Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Wednesday, Apr. 25, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All*****
A little trip Tuesday
Tuesday was a beautiful day to see some of America...well a part of America. Among the sights along the way, The London Bridge.
In 1967, the Common Council of the City of London began to look for potential buyers for the London Bridge. Lake Havasu City founder and entrepreneur Robert P. McCulloch placed the winning bid of $2,460,000 on April 18, 1968.
The London Bridge Lake Havasu City, present dayMcCulloch came by this figure by doubling the estimated cost of dismantling the structure, which was $1.2 million, bringing the price to $2.4 million. He then added on $60,000 – a thousand dollars for each year of his age at the time he estimated the bridge would be reconstructed in Arizona.
Each block was meticulously numbered before the bridge was disassembled. The blocks were then shipped overseas through the Panama Canal to California and trucked from Long Beach to Arizona. Following reconstruction of the London Bridge, Lake Havasu City rededicated it in a ceremony on October 10, 1971. Since then, it has consistently remained a favorite among Arizona attractions, drawing in visitors from around the globe.
In addition to its popularity as an Arizona attraction, it's also a popular stroll for people on romantic getaways in Arizona.
The Lake Havasu City Visitor Center conducts a 90-minute walking tour of the London Bridge. Arizona tourists can see the strafing scars from WWII that mar the bridge’s granite surface and stroll over sparkling Bridgewater Channel. The bridge is also a popular hangout for the Arizona boating crowd. You’ll see all kinds of boats anchored in the shadow of this piece of history and icon among Arizona attractions.
Call the Visitors Center to schedule your tour at 928-855-5655. The tour is just $10 for adults and free for children 12 and under. Even if you've explored many other Arizona attractions in the past, you'll soon discover that the London Bridge has a fascinating story unlike any other!
Also on the agenda was a visit to Buckskin Mountain State Park along the Colorado River. Good place to dip your tired and overheated feet. Super place for a picnic.
We also visited Kingman and Bullhead City (a real name) and along other waterways in the desert.
The USA never ceases to thrill.
Thomas Jefferson
His portrait is on the $2.00 Dollar Bill.
This is amazing. There are two parts to this.
Be sure to read the 2nd part (in RED ).
Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very early in life and never stopped.
At 5, began studying under his cousin's tutor.
At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.
At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.
At 16, entered the College of William and Mary. Also could write in Greek with one hand, while writing the same in Latin with the other.
At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.
At 23, started his own law practice.
At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.
At 31, wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights of British America," and retired from his law practice.
At 32, was a delegate to the Second Continental Congress.
At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence.
At 33, took three years to revise Virginia's legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.
At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia, succeeding Patrick Henry.
At 40, served in Congress for two years.
At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.
At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.
At 53, served as Vice President and was elected President of the American Philosophical Society.
At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of the Republican Party.
At 57, was elected the third president of the United States.
At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase, doubling the nation's size.
At 61, was elected to a second term as President.
At 65, retired to Monticello.
At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.
At 81, almost single-handedly, created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.
At 83, died on the 50th Anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence, along with John Adams.
Thomas Jefferson knew because he himself studied, the previous failed attempts at government.
He understood actual history, the nature of God, His laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand
today.
Jefferson really knew his stuff...
A voice from the past to lead us in the future:
John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the White House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement:
"This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House, with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone"
~~~
"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."
Thomas Jefferson
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson
"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
A principle which if acted on, would save one-half the wars of the world."
Thomas Jefferson
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them."
Thomas Jefferson
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."
Thomas Jefferson
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes, the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
Thomas Jefferson
Brent Bozell: Beware Networks Skipping Their Own Polls
By L. Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham
President Trump at the White House on April 12, 2018. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian)
Watch national news outlets choose which opinion poll results they report and which ones they bury. It tells you everything you need to know about their political agenda.
On the morning of Sunday, April 15, ABC anchor Paula Faris reported a new ABC News-Washington Post poll that showed President Trump's approval rating "ticking up slightly" to 40 percent, "lifted in part by the strong economy." The on-screen graphic also pointed out that 56 percent disapprove.
Having established that America disapproves of her GOP president, it seemed fair to continue the narrative by connecting it to the next segment, with anchor Dan Harris and chief anchor George Stephanopoulos.
Harris asked Stephanopoulos about his hour long special that night that touted former FBI Director James Comey's book: "To your eyes, do you, do you see anything in this Comey book and interview that could hurt that approval rating?" Stephanopoulos said it was "a scathing personal assessment of President Trump, a scathing assessment of his presidency and what he believes President Trump is doing to the institutions and the rule of law in the country."
But the Washington Post poll also had bad news for Democrats in Congress.
That part of the survey was covered ... on page A-4. "Democrats hold an advantage ahead of the midterm elections, but a Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that edge has narrowed since January, a signal to party leaders and strategists that they could be premature in anticipating a huge wave of victories in November," the Post reported. Forty-seven percent of registered voters said they prefer the Democratic candidate in their district, and 43 percent favor the Republican. "That four-point margin compares with a 12-point advantage Democrats held in January," the Post said.
That "blue wave" could still happen. This is just one snapshot. But it's interesting that a shrinking advantage for Democrats didn't get a lick of airtime on ABC. Pollsters also sought an approval rating for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — 32 percent positive, 44 percent negative — and ABC whistled past that disastrous number, too.
That network is not alone. An April NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll found the Democrats are ahead by only five points, 44 to 39 percent, in the generic ballot question of whether voters would prefer a GOP- or Democratic-controlled Congress. That's a point more than the 3.9 percent margin of error. Neither NPR nor PBS reported that.
The new April NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found the preference of a Democratic-controlled Congress leading 47 to 40 percent, a slip from the 10-point gap in their last survey. That was discussed on one show on April 15, "Meet the Press."
Host Chuck Todd reported that number but then used another to put a positive spin on it for Democrats and show that "the news gods have a sense of humor." He said, "66 percent of Democrats say they're highly interested in the midterm election, while just 49 percent of Republicans say the same thing." He pointed out that in 2010, these numbers were exactly reversed, and we know about the wave election of 2010.
No one expects these networks to report all of their polling results. But consumers should beware that these "facts first" networks have a tendency to pass over the results they don't like and heavily emphasize the ones they do.
Whether they are reporting on polls or policies or scandals or gaffes, everything the networks report sounds like dark clouds and stormy seas for Trump and the GOP. Disaster is always around the corner. The wishful thinking is palpable and incessant.
L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org.
Tomi Lahren Goes Off On John Legend’s Anti-Cop Tweet
Liberals will jump at any opportunity to push their divisive agenda, and that’s exactly what John Legend did when he recently proclaimed on Twitter that police officers routinely shoot black people “for no f***ing reason.”
Legend made the vile statement in response to an Associated Press report that a Pennsylvania golf club called the police on a group of black women who refused to leave the course after being told they were taking too long in their game. “At the second hole, a white man whose son co-owns the club came up to them twice to complain that they weren’t keeping up with the pace of play,” the report said.
Legend chimed in a few hours later, and rather than stop short at accusing the general populace of run-of-the-mill racism, he decided to go full tilt and accused the police of being proponents of racially-based murder.
The tweet promptly exploded with deserved backlash – but none were so fired up as conservative commentator Tomi Lahren.
Lahren also posted a video response on social media. “I’m so sick of these celebrities spewing their anti-cop rhetoric. I’m not saying any of this to change the mindset of John Legend or Kaepernick,” she wrote on Facebook. “I’m saying it because the men and women in BLUE can’t say it but they deserve a voice.”
Lahren couldn’t be more right. The left has spent years building a narrative that the police are racist pigs who are out to help no one but themselves. But the truth is that no one is more selfless than our men and women in blue. It’s about time someone stood up for them and everything they do on a daily basis to keep our communities safe.
Ivana Trump says Donald Trump doesn’t need presidency, should play golf instead
Photo - CBS This Morning YouTube VideoSomehow, Donald Trump’s ex-wife Ivana Trump, has managed to stay out of the headlines, or at least she did until now.
While doing on interview with “The Post,” she stunned the media by saying, “Donald is going to be 74, 73 for the next [election] and maybe he should just go and play golf and enjoy his fortune.”
Still Friends
Even though they split many years ago, the President and the mother of three of his children still remain in contact.
According to Ivana, they talk about once a month.
In addition, she frequents his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
Not one to miss an opportunity, Ivana has written her own book, “Raising Trump,” which will be out May 1 in paperback.
On Melania
The President’s ex-wife seems to have more than just a little bit of empathy for Melania.
She actually said she is happy it is Melania in the White House and not her.
Ivana called Melania a “prisoner” of sorts, simply because she can never go out anymore without a full entourage of protection.
Ivana Trump stated, “She cannot go shopping, she cannot go out to the theater, she cannot go to restaurants because she has Secret Service and 15 cars in front and 15 in back.”
On Trump’s Presidency
While Ivana would advise Trump not to run for a second term, she has little doubts he is capable of doing the job.
“He doesn’t take nonsense from anybody and he prefers to be friends than be enemies with Putin, or basically any leader around the world,” Ivana said of the President.
While she says the President would rather be friendly with other leaders, she says he will not “take his crap, that’s for sure.”
Recent events would prove her words ring true.
On Ivanka
Ivana would also like to see her daughter get off the Washington DC Merry-Go-Round.
Her fear is that Ivanka’s personal businesses are going to suffer over her political desires.
She would prefer that her daughter “be her own boss” rather than get involved in the “dirty business” of politics
Maxine Waters Statement on Comey So Insane Even MSNBC Calls Her Out
BY JOE SAUNDERS
Even the liberals can’t handle this one.
California Congresswoman Maxine Waters has been providing entertainment for conservatives since long before Donald Trump was even a candidate, but her incessant calls for the 45th president’s impeachment since then have confirmed Trump supporters that she’s beyond salvaging.
Now, though, with former FBI Director James Comey’s anti-Trump roadshow dominating mainstream media storylines, she’s gone too far even for MSNBC and The Washington Post.
Advertisement - story continues below
In an interview Monday night on MSNBC’s “All In With Chris Hayes,” Waters was confronted with a clip of one of her own statements declaring during the presidential transition period that the then-FBI director was utterly unreliable:
“All I can tell you is the FBI director has no credibility,” she said.
“You and Donald Trump do agree on that,” Hayes said Monday. “That sentence you said that, ‘the FBI director has no credibility.’ You and Donald Trump are in agreement on that.”
Advertisement - story continues below
Obviously not used to being challenged in the normally friendly confines of an MSNBC studio, Waters spluttered a little, then launched into one of her normal, half-baked responses.
“I’ve tried to clarify that and to say, yes, coming out of that classified briefing, I said that, and I certainly meant it,” she told Hayes. “However, I think it is quite different when you take a look at Comey and his relationship to the president, what he said, what he’s done. I believe him.
“Then is then, and now is now.”
At The Washington Post, “The Fix” writer Aaron Blake practically spluttered on his keyboard. (His piece is headlined “Maxine Waters’s cringe-worthy explanation for her 180 on James Comey.”)
“Part of being a politician is showing that you have some consistent moral compass — that you don’t just promote things and people because they say things you like and denounce them when it’s inconvenient. Saying Comey has ‘no credibility’ means he lacks character and can’t be trusted to tell the truth. That doesn’t really change with circumstances and with the passage of 15 months,” he wrote.
“Politicians aren’t viewed as the most consistent and trustworthy people; in fact, Gallup polling shows that members of Congress are basically tied with lobbyists as the least-trusted of 21 professions tested. And sometimes they show us why.”
Advertisement - story continues below
That’s one of the more truthful things to be published by The Post since Trump took the oath of office.
Some Twitter commenters were less polite, though.
Ryan Saavedra 
✔@RealSaavedraCalifornia Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters: "I certainly meant it" when I said Comey "has no credibility" – except for when he talks bad about Trump – then "I believe him." pic.twitter.com/yqnTXhWDjj
Ginger 
@Nunya96693453Oh please. She knew Comey was corrupt. During transition she thought Comey's self serving interests would drive him switch teams. Her self serving interests drove her to be 1st to denounce him.
Oooppss.
Oooppss.
He didn't switch teams.
Would be great if she got caught in the drag net
California Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters: "I certainly meant it" when I said Comey "has no credibility" – except for when he talks bad about Trump – then "I believe him." pic.twitter.com/yqnTXhWDjj
Political Supper
@politicalsupper@MaxineWaters is the one with no credibility
9:28 AM - Apr 24, 2018
The Waters statement showed just how willing Democrats are to distort the facts, the truth, and even their own alleged “beliefs” in the service of blind partisan power struggles.
That by itself isn’t much of a surprise, but it’s a rare day indeed when a Democrat like Waters gets called out by hacks at MSNBC and cheerleaders like The Washington Post for putting their perfidy on public display like that.
But sometimes Maxine Waters goes so far even liberals can’t handle it.
Supreme Court leans toward upholding Trump’s travel ban
Donald Trump Getty ImagesPresident Trump on Wednesday was poised to win his travel ban case at the Supreme Court, where conservative justices signaled they would likely uphold his authority to block people from several majority-Muslim countries from entering the US.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, a frequent swing vote on the nine-member high court, both indicated they would not second-guess Trump in matters of national security.
The ban’s challengers – led by the state of Hawaii — almost certainly need one of those two justices if the court is to strike down the ban, which Trump has argued is needed to protect the US from terrorists.
Opponents of the ban have argued that the policy was motivated by Trump’s enmity toward Muslims and that it violates federal immigration law and the US Constitution’s prohibition on religious discrimination.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the most aggressive questioner of Solicitor General Noel Francisco in his defense of the president’s policy.
The Trump administration is asking the court to reverse lower court rulings that would strike down the ban after the justices voted in December to allow the policy to take full effect pending their consideration.
The court is considering whether Trump can indefinitely keep people out of the country based on nationality – and whether the policy is aimed at excluding Muslims from the United States.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito said during the argument that the text of Trump’s proclamation about the ban “does not look at all like a Muslim ban.”
Kennedy pressed Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the challengers, about why courts should second-guess a president’s national security judgments.
He also responded to Katyal about whether the ban would be permanent, saying the policy’s call for a report every six months “indicates there’ll be a reassessment” from time to time.
Kennedy’s only question that seemed to favor the challengers came when he asked Francisco whether Trump’s campaign trail call to keep Muslims out of the US should be considered in evaluating the ban.
Francisco told the justices that they shouldn’t look at Trump’s campaign statements.
The conservative-majority court weighed the fate of Trump’s travel ban, the third version of a policy he first sought to implement a week after taking office in January 2017, and is due to issue a ruling by the end of June.
The first version – which was blocked by courts and withdrawn — triggered nationwide chaos and protests when travelers were detained at airports and kept from boarding international flights.
Its replacement was allowed to take partial effect, but expired in September.
The current policy prohibits most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen from entering the United States.
It also affects two non-Muslim countries, blocking travelers from North Korea and some Venezuelan government officials and their families.
Chad also was on the list announced in September, but Trump removed it this month after saying the country improved “its identity-management and information sharing practices.”
Until Wednesday, the court had never heard arguments on the legal merits of the ban or any other major Trump immigration policy, including his move to rescind protections for young immigrants known as Dreamers brought into the US illegally as children.
On Dec. 4, the court signaled it may back Trump when it granted his administration’s request to let the ban go into full effect while legal challenges played out.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, a frequent swing vote on the nine-member high court, both indicated they would not second-guess Trump in matters of national security.
The ban’s challengers – led by the state of Hawaii — almost certainly need one of those two justices if the court is to strike down the ban, which Trump has argued is needed to protect the US from terrorists.
Opponents of the ban have argued that the policy was motivated by Trump’s enmity toward Muslims and that it violates federal immigration law and the US Constitution’s prohibition on religious discrimination.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the most aggressive questioner of Solicitor General Noel Francisco in his defense of the president’s policy.
The Trump administration is asking the court to reverse lower court rulings that would strike down the ban after the justices voted in December to allow the policy to take full effect pending their consideration.
The court is considering whether Trump can indefinitely keep people out of the country based on nationality – and whether the policy is aimed at excluding Muslims from the United States.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito said during the argument that the text of Trump’s proclamation about the ban “does not look at all like a Muslim ban.”
Kennedy pressed Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the challengers, about why courts should second-guess a president’s national security judgments.
He also responded to Katyal about whether the ban would be permanent, saying the policy’s call for a report every six months “indicates there’ll be a reassessment” from time to time.
Kennedy’s only question that seemed to favor the challengers came when he asked Francisco whether Trump’s campaign trail call to keep Muslims out of the US should be considered in evaluating the ban.
Francisco told the justices that they shouldn’t look at Trump’s campaign statements.
The conservative-majority court weighed the fate of Trump’s travel ban, the third version of a policy he first sought to implement a week after taking office in January 2017, and is due to issue a ruling by the end of June.
The first version – which was blocked by courts and withdrawn — triggered nationwide chaos and protests when travelers were detained at airports and kept from boarding international flights.
Its replacement was allowed to take partial effect, but expired in September.
The current policy prohibits most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen from entering the United States.
It also affects two non-Muslim countries, blocking travelers from North Korea and some Venezuelan government officials and their families.
Chad also was on the list announced in September, but Trump removed it this month after saying the country improved “its identity-management and information sharing practices.”
Until Wednesday, the court had never heard arguments on the legal merits of the ban or any other major Trump immigration policy, including his move to rescind protections for young immigrants known as Dreamers brought into the US illegally as children.
On Dec. 4, the court signaled it may back Trump when it granted his administration’s request to let the ban go into full effect while legal challenges played out.
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_25.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment