Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGOESPOT.COM
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
j
Even After Being Humiliated by McCain, Sarah Palin Gives Classy Response to His Death... She Expressed Her Condolences to the McCain Family
BY CILLIAN ZEAL
Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor who was John McCain’s 2008 running mate, expressed her condolences to the McCain family and a tribute to the former Arizona senator in a Sunday social media statement.
Palin had recently been singled out for criticism by McCain in his final book, in which he expressed regret at picking her as his vice presidential running mate in 2008.
“Sen. John McCain was a maverick and a fighter, never afraid to stand for his beliefs. John never took the easy path in life — and through sacrifice and suffering he inspired others to serve something greater than self.
“John McCain was my friend. I will remember the good times,” she added.
“My family and I send prayers for Cindy and the McCain family.”
The post included a picture of Palin with McCain on stage during the 2008 campaign,.
In a documentary accompanying McCain’s final book, “The Restless Wave,” McCain called picking Palin “another mistake that I made” during his career.
“While he continues to defend Ms. Palin’s performance, Mr. McCain uses the documentary and the book to unburden himself about not selecting (Joseph) Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent, as his running mate,” The New York Times reported in May.
Lieberman had been a vociferous defender of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at a time when the Democrats had made them a key focus of the 2008 campaign. He was also a close friend of McCain’s.
However, he was vehemently pro-abortion and had been Al Gore’s running mate just eight years earlier, and he still tended to caucus with the Democrats on most issues. Advisers told McCain that kind of baggage in a running mate would almost certainly kill any chances the Republican ticket would have.
“It was sound advice that I could reason for myself,” McCain wrote in the book. “But my gut told me to ignore it and I wish I had.”
McCain instead went with Palin, then an up-and-comer in the party.
While she initially made serious inroads with voters, the media began to focus intensely on her gaffes; their focus infuriated conservatives since, of course, they mostly ignored similar malapropisms from Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden.
Regardless, whatever rivalry, whatever enmity may have existed has been painted over by the brush of the Creator. And that’s how it ought to be.
GOP Gov. Jim Justice of West Virginia has appointed two candidates to interim terms on the state Supreme Court, after the resignations of two justices and the impeachment of three more left the state’s highest judicial tribunal embattled and shorthanded.
The governor selected U.S. Rep. Evan Jenkins, a Republican representing the southern swath of the state in Congress, and former House of Delegates Speaker Tim Armstead for the positions.
“We’ve lost some level of confidence and some level of trust,” Justice said at a Saturday press conference, in reference to the high court. “And on a nationwide basis it’s cast a black eye. What we need to do more than anything is repair, move on and show the nation how committed we are as West Virginians to have a solid court and, in my opinion, without any question, a conservative court.”
Jenkins and Armstead will be sworn in as justices in mid-September, after a 20-day notice and comment period, according to the Charleston Gazette-Mail. Provided that no objections to their appointments are sustained, they will serve until November’s general election. Both Jenkins and Armstead will stand in that election for a full term on the state Supreme Court.
Armstead will succeed Justice Menis Ketchum, who resigned on July 27 and has since pleaded guilty to fraud at a federal court in Charleston. If elected in November, Armstead’s term will expire in 2030. Jenkins will succeed Justice Robin Jean Davis, who resigned on August 14 under threat of impeachment. If elected, his term will also expire in 2030.
Judicial elections in West Virginia are officially nonpartisan, though Jenkins and Armstead are both Republicans.
Jenkins has been in Congress since 2014. He sought the GOP’s nomination for the U.S. Senate in 2018, but finished second in the primary to West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who faces Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin in the general election.
Jenkins’ campaign for Senate precluded him from seeking reelection to the House. Like Justice, Jenkins was a Democrat for most of his political life until he switched parties in recent years.
Armstead was a member of the state legislature and speaker of the House of Delegates since 2015. He resigned from both positions Tuesday on announcing his campaign for the state Supreme Court. Though he was not required to leave the legislature, Armstead said he resigned to avoid appearances of impropriety or political gamesmanship, given the ongoing impeachment proceedings against three justices on the court.
Today, I resigned as Speaker of the House and will file to run for the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals this afternoon. I am looking forward to talking with my fellow West Virginians and working to earn their trust and votes to serve as their Supreme Court Justice.
12:19 PM - Aug 21, 2018
An impeachment trial will begin in the state Senate against Justices Allen Loughry, Beth Walker, and Margaret Workman in the coming weeks. Though Walker and Workman remain in active service, Loughry was suspended from the court in early June, after West Virginia’s Judicial Investigation Commission lodged a 32-part complaint against him.
Loughry has since been arrested by federal authorities and will stand trial for 22 counts of fraud, witness tampering, and lying to federal investigators.
The impeachment articles allege that the justices failed to effectively administer the West Virginia court system and abused public resources by using state vehicles for personal purposes or pouring millions of taxpayer dollars into lavish renovations of their chambers in the state capital.
In view of the impeachment, the court has rescheduled much of its fall docket, pushing cases scheduled for argument in September back until October.
The Following Was posted on Chuck Muth’s Nevada News and Views
Steve Sisolak & the Rural Rancher
(Satire: Oldie but goodie w/Nevada twist)
It’s no secret that urbanite Democrat gubernatorial candidate Steve Sisolakof Las Vegas is having a tough time getting support from rural Nevadans - especially because of his anti-gun rights positions - as this story from over the weekend demonstrates…
Hoping to fool rural Nevadans into believing he’s pro-gun, Clark County Commissioner Steve Sisolak went duck hunting in Elko. He shot and dropped a bird, but it fell into a cattle rancher’s field on the other side of a fence.
As Sisolak climbed over the fence, an elderly rancher drove up in his pick-up truck with a big “Laxalt for Governor” sign on the door and asked him what he was doing.
Sisolak responded, “I shot a duck and it fell in this field and now I’m going to retrieve it.”
The old rancher replied, “This is my property and you are not coming over here.”
The city-slicker commissioner said, “I have one of the best attorneys in the state on my campaign payroll, and if you don’t let me get that duck I’ll sue you just like I sued Clark County and take everything you own.”
The old rancher smiled and said, “Apparently, you don’t know how we settle disputes in Elko. We settle small disagreements with the ‘Three Kick Rule.'”
Sisolak asked, “What’s the ‘Three Kick Rule’?”
The rancher replied, “Well, because the dispute occurs on my land, I get to go first. I kick you three times and then you kick me three times and so on back and forth until someone gives up.”
Sisolak, a big burly man, quickly thought about the proposed contest and decided that he could easily take the old codger. He agreed to abide by the local custom.
The old rancher slowly climbed out of his pickup truck and walked up to the cocky Las Vegan.
His first kick planted the toe of his heavy steel-toed work boot into the Sisolak’s groin and dropped him to his knees. His second kick to the midriff sent the commissioner’s last meal gushing from his mouth.
The gubernatorial candidate was on all fours when the rancher’s third kick to his rear end sent him face-first into a fresh cow pie.
Sisolak summoned every bit of his will and managed to get to his feet. Wiping his face with the arm of his jacket, he said, “Okay, you old fart. Now it’s my turn.”
The old rancher smiled and said, “Nah, I give up. You can have the duck.”
THE LIBERTY DAILY
Jacksonville, FL Killer Was Member of Democrat Party’s Anti-Trump ‘Resistance’ – Referred to Trump Supporters at ‘Trumptards’
Mall Where Jacksonville Shooting Occurred is Gun-Free Zone
The horrible shooting in Jacksonville, Florida, occurred at Jacksonville Landing, a gun-free mall.
Breitbart News reported that gunfire erupted at a Madden Tournament in Jacksonville, leaving multiple wounded, multiple dead. Fox News reports that the tournament was being held at the Good Luck and Have Fun bar in Jacksonville Landing, “a shopping center and event space.”
Jacksonville Landing’s “Rules of Conduct” clearly prohibit the possession of firearms, including firearms by those who have gone through the legal process to obtain a concealed carry permit in order to carry a firearm for self-defense.
The rules say, “Possession of a weapon, even if legally carried (except by law enforcement officers) is absolutely prohibited on Landing property.”
Constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith, author of #Duped: How the Anti-gun Lobby Exploits the Parkland Shooting, and How Gun Owners Can Fight Back, observed, “I am sure the anti-gunners will yet again Blame the Gun, and then claim all law-abiding gun owners are to blame. Isn’t that interesting. When an Islamic Terrorist blows up something, we are told that not all Muslims are terrorists. When an illegal immigrant kills a young American student, we are told not all illegal immigrants from Mexico are killers. Yet when a crazy violent psycho shoots someone with a gun, then all gun owners and the NRA (and it’s members) are to blame and should be punished. It is a clear double standard.”
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.
Could A 60 Year Old Case Torpedo Mueller’s Report?
Could A 60 Year Old Case Torpedo Mueller’s Report?
JAZZ SHAW
One of the more compelling bits of drama coming out of the Russia, Russia, Russia investigation this summer has been the question of Bob Mueller’s highly anticipated “report” on the findings of the grand jury. Rudy Giuliani has argued that he has to release it by this week or sit on it until after the midterms. (A claim with some basis in reality but not a rule written in stone.) Others have argued that politics shouldn’t set the timetable for anything in terms of upholding the law. But is there even a report? Thus far, Mueller’s been silent on the matter.
Assuming there is, however, there’s a completely separate court case drawing to a close in the next month which could keep any report Mueller generates under wraps. Politico has a fascinating look at a mystery that’s over six decades old and a lawsuit arising from it which could seal the report from the prying eyes of the public and the press.
A little-noticed court case stemming from the apparent murder of a Columbia University professor six decades ago could keep special counsel Robert Mueller from publishing any information about the Trump campaign and Russia that he obtains through a Washington grand jury.
The substance of the case is entirely unrelated to Mueller’s investigation into whether any of President Donald Trump’s associates aided Russia’s efforts to intervene in the 2016 election.
But if a Washington appeals court set to hear the murder-related case next month sides with the Justice Department and rules that judges don’t have the freedom to release grand jury information that is usually kept secret, it could throw a monkey wrench into any plans Mueller has to issue a public report on his probe’s findings, lawyers following the issue said.
And it might even keep the special counsel from sending a report to Congress, shaking Democrats’ hopes that such a document could provide the impetus for impeachment proceedings against the president.
The short version of the mystery is that it began in 1959 when Columbia University professor Jesus Galindez went missing in New York City. His body was never found, but it was reported that he’d been kidnapped, flow to the Dominican Republic and possibly murdered there. An author named Stuart McKeever has been exploring the mystery for the past four decades and he wants the see the findings of a grand jury which looked into the mystery many years ago. (While failing to solve the issue.) But the Justice Department is fighting him in court, saying that the findings of such grand jury proceedings must remain secret except under very specific provisions.
If the Juste Department prevails and keeps that grand jury report under wraps, they can just as easily argue that the findings of Mueller’s grand jury must also remain secret. As Politico details nicely, there used to be a law allowing disclosure of grand jury reports to Congress in the case of special counsel investigations, but that law expired in 1999. The existing rules for appointing a special counsel contain no such provision allowing for a report or the breaking of the secrecy of the grand jury.
So where does that leave us? We will certainly find out which people the grand jury finds sufficient grounds to charge (such as Manafort and Cohen) when the charges are brought against them. But all of the other details which were examined and possible revelations made would seemingly have to remain under wraps. This is bad news for the public and both sides of political battle we’re currently embroiled in. If no new dirt can be revealed, Trump and his team may chalk that up as a win. But if there was information in there vindicating him, he loses that as well. Meanwhile, “unnamed sources” will be leaking carefully selected details to CNN and the New York Times. Absent a full report, the Democrats will be free to just make things up as they go along.
I understand the need for secrecy when it comes to grand jury proceedings to avoid unfairly smearing people, exposing the identities of witnesses and all the rest. But in this case, it’s probably not going to do much to serve the public interest if the Justice Department wins this suit and locks up Mueller’s report (along with all other grand jury reports) in the process.
The substance of the case is entirely unrelated to Mueller’s investigation into whether any of President Donald Trump’s associates aided Russia’s efforts to intervene in the 2016 election.
But if a Washington appeals court set to hear the murder-related case next month sides with the Justice Department and rules that judges don’t have the freedom to release grand jury information that is usually kept secret, it could throw a monkey wrench into any plans Mueller has to issue a public report on his probe’s findings, lawyers following the issue said.
And it might even keep the special counsel from sending a report to Congress, shaking Democrats’ hopes that such a document could provide the impetus for impeachment proceedings against the president.
The short version of the mystery is that it began in 1959 when Columbia University professor Jesus Galindez went missing in New York City. His body was never found, but it was reported that he’d been kidnapped, flow to the Dominican Republic and possibly murdered there. An author named Stuart McKeever has been exploring the mystery for the past four decades and he wants the see the findings of a grand jury which looked into the mystery many years ago. (While failing to solve the issue.) But the Justice Department is fighting him in court, saying that the findings of such grand jury proceedings must remain secret except under very specific provisions.
If the Juste Department prevails and keeps that grand jury report under wraps, they can just as easily argue that the findings of Mueller’s grand jury must also remain secret. As Politico details nicely, there used to be a law allowing disclosure of grand jury reports to Congress in the case of special counsel investigations, but that law expired in 1999. The existing rules for appointing a special counsel contain no such provision allowing for a report or the breaking of the secrecy of the grand jury.
So where does that leave us? We will certainly find out which people the grand jury finds sufficient grounds to charge (such as Manafort and Cohen) when the charges are brought against them. But all of the other details which were examined and possible revelations made would seemingly have to remain under wraps. This is bad news for the public and both sides of political battle we’re currently embroiled in. If no new dirt can be revealed, Trump and his team may chalk that up as a win. But if there was information in there vindicating him, he loses that as well. Meanwhile, “unnamed sources” will be leaking carefully selected details to CNN and the New York Times. Absent a full report, the Democrats will be free to just make things up as they go along.
I understand the need for secrecy when it comes to grand jury proceedings to avoid unfairly smearing people, exposing the identities of witnesses and all the rest. But in this case, it’s probably not going to do much to serve the public interest if the Justice Department wins this suit and locks up Mueller’s report (along with all other grand jury reports) in the process.
Surprise! New York Ranked Least Free State In America
ByHANK BERRIEN
On Tuesday, the Cato Institute released the latest edition of “Freedom in the 50 States,” which ranks states by how their public policies champion freedom fiscally, with regulations, and in ways affecting personal freedom. As the Courier-Expressstated, “To determine the rankings, state and local government intervention was examined across a range of more than 230 policy variables — from taxation to debt, eminent domain laws to occupational licensing, and drug policy to educational choice.”
The ten best states ranked for freedom were Florida, New Hampshire, Indiana, Colorado, Nevada, North Dakota, Tennessee, South Dakota, Arizona, and Kansas.
The worst ten states were New Jersey, Rhode Island, Delaware, Oregon, Maryland, Vermont, New Jersey, California, Hawaii, and New York.
The CATO Institute has ranked the Empire State 50th since the year 2000. Florida has ranked first every year for the last three years.
CNN Frets GOP Using Mollie Tibbetts Murder as 'Political Propaganda'
On Saturday morning, the same CNN that is notorious for promoting anti-gun propaganda in the immediate aftermath of mass shootings had hosts who repeatedly worried that President Donald Trump and Republicans are inappropriately using the murder of Mollie Tibbetts by an illegal immigrant as "political propaganda."
It is also notable that, a week ago, the same morning duo of Christi Paul and Victor Blackwell sympathetically highlighted the story of an illegal immigrant arrested by ICE while driving his pregnant wife to the hospital, but they never got around to informing viewers that he was wanted for murder in Mexico, but instead portrayed him as harmless.
On today's New Day Saturday, at 7:09 a.m., Paul first brought up Tibbetts as she played a clip of President Trump complaining that the media should have given the case more attention. She then turned to Bloomberg News reporter Toluse Olorunnipa and posed:
Now, we want to point out that there are family members of Mollie's who have come out and said we don't want to politicize this. Is it smart for the President or for Republicans to run with Mollie Tibbetts as the story when it comes to illegal immigration?
About half an hour later, as Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Ryan Costello appeared as a guest, co-host Blackwell played the same clip of Trump and read a quote from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich making a prediction about how Tibbetts might impact the elections. Blackwell then posed: "Is the party using her death as political propaganda? And is this an effective strategy?"
And, about an hour later, as New Jersey Republican Congressman Leonard Lance appeared as a guest, co-host Paul also referred to Trump and Gingrich before asking: "Do you support using Mollie Tibbetts as a strategy as we head into midterms?"
A few hours later on CNN Newsroom, CNN senior media reporter Oliver Darcy lamented that Trump would "unfortunately" continue to cite her murder to promote border security, and asserted that the President has "radicalized" a wing of the GOP on immigration.
The dirty truth behind the urban elites’ dangerous anti-American policies
The dirty truth behind the urban elites’ dangerous anti-American policies
Liberal urban elites are waging a policy war against rural Americans.
It’s been fought for years behind the scenes through regulatory policies that drive up consumer prices and favor concentrated living conditions.
Now one former Democrat Congressman just exposed the dirty truth behind one of the left’s most anti-American policies.
President Trump is rolling back Barack Obama’s economy stifling regulations one-by-one.
Liberals were furious when Trump’s EPA announced they were ditching Obama’s required fuel standards increases, which would’ve required automaker’s fleet average to be 45MPG by 2025 (instead, it’ll be roughly 37MPG).
The move was spurred by Obama to force automakers and consumers to invest in electric vehicles.
What’s so dangerous about electric vehicles?
Former Congressman Silvestre Reyes explains:
Consider that the production of EVs requires a substantial amount of rare earth minerals to develop vehicle bodies, engine magnets, and internal batteries. These minerals include lithium, aluminum, and graphite. Three years ago, the only rare earth mineral mine in the U.S. filed for bankruptcy protection, leaving us dependent on other countries to supply these critical materials. Indeed, it was bought by a Chinese-led consortium.
Reyes points out that in 2016, more than 70 percent of rare earth metals imported by the U.S. came from China.
As Reyes notes, China is hardly a reliable trading partner, and it would endanger national security to be so reliant on their resources for America’s automobiles.
Reyes continues:
Another concern with EVs is that they are simply not affordable. According to an auto industry research firm, the average household income for a Tesla driver was $320,000 per year, more than six times the national average.
….
It’s not a mystery as to why the wealthy buy EVs – it’s because new EVs are expensive and generally only the financially well-off can afford to stay in high-end hotels that offer charging stations.
Lastly, where are the cities and states in this country going to find the resources to provide charging stations for low income residents and those without garages? California’s plan, which the Governor estimated at $2.5 billion, seems like more money than most communities in America can afford.
So when it comes down to it, this “green energy” policy would make us more dependent on China, endangering our national security, and continue to favor liberal urban elites over rural Americans who aren’t located anywhere near electric vehicle charging stations.
McCain’s Confidential Request Made Public, Trump Banned from Funeral — Look at the Reason Why
By Michele Blood
Former presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush are both expected to eulogize the deceased senator
As the nation mourns the loss of Arizona Sen. John McCain, plans for his funeral — which may not include President Donald Trump, per the request of the deceased senator — are well under way.
Those close to the American war hero, who died Saturday afternoon following a fierce battle with glioblastoma, informed the White House that their plan was to invite Vice President Mike Pence to attend the memorial service to be held at Washington’s National Cathedral — but not President Trump, as The New York Times originally reported in May.
McCain’s relationship with Trump, which played out publicly, has rarely been smooth.
During his presidential campaign, for example, Trump remarked, of McCain’s history as a POW, “He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”
As NBC News also reported at the time about the incident, “McCain’s wish for Trump to skip his funeral, first reported [in early May] by The New York Times, comes as the two men have had a turbulent relationship, particularly since the 2016 presidential primary when Trump said McCain was considered a war hero only ‘because he was captured’ during the Vietnam War and that Trump preferred military figures who avoided being taken prisoner by the enemy.”
The feeling between the two seemed mutual.
Following Trump’s press conference with Vladimir Putin, McCain said, “Today’s press conference in Helsinki was one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory. The damage inflicted by President Trump’s naiveté, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate. But it is clear that the summit in Helsinki was a tragic mistake,” as ABC News and others reported.
The 81-year-old Vietnam POW helped plan his own funeral and made his wish of Trump’s non-attendance at the service known to several people, according to CNN’s reporting on the matter.
Though Trump — if McCain’s and the McCain family’s wishes are respected — may not attend the funeral services, former United States presidents of both parties likely will be there.
Former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama are expected to eulogize McCain, as multiple outlets reported.
Social media users, as always, were quick to weigh in on these events and discussions.
McCain did not want Trump to attend his funeral: report http://hill.cm/v2KVGDh pic.twitter.com/rtVkpWWeHX
Be Real @Kicker_MomSounds like Trump’s off the hook to me. No harm no foul. Move forward
7:34 AM - Aug 26, 2018
Trump Hit With Fox News Surprise Attack Over Condolence Message He Sent The McCains
Trump Hit With Fox News Surprise Attack Over Condolence Message He Sent The McCains
Sometimes it seems like President Donald Trump can’t win.
If Trump ever somehow walked on water, his critics would point out that he can’t swim.
But while those outlandish criticisms have become par for the course from places like CNN or MSNBC, Trump has often found allies within the ranks of Fox News.
That wasn’t the case on Saturday when Fox News host Brit Hume took a swipe at Trump on Twitter.
Now, for the sake of fairness, Trump should never be above criticism. Nobody should be.
There have certainly been times where Trump has warranted criticism. But paying respects and offering condolences to Sen. John McCain’s family? That absolutely should not be something worth criticizing.
Unless you’re Hume, apparently.
Still not a kind word about McCain himself.
That would’ve been a disservice to Trump and, frankly, a bigger disservice to McCain and his family.
Much in the same way that Jackson’s death shouldn’t supersede whatever bad he may have allegedly done, Trump shouldn’t be expected to forgive and forget the times he’s butted heads with McCain.
It may be a controversial take to maintain decorum while still questioning someone’s legacy, but it’s not like Trump was rude in the wake of McCain’s death.
And to be clear, Trump may not have even considered the implications of his tweet. At the same time, there may not have been any hidden meaning or ulterior agenda in Trump’s tweet.
Maybe, just maybe, Trump’s tweet offering condolences was just that and nothing more.
Instead of ripping him, perhaps Trump should be commended for offering prayer to the family of a man who he had such virulent ideological differences with — a family, by the way, that left Trump off the guest list for McCain’s funeral.
Say what you will about Trump, Mr. Hume, but that tweet is not something that should or needs to be scrutinized.
Illegal Alien Who Allegedly Killed Mollie Tibbets Has ‘Anchor Baby’ with Her Ex-Classmate – Report
By Savannah Pointer
Illegal Alien Who Allegedly Killed Mollie Tibbets Has ‘Anchor Baby’ with Her Ex-Classmate – Report
By Savannah Pointer
Cristhian Rivera, Iris Monarrez and their baby (screen shot / Facebook)Cristhian Rivera, the 24-year-old who was charged in the murder of Iowa college student, Mollie Tibbetts, reportedly had a child with one of Mollie’s high school classmates, in 2015.
Tibbetts, who attended Brooklyn, Guernsey, and Malcom High School, was one grade behind Iris Monarrez, who dated Rivera during that time, the U.K. Daily Mail reported.
The Daily Mail also states that Rivera is a Mexican national, and authorities have confirmed that he is an illegal immigrant who has been in the U.S. for between four and seven years.
Friends of Rivera’s told Daily Mail that he crossed into the U.S. about six years ago with a cousin.
Rivera’s attorney, Allan Richards, insisted that his client was in the U.S. lawfully. However, he has not yet produced any paperwork to verify that assertion.
Monarrez, who had a child with Rivera in 2015, was in court on Tuesday, holding the pair’s 3-year-old daughter.
Monarrez was described to the Daily Mail by another Brooklyn Iowa native as being “a really nice person.”
“Iris was very quiet, she kept to her friends. From what I can see she was a really nice person, shy but kind. She didn’t stick out. I’m sure she’s as shocked as we are.”
Because the high school where Monarrez and Tibbetts attended had only about 250 students during their time there, and the fact that they were Facebook friends, it’s assumed likely that the pair had at least a passing acquaintance.
Monarrez, however, declined to speak to reporters about the case following court proceedings on Tuesday.
One of her friends, however, did speak out.
“I don’t know if Iris and Mollie were close friends at school but she obviously heard about her going missing,” Monarrez’ friend said. “She’s just really sad about what happened to Mollie. Everyone is.”
While Monarrez is reported to have dated Rivera between 2013 and 2015, her friends have stated that she broke up with Rivera about two years ago.
For the past four years, Rivera has been employed by Yarrabee Farms, near Brooklyn, Iowa. Rivera reportedly obtained the job using a fake name and social security number.
Fox News reports that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services confirmed that Rivera had not applied for legal citizenship in the United States.
“A search of records by USCIS revealed Rivera did not make any DACA requests nor were any grants given,” USCIS told Fox News. “We have found no record in our systems indicating he has any lawful immigration status.”
Accepting Buyout of Contract
Accepting Buyout of Contract
Vukmir Hits Baldwin Over Vote for Lighter Sentencing for Child Sex Offenders
Wisconsin Dem opposed harsher sentences for child sex offenders while in state legislature
BY: Joe Schoffstall
Leah Vukmir, the Republican nominee challenging Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D., Wisc.) this fall, will hit Baldwin over a past vote for lighter sentencing for repeat convicted child sex offenders, according to a campaign memo shared with the Washington Free Beacon.
The memo details Baldwin's vote against the passage of Assembly Bill 505, which stipulates life without parole to repeat child sex offenders, during her time in the Wisconsin state legislature. Baldwin was one of only 22 state representatives in 1997 to oppose the bill, which passed 79-22.
"This bill creates a new category of persistent repeater. Specifically, the bill provides that a person is a persistent repeater if he or she has one or more prior convictions for a serious child sex offense and is subsequently convicted of committing another serious child sex offense," text of the bill reads. "Like a person with 3 serious felony convictions under current law, a person who is a persistent repeater based on convictions for serious child sex offenses must be sentenced to life without parole."
The bill went on to state that "child sex offenses covered by the bill are sexual assault of a child, sexual exploitation of a child, incest with a child, child enticement, soliciting a child for prostitution, sexual assault of a student by a school instructional staff person, causing a child to view or listen to sexual activity, exposing a child to harmful material and, if the victim was a minor and the convicted person was not the victim's parent, false imprisonment and kidnapping."
Vukmir will also draw attention to Baldwin's 1994 opposition to a supermax prison. Baldwin had said a new prison could help with overcrowding but that is was "premature to site and fund a new prison."
Vukmir additionally hits Baldwin for praising Tony Evers, Democratic candidate for governor in Wisconsin, as a "rock solid progressive" and "champion for children" in a fundraising email. Evers said Wisconsin spends too much on corrections and wants to release prisoners, according to Vukmir.
Evers did not revoke the license of a teacher who watched porn on the job and made explicit comments about students as he was serving as state superintendent of public instruction, the Washington Free Beacon noted last year after obtaining a copy of a report that was put together following an investigation into Andrew Harris, a seventh grade teacher at Glacier Creek Middle School in Dane County, Wisc.
The report detailed how another teacher had filed a report against Harris for viewing and sharing pornographic materials on his school computer and email account during work hours. Harris had received 23 emails from his sister between the summer of 2008 and late 2009 that contained pornographic images, movies, and jokes while at the school.
One such email mentioned in the report included "a joke about a married couple on vacation who consider buying sandals that are said to make the owner a sex freak. After trying them on the wrong feet, the husband attempts to have anal sex with the male salesman while the salesman screams that he has them on the wrong feet."
Harris also made comments during meetings that upset coworkers, according to interviews during the investigation.
Harris had said that a seventh grade female who was struggling in school should "brush up on her blow job skills because that's all she'd be good at later in life." Harris would also make comments on the "chest sizes or the overall physical appearance" of female students in grade school.
The report also said that Harris retaliated and harassed the teacher who had reported him.
In May 2010, the board voted to end his employment and his actions were reported to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Donald Johnson, the district superintendent, asked for Harris's license to be revoked.
Evers, who was acting as Wisconsin state superintendent of public instruction during that time, refused the request, saying he did not have the power to revoke the license.
The Middleton Education Association, Harris's union, interjected following Harris's job termination and demanded he be given the job back. An arbitrator argued that Harris's discipline was unfair and asked for the termination to be reduced to a suspension. Harris was allowed back at the school but had a teacher's aide had to be placed in the classroom alongside Harris.
"The report you likely have was issued by the school district in justification of their employment action (firing him). It is not unbiased and is designed to highlight the points they felt were favorable," Thomas McCarthy, the communications director for the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, told the Free Beacon last year. "Attached you will find the arbitrator's decision, which evaluated the facts of the case and called witnesses to validate the information. This will hopefully be helpful in setting some of the record straight in terms of the incident in question."
"In regards to your licensing question, it's important to note that licensing decisions are separate from employment actions in Wisconsin," continued McCarthy. "The state agency handles licensing, but is not involved in employment actions. To meet the terms for a license revocation during this period of time, the action in question had to meet the immoral conduct standard AND have a direct nexus with a child/student. The second prong of that test could not be met in the Andrew Harris case, despite the agency's best efforts to do so." [Emphasis in the original.]
The Republican Party of Wisconsin said that Evers did have the authority, under 2010 Wisconsin State Statutes, to revoke Harris's license.
"Long before Tony Evers, Tammy Baldwin wanted criminals back on our streets, as she voted against life without parole for repeat sex offenders," Vukmir says. While Baldwin and Evers' aim to release violent criminals, Leah Vukmir is the pediatric nurse and mother who will enforce the law and push for policies that keep our children safe."
Baldwin's campaign did not immediately return a request for comment.
How Many Dead Americans Will Make Liberals Care?
How Many Dead Americans Will Make Liberals Care?
Derek Hunter
I have to start by saying I hate it when tragedies are politicized, no matter who does it. With that being said, the two parties do use horrible events differently. Republicans use them to highlight issues of importance; Democrats use them to advance agenda items they’d been wanting to push for years, even when they admit their solutions would not have prevented the tragedy they’re exploiting. It may not seem like much, but it is, and it is an important difference.
After every mass shooting, for example, Democrats reach in their desk drawers and pull out their standard gun control wish list. Buzzwords like “background checks,” “gun show loopholes,” and all the words we’ve come to hear far too often hit the cable news airwaves along with the inevitable “we must do somethings” that accompany them.
Yet after each of these horrible events this ballet plays out with the ultimate reality that none of these proposed “solutions” would have prevented what they are allegedly in reaction to admitted by its advocates.
So why propose a response to something that not only would not have prevented the tragedy, but would also do nothing to prevent a similar event in the future? Because Democrats want to, ultimately, repeal the Second Amendment. They know they can’t do it all at once; incrementalism has always been the left’s tactic. If they have to exploit a tragedy to move the ball in their direction, they are more than happy to do it.
For Republicans, the “solutions” they propose would actually address the root cause of the problem, even if their timing comes across as unseemly.
The murder of Mollie Tibbetts in Iowa by an illegal alien is the perfect example of how Republicans solutions would have prevented the tragedy – the alleged killer would not have been in the country if we enforced our immigration laws and secured our border. Pointing that out may feel like exploitation, and maybe it is, but it’s also true.
In response to this reality, the political left has tried to change the subject. They first tried to accuse Republicans of exploiting the horrible event, which is rich coming from people who openly advocate for hiding criminal illegal aliens from Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
When that didn’t work, they went straight for the “whataboutism” game.
CNN, which held a town hall just a couple of days after the horrible Parkland school shooting at which they allowed activist students and the now disgraced Sheriff to blame the National Rifle Association and smear Dana Loesch and Senator Marco Rubio, none of which had anything to do with the shooting, ran two pieces in a 24-hour period attempting to make the Tibbetts murder about President Donald Trump rather than the murder itself.
The first, entitled, “The White House could tweet about cases besides Mollie Tibbetts,” attempts to gloss over the illegal alien aspect of the story to engage in one of the left’s favorite pastimes – equivocating. “The truth is that any young woman like Mollie Tibbetts (or myself) has a much greater chance of dying at the hands of a husband or boyfriend of any type than meeting harm at the hands of an undocumented immigrant in the United States,” the article states.
While statistically true, it ignores a couple of important points. First, Mollie was actually murdered by an “undocumented immigrant,” so the math is off for her. Second, for years the federal government didn’t track crimes committed by illegal aliens because the existing power structure did not want us to know the truth. In my experience, bureaucracies only hide information if that information doesn’t help their case. Finally, how many Americans have to be murdered by illegal aliens who, if we had a secure border and deported people here illegally, wouldn’t have been here in the first place before it matters to Democrats?
That number does not seem to exist.
In another piece the following day, CNN wanted to highlight “The hidden tragedies in the Mollie Tibbetts killing.” What are these “hidden tragedies”? Aside from the typical liberal tropes of “(x)enophobia and gender” being “at the heart of the national reaction to the Tibbetts tragedy,” the author then cites the horrible murder of Virginia high school student Nabra Hassanen at the hands of another illegal alien, then laments the lack of media coverage that story got. She wrote this on CNN’s website, which last I checked was in the news business (although, admittedly, only technically).
Yes, the Hassanen tragedy should have received more media coverage. But because that story didn’t is no reason to blame the President, which the author tries to do, it’s more of an attack on the media. They only report on illegal alien crime reluctantly. They treat it like the piles of murders in Chicago, only noting them before quickly moving on while setting up camp in Ferguson, Missouri, where the bogus left-wing narrative of “hands up, don’t shoot,” and the phony idea that police were murdering unarmed black men was a non-stop “stop the presses” moment.
Actually, the murder of Nabra Hassanen did start off with media coverage, when speculation that this Muslim woman wearing a headscarf may have been murdered because of the “hate” stirred up by Donald Trump. Once it was discovered that it was an illegal alien and not a Trump supporter, the media lost interest. Whose fault is that?
The fact is Democrats see opportunity in tragedy, opportunity to advance agenda items they’ve wanted for some time, whether they would have addressed the issue they’re exploiting or not is irrelevant. Republicans see how what they’ve been advocating would have prevented the tragedy in the first place, had those policies been in place. Both are technically “exploitative,” but one is just unseemly and gross.
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/2018/08/www_27.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment