CAPITAL STORIES FOR CHILDREN

- 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.MOEISSUESOFTHE DAY.BLOGSPOT.COM

Monday, July 9, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****

Happy Birthday to my Kid Sister Eloise Carrier. She’s a lot younger than me (grin).

ONE LAST RUN?!

THERESA'S MAYDAY

BREXIT SEC QUITS FOUR-LETTER ATTACK

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5931823/David-Davis-resigns-Brexit-Secretary.html

Democrat Leader Auntie Maxine’s Marxist Goon Squad: Civility is White Supremacy

What About THIS ‘Family Separation?’ Illegal Alien Privilege: Foreign Invader Gets No Jail Time, $280 Fine for Killing FBI Agent and Fireman

America’s Brainwashed Useful Idiots [College Students] Hate Trump’s SCOTUS Pick That Hasn’t Yet Been Named: ‘I Saw the New Nominee is Like Racist’ [VIDEO]

THE LIBERTY DAILY

Spygate Update: Devin Nunes: The FBI FISA Warrant on Carter Page ‘is 100% Fraudulent,’ Urges President Trump to ‘Declassify’ [VIDEO]

THE LIBERTY DAILY

Tomi Lahren’s Six Lies About SCOTUS & the Right To Life

Kevin McCullough

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.

I don’t generally like the practice of criticizing fellow conservatives.

Then again actual conservatives—at least ones I know—have never uttered the words, that to "overturn Roe v. Wade would be a big mistake.”

Those are words spoken by liberals, progressives, and millennials who count their own voice as being quite important to "the cause.”

To amplify the matter that same said “conservative” follows it up with even worse tripe.

"I’m saying this as someone who would personally choose life, but also feels it’s not the government’s place to dictate. This isn’t a black and white issue and I would never judge anyone in that position.”

It’s at this point that I find it absolutely necessary to correct the “conservative” because Tomi Lahren couldn’t be more askew in any of the observations she made in these statements this week.

Tomi is a political neophyte who stems from a state that causes great confusion for her to understand what actual conservatism looks like.

Her screed on why conservatives shouldn’t pursue a change in the Roe case is ignorant on it’s face, but let’s breakdown the reasons why.

1. She appears to oppose the Declaration of Independence.Tomi may not have a medical background. She may have ignored the nearly fifty years of research since Roe was decided. She may have had an abortion, or has a close friend who has—whatever the case—her statement claiming that overturning the activist decision from the early seventies would be a big mistake indicates that she is willing to usurp someone’s right to “life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness” so that she can “win.” She fails to recognize the human person that is snuffed out in every abortive procedure. For if she admits that it is a human person, then she’s readily saying that protecting innocent life is not a moral good.

2. She opposes the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is not possible to secure the rights of free speech, religion - and the practice of that religion, and assembly if one is not actually allowed to live. Her reckless disregard for the living human being involved in the equation has been compromised by some strange antithetical argument but allowing her to barf this philosophical dissonance is not something that genuine conservatives can withstand.

3. She refuses to acknowledge the tenets of her faith. As someone who espouses Christianity as her belief system, like with her espousal of a political viewpoint, she is setting aside a fundamentally core belief that every person is stamped with an imprint that only God can create. The unique DNA, the personality, the potential that every person has is a divine gift, yet she is willing to discard it on a whim for the sake of winning elections. I have long pushed back against people of other faiths criticizing Christians when they attempt to take a position on a theological nuance that really only Christians have the right to dispute. (I don’t for example try to tell Jews if they should be Orthodox or Reformed.) But it is uniquely the job of Christians to draw a fellow Christian’s attention to a viewpoint they may hold when it is in error. She & any who argue as she does are in distinct error when they attempt to convince the watching culture that God is passive on this matter.

4. She is hypocritical on "Government dictating the outcome." Of all the dishonest things she says in the few sentences I quote here this is on par with the most brazenly dishonest I’ve ever seen. In the longer version of the video she attempts to say that “culture and church and civic groups” should be the ones who control the moral question of the matter, yet those entities are made up entirely of people who presumably would be acting on their convictions when it comes to voting and to pursuing legislative and governmental outcomes—especially in a free country. Additionally, the fact that government has been the entity that sealed the fate of more than 60 million “legally killed” children seems to be wholesale ignored by the ignorance or dishonesty of the statement. This is the guttersnipe argument we expect from people who vote for Nancy Pelosi. This is not the viewpoint of those who voted for the disruptive presidency of Donald Trump with the expectation that he would come in and make significant course correction.

5. She is not “personally a person who would choose life.”She uses this statement exactly the way John Kerry did in his presidential run against President Bush. He repeatedly referred to his Catholic faith and how he “personally” viewed the matter in some way different than how he would effectively serve as an executive or as he had as a Senator. The issue of life doesn’t work this way however. Because the issue is not about the trial, trauma some statistically nearly impossible scenario that somehow concerns the woman’s feelings. The issue pertains exclusively to the matter of the other person that is involved in every pregnancy—the child itself. If the child is a living human being, it is morally right for that child to both “live”and to be able to “pursue happiness.” Dress it up any other way you wish. Make up any scenario you want. The moral issue is the soul of the person being killed and God is unequivocal in His assertion that He created it, and it is good.

6. It’s not necessary to “judge”anyone, to help them find life-affirming options. Tomi could not be more incorrect when she claims that there is no clarity to be found. But the “black and white”argument is almost universally always followed by “but I would never judge.” I would encourage Tomi to spend more than a little bit of time going to crisis pregnancy centers that help women find the resources, life skills, and educational knowledge to welcome their children into the world. Judgment is the last word she would ever even be able to process after spending time with the women who make the difficult decision to many times “go it alone” in terms of family, but discover a wide network of encouragement, friendship, and health in pursuing life—both for themselves and their child.

Tomi has entertained people for many years in various capacities of media being a firebrand conservative with a no-holds-barred approach.

But her lack of clarity on this simple issue in and of itself is cause for nearly complete disqualification from the conservative cause because it is a worldview at odds with what makes conservatism the superior political pursuit.

She lacks a moral root.

Saying it may be discomforting for her—it should—at least for the hope of persuading her to approach the issue with greater consistency.

I don’t like to criticize fellow conservatives. But these points needed to be made.

These are talking points from the Godless and extreme American political, societal, and theological left.

They serve no place in a country that wishes to seek the greatest moral good possible.

And they certainly serve no use in the discussion of the Supreme Court when there is an opportunity to right an historic wrong that visited the worst mass killing in history upon a nation that seeks to be blessed by God.

Trump’s DOJ succeeds in rescinding Obama-era race-based college admission documents … with an assist

Rob Shimshock, DCNF

The Justice and Education Departments teamed up to take out seven race-based admission documents on Tuesday.

Smokeball will turbo-charge your law firm’s productivity and increase profits by 30 - 40%.

Department of Education (DOE) Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kenneth L. Marcus and Department of Justice (DOJ) Acting Assistant Attorney General John M. Gore rescinded the Obama-era racial admission documents in a joint statement.

“The documents prematurely decide, or appear to decide, whether particular actions violate the Constitution or federal law,” Marcus and Gore said. “By suggesting to public schools, as well as recipients of federal funding, that they take action or refrain from taking action beyond plain legal requirements, the documents are inconsistent with governing principles for agency guidance documents.”

Among the documents the officials rescinded were the 2011, 2013 and 2014 “Dear Colleague” letters on the use of race to achieve diversity. A few of the documents addressed the 2013 and 2016 iterations of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a case in which a white female applied for and was denied admission to the Texas school, which used an affirmative action policy.

“Fisher II reaffirms that institutions of higher education have a compelling interest in pursuing the educational benefits that flow to all students from student body diversity,” the guidance on Fisher II asserts. “Moreover, the decision clarifies that universities are to be afforded ‘[c]onsiderable deference … in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission.’”

The rescissions occur amid a lawsuit filed by Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University, claiming that the institution discriminates against Asian-American applicants. The plaintiff alleged that the Ivy League university routinely docked Asian-American candidates on the basis of their personality in early June.

“The Supreme Court has determined what affirmative action policies are Constitutional, and the Court’s written decisions are the best guide for navigating this complex issue,” DOE Secretary Betsy DeVos said in a press release. “Schools should continue to offer equal opportunities for all students while abiding by the law.”

Follow Rob Shimshock on Twitter



Wisconsin Dem Candidate Looking to Replace Paul Ryan Has Been Arrested Nine Times Since 1991 Wisconsin  
By Cameron Cawthorne

Randy Bryce, the Wisconsin Democrat running to replace House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), has been elevated by national Democrats, but he has a long history of arrests, including pleading guilty to driving while intoxicated in 1998, in addition to eight other arrests.

Two of Bryce's most recent arrests– in 2011 and 2018– stemmed from protesting the policies of Ryan and Sen. Ron Johnson (R. Wis.) in his Milwaukee office. However, the majority of his arrests are the result of Bryce driving under the influence, which resulted in him being arrested three more times for driving with a suspended license, according to CNN.

While Bryce's arrests in 2011 and 2018 have been reported on extensively, the other arrests have not been covered by the media. CNN obtained public records about Bryce's April 1998 arrest in  Schoolcraft County, a small, rural county in Michigan. Michigan classifies the offense as an OUI, which is known in other states as a DUI, or driving under the influence of alcohol.

Bryce initially pleaded guilty, then later failed to appear in court in Michigan and a warrant was put out for his arrest. Bryce ultimately appeared in court again in March 2003, where he was sentenced to 65 days in jail, though the judge immediately suspended the sentence, and Bryce received credit for one day served in jail and paid $850 in fines. He was also ordered to complete four days of community service.

[…]

After having his license suspended following his 1998 OUI in Michigan, Bryce was arrested three more times for driving with a suspended license and registration in Wisconsin.

In September 1998, Bryce was arrested in Milwaukee County and pleaded no contest to driving with a suspended license, for which he was ordered to pay a $124.90 fine.

In October 2000, Bryce was arrested in South Milwaukee for driving with a suspended license and had to pay a $1,000 bond. Bryce, who had recently begun working as an ironworker, didn't qualify for a public defender, and the court entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf. In December, he failed to appear in court and the judge issued a warrant for his arrest.

Bryce was arrested under the warrant in February 2001, and after being held in jail for one day, was released after paying a $500 bond. In March 2001, he pleaded guilty and paid a $200 fine.

In January 2003, Bryce was again arrested in South Milwaukee for operating a vehicle with a suspended license, though it was later amended to operating without a license. He pleaded guilty and paid a $100 fine instead of having a suspended license for another two years.

Bryce released a statement to CNN about his previous arrests, specifically drive under the influence, saying that there was "no excuse" what he did twenty years ago.

"There is no excuse for what I did 20 years ago when I got behind the wheel and operated under the influence. I made a mistake and I regret it. I've worked very hard to learn from my mistakes so I can be a man my son can be proud of. I'm not perfect, but I know the struggles working people go through. I understand the mistakes that any of us can make. I've certainly learned from mine."

Bryce was also arrested in Wisconsin on his 27th birthday in 1991 for marijuana possession, property damage, trespassing and theft. While the theft and trespassing charges  were dropped, the other charges were not. When reached for comment, campaign spokesperson Julia Savel told CNN that Bryce doesn't remember the court's decision.

Bryce's spokesperson Savel released another statement about the vehicular arrests that occurred after his OUI.

"To put this in context, when this happened Randy had recently beaten a late-stage aggressive form of cancer during which time he didn't have health insurance. He was able to dig himself out of bankruptcy which was related to his mounting medical bills because he started his new career as a union ironworker," Savel said. "Randy has made mistakes, and as he said, there is no excuse for his actions. But he also has worked hard to right his wrong and grow from the experience, like so many other working people find themselves having to do."

Bryce will face off against part-time school teacher Cathy Myers in the August 14 primary.

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged Paul Ryan, Randy Bryce, Wisconsin. Bookmark the permalink.

A Trump Official Just Dropped A Bombshell That Will Re-Elect Trump In 2020

President Trump has exceeded everyone’s expectations since taking

Office.

Despite that, he is facing historic levels of attack from his enemies.

But a Trump official just dropped a bombshell that will guarantee Trump is re-elected in 2020.

Since being elected President, there is perhaps nothing more remarkable that Trump has done than meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

His one meeting with Kim has led towards a higher possibility of peace than any other time in the country’s history.

And this one event was something that nobody expected to happen, with former President Barack Obama considering North Korea the most difficult issue that Trump will face.

Even after the meeting many doubted that any real, solid actions

would be made in response.

Despite Kim Jong Un and President Trump signing a document promising to work towards denuclearization of Korea, there was still a lot of doubt, even among those who support President Trump.

That was until Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton revealed the fact that the United States already has a full plan to dismantle the nuclear, biological, chemical, and ballistic missile programs of North Korea within a year if North Korea cooperates.

And as he made this statement, Bolton also made it clear that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will be meeting with the North Korean leader again.

That point is extremely important because one of the main stipulations in the document Trump and Kim signed is that there would be follow-up meetings between the two countries.

Pompeo meeting with North Korean leaders is a positive development that Kim Jong Un is taking what he and President Trump said seriously.

Not only will a denuclearized North Korea be better for the world and North Korea themselves, it will be fantastic for President Trump in his upcoming 2020 re-election campaign.

How in the world will the Democrat presidential nominee claim that President Trump is ineffective when he succeeded in doing the impossible, talking sense into Kim Jong Un?

If one can recall, just a year ago, Kim Jong Un was seen as a madman who couldn’t be reasoned with.

His dangerous threats put the entire world on edge, and could have easily caused a world-wide crisis, or even a third world war.

But as time went on, President Trump attempted to talk sense into him, while world leaders who were historically allies of Kim began turning on him.

Throughout all of this, Trump didn’t give in, and also didn’t directly attack North Korea even when Kim Jong Un launched test missiles.

This is something that former President Barack Obama likely wouldn’t have been able to do.

He was infamous for either having weak leadership, or being a loose cannon.

Despite President Trump’s misrepresented reputation as a loose cannon, he has been very concise and calculating in his actions at the national level.

Progress he has made towards peace in North Korea is a testament to that.

Is Trump  going to guarantee re-election in 2020 if he brings peace to Korea? You bet your bippy he will.

If Trump Nominates Barrett for Court, Feinstein and Durbin Should Recuse Themselves

By Bill Donohue

If President Trump chooses to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, two senators should recuse themselves: Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein.

Senators Durbin and Feinstein have already evinced an anti-Catholic bias, thus disqualifying themselves from voting on Judge Barrett's suitability to serve on the Supreme Court.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett.  (YouTube)

In September 2017, I wrote to the two of them about their bias; they showed their hand when questioning Barrett about her qualifications to serve on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

On September 6, 2017, Senator Durbin asked Barrett, "Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?" Durbin, a product of 19 years of Catholic-school training, confessed that he did not know what the term "orthodox Catholic" meant. He was being more than coy.

An orthodox Catholic is someone who accepts the teachings of the Catholic Church. That would obviously exclude Senator Durbin: he champions abortion rights, something the Church calls "intrinsically evil."

More important, his question was meant as a red flag: He was signaling to his base that Barrett is a hard-line Catholic, someone whose strongly held religious beliefs will determine her decisions.

Senator Feinstein was worse. "When you read your speeches," she said to Barrett, "the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you."

In response, I wrote to Senator Feinstein stating, "No one was fooled by your question. Why didn't you come right out and ask her if she takes her judicial cues from the Vatican? That would have been more honest."

When Barrett testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last fall, she pointedly said, "I see no conflict between having a sincerely held faith and duties as a judge. I would never impose my own personal convictions upon the law." (My italic.)

Indeed, in 1998 she co-authored a journal article saying that if a Catholic judge is caught in a dilemma when considering a capital punishment case—having to choose between his faith and rendering a fair legal judgment—he should recuse himself.

Senators Durbin and Feinstein have been down this road before. They made clear their anti-Catholic bias 13 years ago when they questioned John Roberts about his suitability to serve on the Supreme Court.

Durbin told CNN that we need to "look at everything, including the nominee's faith." Feinstein asked Roberts if he shared President John F. Kennedy's conviction about not mixing church and state.

If Durbin and Feinstein had a record of asking all candidates for the high court about their religion, they would not be open to the charge of anti-Catholicism. But they do not. It is just Catholics whom they probe.

If Judge Amy Coney Barrett is President Trump's pick, Senator Dick Durbin and Senator Dianne Feinstein have a moral obligation to recuse themselves. Not to do so would be intellectually dishonest and patently unfair to Judge Barrett.

Please support CNSNews today! (a 501c3 non-profit production of the Media Research Center)

• Absolutely no co-existence with Islam
• By Amil Imani
• 
• Islam and the West cannot co-exist. I have warned of this many times, and I hope I have not been talking to a wall.
• 
  
• Fellow travelers, there is no “coexistence" in Islam, there is only subjugation or elimination of infidels. Islam believes in the rule of Islam, Caliphate to the Sunnis, and Imamate to the Shiites. Hence, to Muslims, all other forms of government represent the handiwork of Satan and infidels.
• 
  
• Therefore, one and all non-Islamic systems of government must be purified by Islamic fire. This is a fact.
• 
  
• Muslim jihadists live among us. It is only going to get worse. Jihadists consider themselves the army of Allah. They use violence as an instrument of policy. This continues to be central to Islam. Muslims war under the firmly-believed and widely-cherished set of ideas that are rabidly militaristic. No matter which side is killed, Islam is the victor, "You kill them, you go to paradise; you get killed, you go to paradise,” are two examples of exhortations to jihadism and war.
• 
  
• For the past twenty years or so, I have been warning to free men and women: Remain a spectator at your own peril. It is imperative that you take a stand, denounce the fraud of Islam, and do all you can to prevent Islamic fire from devouring our civilized democratic system. Tomorrow will be too late.
• 
  
• I repeat, there is absolutely no chance of co-existence with Islamic doctrine. A simple understanding is to see what is happening in Islamic countries.
• 
  
• Also, don't bank on politicians, they are master practitioners of the art of the politically correct, to protect liberty. Politicians must be urged by citizens to safeguard liberty, scrutinized closely that they do the work, and are held accountable if they fail to do so. You, as a citizen, also have a job to do. Take a few minutes a day and do what you can to protect freedom. “Freedom is not free,” may be a cliché. Yet, it is the most profound four-word sentence in the lexicon of the free.
• 
  
• Islam was made for men. Women are playthings of men. Islam is 100% misogynist. Men are superior to women. Women are to obey men and are to be beaten when they disobey or misbehave. Islam is racist. The Quran stipulates that Arabs are superior to all others and it clearly condones slavery. It explicitly stipulates discriminatory laws for slaves. Islam denounces other belief systems and marginally recognizes the validity of only two religions, Judaism and Christianity.
• 
  
• The nature of Islam is based on violence. It not only condones jihad, it recommends it and promises great reward for the jihadist.
• 
  
• Islam is already splintered in a number of major sects and innumerable numbers of secondary sects that harbor huge disagreement and animosity toward one another as well as toward all infidels.
• 
  
• Those who claim that they want to reform Islam, want to transform it by stripping it of a great many provisions that are anathema to civilized humanity. These people are, in fact, trying to make a new religion out of the old with no divine authority that was, supposedly, bestowed upon Muhammad to launch his religion.
• 
  
• Muslims and their frequently well paid leftist apologists use the multiculturalism umbrella only in non-Islamic lands to shield themselves from the torrent of legitimate criticisms that those who know Islam better shower on this cult of violence peddled as the religion of peace.  You don't need to listen to me, and don't listen to these conniving dissimulators. Please search it for yourself. See if the euphemism of multiculturalism is ever even mentioned by any Islamic leader, is ever printed in the Islamic press, or ever appears in any form anywhere in Muslim countries.
• 
  
• This multiculturalism gambit in is Islam's manufactured wool to pull over the eyes of non-Muslims while Muslims carry on with their unrelenting campaign of eradicating anything and anyone non-Islamic anywhere and everywhere in the world.
• 
  
• After twenty years of preaching the urgency of this threat, people have become numb.  It is past the stage of being urgent that we confront Islamic ideology and its expansionism. Close down all of its chapters across America, and declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. Now, it is a matter of survival. All of us must pressure our government, at all levels, to abandon the practice of "political correctness" and protect the American people and act to safeguard liberty against the truly deadly assault that is representative of Islamic ideology.
• 
  
• A constitutional amendment must be passed quickly defining Islam as a hostile political force with a global totalitarian agenda, and as such is totally inimical to our constitution and our national security, and that further to this definition, all practicing Muslims must either renounce this cult or be deported to their countries of origin, and all mosques must be closed down, since their goal is to propagate political propaganda, which has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘religion’ – let alone one of ‘peace’. That’s going to be the final ‘solution’ for Islam in America or face endless war.

Ethics Complaint Filed Against Maxine Waters

: TTN Staff

Maxine Waters just got some more bad news. She has not had an ethics complaint filed against her for inciting violence.

According to Town Hall:

Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) over her recent speech that encouraged the harassment of Trump administration officials in public.

In a hand-delivered letter to the chairman and co-chairman of the House Office of Congressional Ethics, Judicial Watch asked for an investigation into whether the California Democrat “violated House ethics rules by encouraging violence against Trump administration Cabinet members.”

Last month, Waters told a crowd: “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them! And you tell them that they are not welcome, anymore, anywhere.”

The move comes after several Trump administration officials have been harassed in public, including White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, among others.

Maxine Waters has been able to escape trouble for most of her career. This could finally be the moment that she is held accountable for her questionable rhetoric and politics.

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_9.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: