-minute basis? Now, instead of a photo journalist suing the person who posted the photo, the photo journalist could sue Facebook itself.”
The Daily Wire found Zuckerberg’s admission so startling, it’s headline of his testimony predicted, “It may have bankrupted his own company.”
Later in his testimony Tuesday, Zuckerberg attempted to walk back his comments just a bit.
“I agree that we’re responsible for the content, but we don’t produce the content,” Zuckerberg said.
If Facebook wants the government to consider the company a neutral third-party platform, it will have to truly act in a neutral manner — not a self-proclaimed gatekeeper of what is “real” news versus “fake” news, or what political viewpoints get exposure if they don’t fall exactly in line with that of the company or its CEO.
Heck, the company is even spending as much as $1 billion to produce its own TV shows exclusively distributed on its site. Does that sound like a publisher or a platform provider?
It will be interesting to see what the ramifications are from Zuckerberg’s admission for Facebook in the coming months.
Poll: Robert Mueller Loses Majority Support After FBI Raids Trump’s Lawyer
by JOHN NOLTE
Andrew Burton/Getty Images
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s raid on President Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen has backfired in the eyes of voters, according to Rasmussen Reports.
Prior to what many are describing as Mueller’s unprecedented stunt, the special counsel and former Obama official was held in high regard by a majority of the public. Back in October, a full 52 percent believed “Mueller’s investigation is an honest attempt to determine criminal wrongdoing.”
That number is now down -6 points to just 46 percent.
Moreover, the number of voters who now see Mueller’s probe is a “partisan witch hunt” has jumped a full +8 points, from 32 percent to 40 percent.
Only 14 percent remain undecided.
Overall, public opinion moved against Mueller by a full 14 points. What was a 20 point (52 – 32 percent) favorable rating is now just a 6 point advantage.
The loss of Mueller’s support among a majority of voters is also worth noting.
Mueller was originally appointed to investigate what has now been revealed as a partisan hoax dreamed up by Democrats and their allies in the intelligence bureaucracy and mainstream media: the idea that Trump and/or his campaign colluded with the Russians to fix the 2016 presidential election.
The only wrongdoing that has so far been found in the Russia probe has been at the hands of disgraced former FBI director James Comey’s immediate subordinates and the unprecedented unmasking committed by the Obama administration as a means to use foreign surveillance warrants to spy on Trump officials during the presidential campaign and the transition.
Various reports indicate that that Mueller raid on Trump attorney Michael Cohen (who by all accounts had been cooperating fully with document requests) was in pursuit of records and privileged attorney-client communication pertaining to Trump’s personal life and rumored extra-marital affairs from over a decade ago.
Mueller is now much more widely seen, not as a man investigating a legitimate crime, but as a zealous prosecutor investigating a man in the hopes of finding a crime that will overturn a presidential election.
Trump Nominates First Black Woman To Be Marine Brigadier General
By Daily Caller
Henry Rodgers on April 12, 2018
President Donald Trump nominated the first black woman to serve as brigadier general, the Marine Corps office of public affairs announced Tuesday.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced Trump’s nomination with a list of other general officer announcements. Marine Corps Col. Lorna M. Mahlock would be the first black woman to serve as brigadier general, if confirmed, ABC News reported.
Mahlock is currently the deputy director of operations, plans, policies and operations directorate at the Marine Corps’ headquarters in Washington, D.C., according to a press release from the U.S. Department of Defense.
Trump Poised to Use Trick Reagan Loved to Gut Parts of Omnibus Bill
When Congress recently passed — without having read — a $1.3 trillion omnibus bill that was more than 2,200 pages, fiscal conservatives were outraged by the gluttonous and wasteful spending it contained.
BY BEN MARQUIS
When Congress recently passed — without having read — a $1.3 trillion omnibus bill that was more than 2,200 pages, fiscal conservatives were outraged by the gluttonous and wasteful spending it contained.
President Donald Trump, who reluctantly signed the bill despite an initial threat to veto, expressed a similar sentiment when he made clear he would never sign another bloated spending bill like that again.
And now it looks like he may be taking steps to undo some of that terrible bill.
Perhaps feeling a bit of buyer’s remorse or simply heat from their base, Trump and congressional Republican leaders recently held talks to find a way to trim some of the fat from the omnibus bill, according to Politico.
The most likely way to do that would be through a process known as rescission, and Trump’s White House is reportedly working closely with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy to put a package together that could cut billions of dollars from the recently passed spending bill, if approved by a simple majority in Congress.
In analysis for The Washington Times, Trump campaign economic adviser Steven Moore and Trump transition tax policy adviser James Carter explained some of the history and process behind the rescission budgetary maneuver, a rarely-used anti-spending tool that last saw favor under President Ronald Reagan.
Up until former President Richard Nixon, presidents had the power to “impound” and refuse to spend federal funds for projects they viewed as wasteful or unnecessary, something Nixon reportedly did with roughly 20 percent of the funds appropriated by Congress each year of his presidency until 1974.
That is when Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which blocked a president’s sole authority to impound funds and offered up the congressionally-approved rescission tool to stop funding for wasteful programs in its place.
The process works by a president submitting a rescission proposal to the House of Representatives, which must then be approved by simple majorities in both chambers of Congress within 45 days.
If the proposal is ignored or fails to achieve majorities, the spending remains unchanged.
Reagan proposed some 596 rescissions totaling $43 billion during his two terms, though Congress only approved 213 of those rescissions totaling only $16 billion in saved funds.
Unfortunately, only about $6 billion in rescission proposals have been approved since Reagan left office, the last of which occurred in 1999.
It is worth noting that the Democrats’ chief obstructionist to Trump, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, can do little to stop a rescission proposal from receiving a vote as debate on such measures are limited to only 10 hours and can’t be filibustered.
However, given the slim majority held by Republicans in the Senate and the tendency of the more moderate establishment members to break away from their party and join the opposition to Trump, nothing is guaranteed.
That said, while some Republicans may not want to risk the wrath of the liberal media by revisiting and cutting some of the bloated budget deal, such a vote would really make the handful of Democrats running for reelection in red states — who are trying to convince voters they’re actually fiscal conservatives — particularly nervous, as where they come down on the issue would certainly be a hot topic during the campaign season.
Hopefully, Trump and his team of budget and economic advisers, working in conjunction with Congressional Republicans, can find a way to make use of the rescission tool to get rid of at least some of the wasteful spending that was stuffed into the omnibus bill to garner bipartisan support.
If so, and if it is to be a worthwhile effort, they will need to do more than merely tinker around the edges with modest proposals and actually put forward some significant cuts.
It would then be interesting to see how various members of Congress either accede to the cuts or defend the wasteful projects they have agreed to appropriate taxpayer funds.
Paul Ryan’s Globalist Legacy: Ignoring America’s Working Class at the Behest of Billionaire Koch Brothers
by JOHN BINDER
As House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) announced that he will retire from public office after his last term in the House, the leader of the globalist wing of the Republican Party is set to leave behind a legacy that ignored America’s working and middle class, while serving up an agenda favored by billionaires Charles and David Koch.
This year — days after Ryan successfully prioritized tax cuts ahead of President Trump’s popular immigration reduction agenda — the Koch brothers donated about half a million to Ryan’s campaign committee.
Ryan’s brand of Republicanism is reliant on pushing unpopular tax and entitlement reform agendas, as when, in 2016, the House Speaker told American workers that tax cuts — not penalties for multinational corporations — were necessary to stop the massive outsourcing of U.S. jobs to third world nations.
The Koch brothers, staunch advocates of mass immigration, geared up alongside Ryan’s tax cuts and the two have marched in lockstep together opposing Trump’s populist fair trade agenda, where he has placed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, as well as on Chinese imports, to help rebuild America’s depleted manufacturing base.
Charles Koch most recently said that he and his brother’s network of organizations were “working hard against” Trump’s trade agenda.
“We’re working hard against all these other protectionist trade barriers that are just different forms of corporate welfare which, other than a few special interests, will make Americans worse off,” Koch said.
Ryan, like the Koch brothers, came out of the gate opposing Trump’s fair trade agenda, denouncing the plan by saying he was “extremely worried” about a mainstream media-hyped “trade war.”
Wisconsin voters, Ryan’s constituents, have been opposed to the House Speaker’s free trade as religion, with a majority telling pollsters in 2016 that free trade was responsible for taking U.S. jobs away from them. The poll revealed that only 33 percent of Republican voters said free trade creates jobs in the U.S.
President Barack Obama shakes hands with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R) as Vice President Joe Biden looks on before the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on Capitol Hill January 12, 2016 in Washington, D.C. In his final State of the Union, President Obama is expected to reflect on the past seven years in office and speak on topics including climate change, gun control, immigration and income inequality. (Photo by Evan Vucci – Pool/Getty Images)
Meanwhile, Ryan has credited his tax cuts for Trump’s economic success. Republican voters, though, have repeatedly said that tax reform is not a priority for them. The biggest priority for GOP voters, month after month? Reducing immigration, an initiative supported by Trump but opposed by Ryan and the Koch brothers.
In the latest Harvard-Harris poll, 42 percent of Republican voters said immigration was the most important issue facing the country. The same amount of Republicans said national security, too, is the most important issue.
Meanwhile, only 25 percent of Republican voters said the national debt was the biggest issue in the country, while only 12 percent of Republicans said the same of taxes.
Reducing immigration was a bigger priority for GOP voters than tax cuts, repealing Obamacare, getting the U.S. out of the Iran Deal, destroying ISIS, and expanding family leave.
Immigration is so important to Republicans that it even surpasses the economy and jobs as being the biggest issue.
Supporters of President Trump’s say reducing immigration should be the second biggest priority for the White House, just after stimulating American jobs.
Nonetheless, the Koch brothers have remained opposed to cutting the current inflow of low-skilled foreign nationals to the country, where more than 1.5 million illegal and legal immigrants enter the U.S. every year.
Ryan, too, has opposed cutting legal immigration levels, favoring the Washington, D.C.-imposed cheap labor economic model where businesses import foreign workers to compete with American workers at low wages.
The opposition to reducing legal immigration, though, is not in-line with Ryan’s constituents’ views on immigration, For example, most recent polling shows that a plurality of Wisconsin voters wants legal immigration cut in at least half.
Even in Ryan’s retirement announcement, he did not mention any plans for the Republican-controlled House to push Trump’s popular agenda of immigration reduction. Instead, Ryan said he would “keep at it” on trying to cut entitlements for Americans as foreigners continue pouring into the country.
Paul Ryan just doubled down on cutting Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. "The House passed the biggest entitlement reform bill Congress has ever considered last year, so we're just going to have to keep at it on entitlements."
With Ryan’s agenda to push entitlement reform just ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, the Koch brothers are investing up to $400 million in trying to get globalist-friendly GOP candidates elected to Congress who will vote to continue mass immigration to the U.S. About $20 million of the Koch funding will go towards selling Ryan’s tax reform.
Ryan’s tax cuts, while getting more money back in the pockets of Americans, does not have a lasting impact on voters. Last month, 50 percent of swing voters told pollsters that the tax reform legislation would have “no impact” on their decision as to whom to vote for. Immigration, for swing-voters, remains more important to their midterm election vote than tax reform.
Still, Ryan’s control of the House has put the Trump administration in a bind when it comes to pushing their popular immigration reform agenda, which not only includes reducing immigration, but building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and ending the Diversity Visa Lottery program which imports 50,000 random foreign nationals every year.
In the most recent spending bill, signed by Trump, Ryan worked with Democrats to expand the number of low-wage foreign workers entering the U.S. for the big business lobby. The spending bill also did not include any border wall funding, increased the “Catch and Release” program that allows illegal aliens to be released into the interior of the U.S., and did not add any new deportation agents to help deport illegal aliens living across America.
Trump, though he signed the spending bill, called it a “ridiculous situation” – a blow to Ryan’s speakership.
The Koch brothers’ biggest critique of the spending bill, unsurprisingly, was that it did not include amnesty for illegal aliens.
Haley on Bolton: He Disdains the UN as Much as I Do, We’ll Work Great Together
By Rebekah Baker
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said on Thursday that she and newly appointed National Security Advisor John Bolton will work well together, in part because of their shared contempt for the UN, Reuters reported.
“I know John Bolton well,” Haley said during an event at Duke University in North Carolina. “I’ve gotten advice from him, I’ve talked to him. I know his disdain for the UN; I share it.”
“I think we’re going to have a great working relationship.”
Haley was responding to Duke professor of political science and public policy Peter Feaver, who asked whether Haley was concerned that Bolton — “because he’s been there and because he has a strong view about the UN” — would try to tell her “what to do.”
“No, he wouldn’t do that,” Haley responded.
Thank you to Duke University for hosting us yesterday. The campus is beautiful and the students were amazing. #FutureLeaders
11:43 AM - Apr 6, 2018
Haley explained that after her appointment to be UN ambassador, she asked to have a seat on the national security council because “that’s where the decisions are made and I wanted to be in the room when they made them.”
“I said to the president, ‘I’m not going to be a wallflower or a talking head,” she continued.
“And he said, ‘Nikki, that’s why I want you to do this.'”
Haley has frequently taken the UN to task for its mistreatment of Israel, and has called for the United States to cut back its funding of the organization.
“When the Human Rights Council treats Israel worse than North Korea, Iran, & Syria, it is the Council itself that is foolish and unworthy of its name,” Haley said last month in response to the Council’s five resolutions condemning Israel. “Our patience is not unlimited. Today’s actions make clear that the organization lacks the credibility needed to be a true advocate for human rights.”
Nikki Haley Accuses UN, Other Countries Of Bullying Israel - http://bit.ly/2JjVDf2
10:55 AM - Apr 5, 2018
During the George W. Bush presidency, Bolton was the U.S. ambassador for the UN.
He, too, has come out strongly against the organization.
“There is no United Nations,” he said in a 1994 speech before the Global Structures Convocation in New York.
“There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that’s the United States, when it suits our interests and when we can get others to go along.”
“The Secretariat Building in New York has 38 stories,” he continued. “If you lost 10 stories today it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. The United Nations is one of the most inefficient inter-governmental organizations going. UNESCO is even worse.”
Proposal To Split California Gains Speed
By Ann
A proposal to split California into three states has garnered more than 600,000 signatures, nearly double the number required to be included on the November ballot.
The “CAL 3” proposal would effectively separate California’s northern and southern regions from its far more liberal middle:
The “CAL 3” proposal would effectively separate California’s northern and southern regions from its far more liberal middle:
One proposed state would be called California or a name to be chosen by its residents after a split. It would consist of Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey and San Benito counties.
A second state, Southern California or a name to be chosen by its residents, would consist of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Imperial, Kern, Kings, Fresno, Tulare, Inyo, Madera and Mono counties.
The remaining 40 counties would be part of the state of Northern California or a name chosen by its residents.
A second state, Southern California or a name to be chosen by its residents, would consist of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Imperial, Kern, Kings, Fresno, Tulare, Inyo, Madera and Mono counties.
The remaining 40 counties would be part of the state of Northern California or a name chosen by its residents.
The initiative was proposed by venture capitalist Tim Draper, who contends that “the citizens of the whole state would be better served by three smaller state governments while preserving the historical boundaries of the various counties, cities and towns.”
Indeed, the public seems to agree. “This is an unprecedented show of support on behalf of every corner of California to create three state governments that emphasize representation, responsiveness, reliability and regional identity,” Draper said.
This is not the first time Draper has proposed splitting up California. His initiative to split the state into six parts, CAL 6, was included on the 2014 ballot.
But Democrats opposed CAL 6 then, and they oppose CAL 3 now. According to Steven Maviglio, a longtime Democratic Party political consultant who was a co-chair of the effort to oppose Draper’s 2014 initiative, “Splitting California into three and creating three new governments does nothing to solve our state’s challenges other than tripling them.”
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/2018/04/www_12.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment