- Hallo friendsCAPITAL STORIES FOR CHILDREN, In the article you read this time with the title , We have prepared this article for you to read and retrieve information therein. Hopefully the contents of postings Article ADVENTURE, Article ANIMATION, Article LATEST DONGENG, Article WORLD OF ANIMALS, We write this you can understand. Alright, good read.

Title :
link :

WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.BLOGSPOT.COM
Sunday, July 15, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All

*****
It’s on…Go for it
Mr. President.

When the pipes are calling you home...

THE LIBERTY DAILY

Award-Winning Investigative Reporter Sharyl Attkisson Exposes 10 Blatant LIES Corrupt FBI Investigator Peter Strzok Wants Us to Believe

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/397115-ten-things-we-learned-from-peter-strzoks-congressional-testimony

DNC Chair Ducks, Dodges and Weaves When Asked if DNC Turned Over ‘Hacked’ Servers to the FBI

http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/15/tom-perez-dnc-hacking/

Devin Nunes: Robert Mueller KNOWS Russia Targeted BOTH Democrats and Republicans; Saying Only Democrats Were Targeted for Hacking Makes His Indictment Look ‘Ridiculous’ [VIDEO]

Rep. John Ratcliffe: ‘Obama’s Foreign Policy was Hiding Under the Covers While Russia Took Ukraine’ [VIDEO]

Robert Mueller is Exceedingly Good at Indicting Russians Over Whom He has Zero Jurisdiction

Ads by Revcontent

President Trump Calls Election-Rigging FBI Agent Peter Strzok a ‘Disgrace to Our Country’

DNC CHAIR TOM PEREZ SQUIRMS AWAY FROM QUESTIONS ABOUT LETTING FBI ACCESS DNC’S COMPUTERS

Iranian Official Urges Trump Not to Use U.S. Strategic Oil Reserve

By Grant Smith

An oil tanker transports crude oil to export markets in the Persian Gulf, Iran.

Photographer: Ali Mohammadi/Bloomberg

A senior Iranian oil official urged U.S. President Donald Trump not to use the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve to push prices lower, and instead drop sanctions on Iran’s crude exports.

“My advice to you, Mr. President, is to avoid touching the SPR - to cool down and give up sanctioning Iranian oil," Hossein Kazempour Ardebili, Iran’s representative to OPEC, said by email.

The Trump administration is actively considering tapping into the nation’s emergency oil inventories as political pressure grows before congressional elections in November, according to people familiar with the matter. Trump is also trying to choke off Iran’s oil exports after quitting a nuclear deal with the country.

“Mr. President, as I have foreseen earlier, it seems you are resorting to the SPR due to the fact that there is no spare capacity to cover for Iranian exports - but there will be many repercussions," Kazempour said.

Trump is pressing Saudi Arabia and some other OPEC members to fill in any supply gap that will arise when U.S. sanctions curtail Iranian crude exports. Iranian flows could be slashed in half once American sanctions take effect on Nov. 4, according to the International Energy Agency. The country ships about 2.5 million barrels a day.

Global Markets

U.S. government teams visited Saudi Arabia recently to ensure that global markets remain adequately supplied after the deadline. Producers such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Russia have announced their intention to increase supply.

"Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E and Russia pretended to be able to deliver 2.5 million barrels a day of Iranian exports,” Kazempour said. “That was a miscalculation, Mr. President: you have fallen in their trap, and prices will go up."

It’s not the first time the Iranian official has responded to Trump’s policies. Earlier this month, Kazempour said that tweets by Trump criticizing the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries had pushed oil prices up by about $10 a barrel.

"If we in Iran were to stop our exports for just one month to show what it can bring to the world economy, you would have thought twice,” Kazempour said. “But we are a civilized nation, and a responsible government."

Robert Mueller Has Been Botching Investigations Since The Anthrax Attacks
Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into the anthrax attacks following 9/11 -- one of the most important of his career -- did not go well, to say the least.
By Daniel Ashman

Mystery surrounds Robert Mueller and his investigation into Russia and President Trump. Some think he is the ultimate professional, others that he is a Democrat lackey, still others maintain he is working on Trump’s side.

We can see how he works if we look at how Mueller ran his second-most important investigation as FBI Director. In September of 2001, an entity began mailing anthrax through the US Postal system, hitting such prominent targets as NBC and Senator Daschle’s office. The terrorist attacks killed five and left others hospitalized. The world panicked.

Under Mueller’s management, the FBI launched an investigation lasting ten years. They now brag about spending “hundreds of thousands of investigator hours on this case.” Let’s take a closer look at Mueller’s response to understand the context of the investigation — who his people investigated, targeted, and found guilty.

The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack. While planning the airplane hijackings, Al-Qaeda had been weaponizing anthrax, setting up a lab in Afghanistan manned by Yazid Sufaat, the same man who housed two of the 9/11 hijackers. Two hijackers later sought medical help due to conditions consistent with infection via anthrax: Al Haznawi went to the emergency room for a skin lesion which he claimed was from “bumping into a suitcase,” and ringleader Mohamed Atta needed medicine for “skin irritation.” A team of bioterrorism experts from Johns Hopkins confirmed that anthrax was the most likely cause of the lesion. Meanwhile, the 9/11 hijackers were also trying to obtain crop-dusting airplanes.

So how did Mueller’s investigative team handle the case?

Mueller issued a statement in October of 2001, while anthrax victims were still dying: the FBI had found “no direct link to organized terrorism.” The Johns Hopkins team of experts was mistaken, the FBI continued, Al Haznawi never had an anthrax infection. The crop-dusting airplanes they needed was possibly for a separate and unrelated anthrax attack.

A few weeks later, the FBI released a remarkable profile of the attacker. FBI experts eschewed analysis of the content of the letters, where it was written in bold block letters, “Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great.” Instead, they focused on a “linguistic analysis,” stating that the letter’s writer was atypical in many respects and not “comfortable or practiced in writing in lower case lettering.” The FBI therefore concluded that it was likely a disgruntled American with bad personal skills.

The investigators hypothesized that the attacker was a lonely American who had wanted to kill people with anthrax for some undefined time period, but then became “mission oriented” following 9/11 and immediately prepared and mailed the deadly spores while pretending to be a Muslim.

Mueller’s FBI honed in on Steven Hatfill as the culprit — a “flag-waving” American, who had served in the Army, then dedicated himself to protecting America from bioterrorist threats by working in the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases.

There was no direct link from Hatfill to the attacks, by the FBI’s own admission, and the bureau never charged Hatfill. The FBI did however spy on, follow, and harass him non-stop for years. The Department of Justice also publicly outed Hatfill as the possible terrorist.

While Hatfill’s dignity and life was being trampled on by America’s secret police, Mueller took a stand. But on a different topic. He made front page news for threatening President Bush he would resign over NSA policy. All while his own team was trampling on the rights of an American in the FBI’s largest-ever investigation.

Hatfill successfully sued the government for its unlawful actions. He won almost $6 million dollars.

After the Hatfill investigation blew up in the FBI’s face, they moved on to Bruce Ivins, another Army researcher who had actually volunteered to help the FBI investigate this case, and had been doing so for years. It wasn’t until five years after the attack that Mueller’s men decided Ivins was a target.

The FBI case against Ivins, once again, was based on circumstantial evidence.

The prosecution stated Ivins purposefully gave a misleading sample of anthrax spore, but Frontline documented this was not true. Ivins was “familiar” with the area from which the anthrax letters were mailed, the FBI said, but Pulitzer Prize winning ProPublica lays out the accepted facts of the case showing it was impossible for Ivins to make the trip to mail the letters.

The spores used in the attacks were a similar type to the laboratory spores where Ivins worked, but that ignored the fact that the anthrax letters had a unique additive — so sophisticated and dangerous a scientist commented, “This is not your mother’s anthrax” — that was likely produced by a nation state or Al-Qaeda.

Ivins was never indicted, just given the Hatfill treatment. His house was raided, and he was threatened with a death sentence, or as his lawyer put it, put under “relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo.” He committed suicide.

One week later, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor stated Ivins was guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and they were “confident that Dr. Ivins was the only person responsible for these attacks.”

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, one of the intended victims of the anthrax terror attacks, did not believe that Ivins was the sole actor. Mueller ordered an independent audit of the FBI’s case by the National Academy of Sciences, then formally closed the case in 2010, sticking with the conclusion that Ivins, and Ivins alone, committed the terror attack. One year later the NAS released their results and confirmed what many scientists had been repeating for years: the FBI’s science and conclusions were not solid.

A former FBI official involved in the investigation sued the FBI, alleging the FBI concealed evidence exculpatory to Ivins.

Mueller made his position known, saying, “I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation,” and stated that the FBI had made no mistakes.

The investigation was an unmitigated disaster for America. Mueller didn’t go after al-Qaida for the anthrax letters because he couldn’t find a direct link. But then he targeted American citizens without showing a direct link. For his deeds, he had the second longest tenure as FBI Director ever, and was roundly applauded by nearly everyone (except Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert).

Now he’s running the Trump-Russia investigation.

Fmr. Hillary adviser stuns both Bongino and Judge Pirro: ‘It’s to crazy to think there’s this cabal within the FBI to elect Clinton’
Vivek Saxena

Delusion runs deep among deeply delusional Democrats like former State Department official Philippe Reines, a former adviser to Hillary Clinton who believes with all his heart that the FBI made no provable attempts to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election in her favor.

Speaking Saturday evening on Fox News’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine,” the former deputy assistant secretary of state for strategic communications bickered with commentator Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent, over this very topic.

Bongino argued that disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok’s behavior — particularly the pro-Clinton, anti-Trump text messages he exchanged during the height of the last presidential election — proves that the FBI had it out for then-GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump and in for then-Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton.

He further maintained that the fact that special counselor Robert Mueller removed Strzok from his investigation into President Donald Trump after he learned of the text messages proves nothing.

“Philippe, what you seem to be avoiding here is the fact that Strzok had already made incredibly critical decisions in relation to your former boss, Mike Flynn’s prosecution for lying … and the initiation of the investigation into Donald Trump,” Bongino said.

Excellent point, particularly in regard to Clinton, given as Strzok reportedly co-wrote Clinton’s prematurely written exoneration letter.

So what was Reines’s rebuttal?

“Peter Strzok obviously did not exemplify the behavior he should have in terms of his text messages, but Dan … you were in the Secret Service, you worked with hundreds of other agents. You know there is no bias to the left among law enforcement. It is to crazy to think there is this cabal within the FBI to elect Hillary Clinton,” he said.

Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro’s reaction says it all: “Oh my gosh, Philippe, you’re not saying that, are you? You’re not serious?” she exclaimed.

He was serious … and perhaps delusional.

But forget Mueller’s phony investigation into Trump — which for the record Pirro believes was launched as an “insurance policy” against president’s election — and recall the botched investigation into Clinton.

The fact that equally disgraced former FBI Director James Comey let her off the hook — and with Strzok’s help, it should be noted — says it all, especially in light of the 1,000+ lies she told before, during and after the investigation.

The very notion that the FBI didn’t try to protect Clinton and steer her toward an election victory is preposterous. Granted, the left-wing media believes (and frequently touts) this lie, but mounds of evidence suggest otherwise, as noted Saturday by Bongino.

Report: Chinese spy ship found lurking off Hawaiian coast

by Jerry McCormick

Our Navy has its ears up after spotting a strange ship.

Fox News is reporting a Chinese spy ship has been lingering just outside U.S. waters off the coast of Hawaii.

War Games

After having been invited to participate in 2014 and 2016, the Chinese were not asked to participate in the RIMPAC (Rim of the Pacific) maritime exercises this year.

The exercise started on June 27 and will continue through August 2.

In all, there are 26 nations participating in the massive exercise.

Reports stated the Chinese ship is approximately 12 nautical miles away from the activity.

Disappointing

Some are speculating the Chinese are miffed at not being included in the military exercise.

Chilean Commodore Pablo Nieman stated, “For me as CFMCC, it is very disappointing that the presence of a non-participating ship could disrupt the exercise.”

“I hope and expect all seafarers to act professionally so we may continue to focus on the work at hand and building on the spirit of cooperation that gives purpose to this exercise,” he added.

A Pacific Fleet spokesman stated the United States in constantly monitoring the ship’s presence.

They also stated they do not expect the ship to cross into our waters.

This is far from the first time the Chinese have sent a ship to monitor our activities.

In July 2017, the Chinese sent a ship off the coast of Alaska that caused quite a stir.

At the time, the United States was conducting missile tests and it was assumed the Chinese were there to monitor those tests.

Just as they are now, the Chinese were in international waters, just outside of United States territory.

Dem Senator Smacks Schumer

Senator Chuck Schumer has been fearmongering to Democrats and the American public since Trump announced his Supreme Court pick. It looks like moderate Dem Senators are not buying what he is selling.

According to Town Hall:

"I'll be 71 years old in August, you're going to whip me? Kiss my you know what," Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said of anyone trying to influence his vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, particularly Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Schumer said this week after Trump's announcement ceremony that he's going to fight Kavanaugh with "everything he's got," meaning he's undoubtedly going to try and sway the members of his party to voting against the nominee. Yet, red state Democrats like Manchin plan on resisting those attempts. If anything, it seems Manchin is leaning toward "yes."

"He has all the right qualities," Manchin said of the nominee this week.

Vulnerable Sens. Joe Donnelly (IN), and Heidi Heitkamp (ND) also plan on making up their mind on SCOTUS sans Schumer's input.

Schumer has led the resistance to President Trump. However, he has not offered up any solutions of his own.

DOJ Finds 'Parents' Of Kids Taken At Border Are Child Abusers, Kidnappers, Murderers, Not Actual Parents
Chris Menahan InformationLiberation

The government dug through the history of over one hundred illegal alien "parents" caught invading America with their children. The results were exactly what you'd expect (if you're not a Democrat who watches MSNBC all day).

From The Daily Mail:

The Trump administration said Thursday that nearly half of the children ages 5 and under who were separated from grown-ups at the U.S. border can't be reunited with their parents, mostly because many of the adults are violent criminals – and some lied about being the minors' parents.

President Donald Trump had claimed Tuesday that illegal immigrants and human traffickers were 'using children' to manipulate America's immigration system and make it easier for adults to enter the U.S. without papers and remain there.

Of the 103 minors in the youngest age group, the administration has reunited 57 with parents, but the other 46 are 'ineligible,' the Justice and Homeland Security Departments reported.

Eleven of the adults have 'serious criminal histor[ies],' the agencies announced, including charges or convictions for child cruelty, kidnapping, murder, human smuggling, domestic violence and narcotics-related crime.

One of the men is wanted for murder in Guatemala, Chris Meekins, Chief of Staff, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the Department of Health and Human Services told reporters on a conference call.

Seven more were 'determined not to be a parent' at all, including three whose deception was discovered through DNA testing.

Meekins described one adult who said he was a parent 'right up until the time of a DNA swab,' and then retracted his claim.

Authorities determined that one potential child sponsor was alleged to have abused the child he was trying to claim.

Another told the government that if his child were returned to him, he planned to house the youngster with an adult who has been charged with sex abuse of a young girl.

Eleven are in state or federal custody for other reasons.

One of the adults presented a falsified birth certificate, and another has a contagious disease.

On the flip side, all of them were determined to have a "spark of divinity" within them by Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi:

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=58701

Islam and the Jihad in London
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY - March 25, 2017
It’s not non-Western. It’s anti-Western

It was a careful choice of words, Bernard Lewis being nothing if not careful. In 2004, the West audibly gasped when its preeminent scholar of Islam famously told the German newspaper Die Welt,“Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century,” if not sooner.

Listen carefully. He did not say that Muslims will be the majority population in what is still recognizably Europe. No, Professor Lewis said “Europe will be Islamic.”

We are not talking about Muslims here. We are talking about Islam. Lots of individual Muslims desire peaceful coexistence, even assimilation. But Islam’s aim is to prevail. So, yet again this week, Lewis’s foreboding has been brought to the fore by a jihadist mass-murder attack, this time in London.

As we go to press, five innocent people are dead after Khalid Masood, a terrorist acting on unambiguous scriptural commands to war against non-Muslims, rammed his rental Hyundai SUV into dozens of pedestrians on Westminster Bridge, many of them tourists taking in the iconic views of Parliament. About 50 people suffered injuries, some of them grave, so the death toll may yet rise.

Masood, a burly 52-year-old weightlifter with a long criminal record that included vicious stabbings, then crashed the car through the gate at Westminster Palace, home of the West’s most venerable democratic legislature. He alighted brandishing two long knives, which he used to kill Keith Palmer, a police officer who, pursuant to British policy, was unarmed despite being assigned to provide security at one of the world’s foremost terror targets. Masood was finally shot dead by a protection officer attached to England’s defense minister.

There immediately began the ritual media pondering over Masood’s motive. Yes, what could it possibly have been?

I’m going to stick with the patently obvious.

Masood was born as Adrian Russell Ajao on Christmas Day, 1964, in Kent county, just outside London. His 17-year-old single mother remarried two years later, and he was known as Adrian Elms (his stepfather’s surname) until converting to Islam when he was about 40. Prior to that point, while fathering three children with his wife, he had several arrests, some for violent attacks. During at least one of the resulting stints in prison, like many inmates, he began indoctrination into Islam.

Between 2004 and 2005 came the critical transition: the formal conversion, marriage to a Muslim woman, and relocation to Saudi Arabia (you know, be our “ally” against terrorism). For five years, Masood was immersed in the kingdom’s Wahhabism — fundamentalist Islam rooted in scriptural literalism. He became an English language-teacher working for the Saudi government.

When we speak of Islam, as opposed to Muslims, we are not speaking about a mere religious belief system. We are talking about a competing civilization.

Masood returned to England from Jeddah about seven years ago. By the time of Wednesday’s attack on Westminster Bridge, he had seamlessly gravitated to Birmingham, a city increasingly enveloped by sharia enclaves that, to varying degrees, have become “no-go zones” for non-Muslims and agents of the state, including police.

There is diversity in Islam, including millions of Muslims who adhere only to its spiritual elements or see themselves as more culturally than doctrinally Islamic. But when we speak of Islam, as opposed to Muslims, we are not speaking about a mere religious belief system. We are talking about a competing civilization — that is very much how Islam self-identifies. It has its own history, principles, values, mores, and legal system.

Islam, thus understood, is not non-Western. It is anti-Western.

Like the conversion of Masood, the conversion of Birmingham has been a function of this defining Islamic attribute. Individual Muslims may assimilate, but Islam doesn’t do assimilation. Islam does not melt into your melting pot. Islam, as Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna proclaimed, is content with nothing less than political, cultural, and civilizational dominance.

As Soeren Kern relates in a comprehensive Gatestone Institute report on Islam in Britain, the metamorphosis of Birmingham, along with several other U.K. population centers, signifies this resistance. When the Islamic presence in a Western community reaches a critical mass, Islam’s hostility to Western mores and demands for sharia governance result in non-Muslim flight. Marriages between Muslims resident in the Western community and Muslims overseas tend to result in childbirth rates and household growth that dwarfs that of the indigenous population. Arranged, intra-familial, and polygamous marriages, endorsed by Islamic mores, drastically alter the fabric of communities in short order. Birmingham, in particular, has been ground zero of “Operation Trojan Horse,” a sharia-supremacist scheme to Islamize the public schools.

Kern repeats an account of life in “inner-city Birmingham” by the wife of a British clergyman, first published by Standpoint in 2011. She explained how the neighborhood in which she’d lived for four years had become a “police no-go zone,” in which the large number of newly arrived Somali immigrants now approached that of Pakistanis already resident. Then she recalled her husband’s encounter with an immigrant who had just arrived from Belgium — on an EU passport, like an increasing number of Muslims these days. The migrant was surprised when the clergyman asked why he had chosen to move into their neighborhood. Finally, he replied, “Everybody knows. Birmingham—best place in Europe to be pure Muslim.”

The memory moved the clergyman’s wife to a salient insight:

Well, there must be many places in Europe where Muslims are entirely free to practice their faith, but I suspect there are few places in which they can have so little contact with the civic and legal structure of a Western state if they choose.

To a London reader, born and bred with multiculturalism, I know that my stories may come across as outlandish and exaggerated. . . . When I recently told a friend how a large Taliban flag fluttered gaily on a house near St Andrew’s football stadium for some months, her cry of “Can’t you tell the police?” made me reflect how far many of our inner cities have been abandoned by our key workers: our doctors and nurses drive in from afar, the police, as mentioned before, have shut down their stations and never venture in unless in extremis — they and ambulance crews have been known to be attacked — even the local imam lives in a leafier area.

It is in that milieu that Khalid Masood made his decision, rented an SUV, and drove to Westminster Bridge.

Naturally, the Islamic State terror network (ISIS) took credit for the atrocity, as it has been wont to do since issuing its plea that Muslims conduct attacks “in place” — i.e., against the Western societies where they live. Western leaders have been content to accept these claims, at least as inspirational, if not operational. It is easier to indulge the fiction that ISIS catalyzes jihadism then to ask what catalyzed ISIS.

But the remorseless fact is that before ISIS and al-Qaeda and the Khomeini revolution and Hezbollah and the Blind Sheikh and the Brotherhood and Khalid Masood, there was the single thing that unites them all. There was Islam.

Western political and opinion elites remain willfully blind to this. They cannot help but project onto Islamic beliefs and practices their own progressive pieties — which take seriously neither religion nor the notion that there is any civilization but their own.

In their minds, and therefore ingrained in the media’s coverage, is the notion that a Muslim community is just like any other community. Same with the mosque — it is just a “house of worship,” no different from a church, a safe harbor from worldly concerns and hostilities. Islam, however, does not separate mosque from state; the mosque is every bit as much a center for sharia indoctrination, assimilation resistance, and anti-Western politics as it is a prayer venue. That is why al-Banna regarded the mosque and the Islamic community center commonly attached to it as the “axis” of the “movement” in every community where Islam takes hold.

The movement does not want cohabitation. It wants conquest. It starts with assimilation-resistant enclaves that nurture sharia supremacism today and thereby breed the jihadists of tomorrow. This week, it took the campaign to Westminster Bridge.

Islam, thus understood, is not non-Western. It is anti-Western.

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/2018/07/www_16.html