- 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.
BLOGOESPOT.COM
Thursday, Sept. 6, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
Burt Reynolds RIP
THE LIBERTY DAILY

President Trump: ‘The Deep State and the Left, and Their Vehicle, the Fake News Media, are Going Crazy’

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/06/trump-lieutenants-deny-penning-op-ed-as-hunt-for-author-intensifies-president-slams-deep-state.html

Three Reasons Why The Anonymous New York Times Op-Ed Is A Major Media Blunder

by Kimberly Ross

On Wednesday, the New York Times published an anonymous piece in their op-ed section from a current Trump administration official with the intention of spreading devastating claims about the unhinged man in the Oval Office.

Releasing such a piece during a week in which mainstream outlets have slobbered over the upcoming Bob Woodward book, Fear: Trump in the White House, was meant to be a smart move. Arrows from more than one corner at the same time are meant to inflict significant damage upon an enemy. This was their thinking.

But the op-ed is not a slam dunk for the media. It’s not even close to groundbreaking. Frankly, the contents are a bit of an expected bore.

Here are a few reasons why the opinion piece, meant to so disrupt and hurt the administration, is more of a disaster for the media than anything else.

Absolutely Nothing Is a Bombshell

If there’s one good reason to publish a behind-the-scenes look at politics inside the White House while offering complete protection for the author, it’s because the revelations are entirely shocking. The contents would have to be utterly damaging to justify the secrecy. With this op-ed, that kind of material is just not there.

These are but a few of the “ruinous” statements.

“Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.”

“…the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.”

“Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants…”

My apologies, but are these meant to surprise those of us in the audience? You mean to tell me that President Trump governs as a populist Republican and not a conservative? That he is excellent at sticking to scripted remarks but when off the written page, gives in to his own personal diatribes? That the same man whose Twitter account is full of late night tirades and brash insults is prone to the same behavior in real life, while meeting with those beneath him?

Dear anonymous Trump subordinate: you’re more than two years behind the American people. Whether voting for or against the eventual victor on November 8, 2016, we have been aware of these supposed revelations all along.

The Author’s Self-Interest Is Glaringly Apparent

Plenty of the reaction to the op-ed has been comical, to say the least. I can almost see the big shots at the New York Times mentally (or physically) high-fiving one another as they were about to release the “explosive” article into the atmosphere.

While some certainly believe the piece is a nail in the proverbial coffin, others have turned their rage toward the author instead of the subject matter. After all, the unknown individual is so deeply disturbed by what they see around them they they’re staying put. They believe that while the 45th president has stripped the country and its people of civility, they should get up for work tomorrow and go about business as usual. This anon agrees so deeply with the words of the late Senator John McCain, about not giving in to tribalistic tendencies, that they’ve decided to dig their heels in and remain on the team.

Give me a break.

It’s obvious that the author’s self-interest is more important to them than doing the right thing. If this wasn’t the case, he/she would have resigned first before releasing a tell-all. What a contradiction to stay and help a president ruin the country…while writing about how awful it is that the president is ruining the country. Whether you agree with the idea that we’re living in dangerous times because of Trump or not, you’ve most likely chosen a side. The op-ed’s author enjoys having a foot in both camps in an attempt to assuage themselves of a measure of personal guilt. It’s really amazing.

This Would Never Be Published During Another Administration

Can you imagine the uproar if a senior Obama administration official had petitioned a major media outlet to publish a scandalous piece about the commander-in-chief? The piece, the author, and the outlet would be dismissed as a serious breach of precedent and protocol. There would be endless roundtable discussions about how sad and dangerous it is to give in to that sort of partisan journalism. The mole would be disgraced and hounded on front pages and front covers nationwide until they quietly stepped down, afraid of what they had begun.

But that’s all just speculation at what would happen if the tables were turned. We’re aware that nothing of the sort would fly under a Democratic administration. Frankly, it should never be allowed.

I have made it clear that I’m no fan of the president. I try to call things as I see them and have praised him more than once in my writing. While I’m concerned about the future of conservatism, I am still able to admit when his administration has done well or when I have been wrong.

While I find President Trump’s character to be questionable and his tactics concerning, I don’t support an anonymous hit job by a current employee who feels it necessary to warn Americans of what we already know while staying to help a man who they contend is a monstrous force for bad on the country at large.

It’s a sad, amusing, desperate attempt by a confused, cowardly individual. And because the media is running with it, they’ve committed a major blunder.

While the piece is probably not a fake, it is most definitely not news.

Kimberly Ross is a senior contributor at RedState and a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. Follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

Dem Senate Candidate Mobilizing Illegals To Vote?

The Beto O'Rourke for Senate campaign is denying allegations that the campaign sent out a text asking for volunteers to help them get illegals to the polls. O'Rourke is in a close race with incumbent Senator Ted Cruz.

According to The Daily Wire:

The Beto O’Rourke campaign in Texas, where O'Rourke is running for the Senate against incumbent GOP Senator Ted Cruz, is denying that they are responsible for sending a text message to voters on Wednesday asking for "volunteers to help transport undocumented immigrants" to the polls. The campaign acknowledged that the text from the campaign’s text messaging platform was legitimate but protested the campaign did not authorize the message, according to The New York Times.

As The Times noted, “If Mr. O’Rourke’s campaign were indeed helping undocumented immigrants vote, it would be a brazen violation of election law.”

The text message read, "Hi, it's Patsy here w/ Beto for Texas. Our records indicate that you're a supporter. We are in search of volunteers to help transport undocumented immigrants to polling booths so that they will be able [to] vote. Would you be able to support this grassroots effort?"

O'Rourke's spokesperson, Chris Evans, stated, "That was not an approved message by the campaign," adding that the creator of the text was "not a volunteer with the Beto campaign.” Evans referred to the creator of the text as an “imposter.”

It is unclear if this was an issue with the messaging app the campaign is using, a rogue volunteer, or a campaign blunder. Either way, this type of violation should be deeply concerning to the registered voters of Texas.

This Just In: Jobs are Created by Job Creators, Not Socialist Politicians

Andrew Gillum is the socialists’ latest sensation after his surprising win in Florida’s Democrat gubernatorial primary. And shortly after the election he posted one of the more ignorant tweets you’ll ever want to see on Twitter (and that’s saying something!)…

“We need to raise our minimum wage to $15 - but that's not enough on its own - because nobody wants to earn minimum. We need to create high-wage jobs through training and education, expanding healthcare, modern transportation, and so much more.”

First, outlawing entry-level jobs that many new workers need to gain employment experience ain’t gonna help those trying to step up onto the first rung of their work career ladder.

And if a government-mandated $15 per hour is OK, why not jack it up to $20? Or $35? Or $50? Such ignorance of the real world.

The fact is, if you bump the entry-level wage to $15 an hour, many of those jobs are simply gonna disappear. In fact, we’ve already seen businesses respond by replacing entry-level jobs with technology, including burger-flipping robots!

Secondly, training and education, expanding health care, modern transportation and “so much more” doesn’t create jobs. You know what does?

Job creators. Entrepreneurs and business owners.

This should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above a potted plant. But thanks to the dismal state of our government-owned/union-managed public school failure factories - combined with the Left’s incessant “hate the rich” propaganda campaigns - too many Americans today seem to be missing the obvious.

Fortunately, we have an entrepreneurial businessman in the White House today showing the world how the world actually works in the real world.

Now, for my annual vacation/camping trip this summer, I read Virgin Group CEO Sir Richard Branson’s “Business Stripped Bare” book from 2008. In it, he went to great lengths to explain why entrepreneurs, not government, are so critical to job-creation and economic success.

“Entrepreneurs have the dynamism to get something started,” Sir Richard wrote. “They view the world differently from other people. They create opportunity that others don’t necessarily see and have the guts to give it a go.”

Oh, and by the way, in America there are no race or gender barriers to starting your own business. In addition, as my friend Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform has pointed out, “There is no glass ceiling when you are self-employed.”

“To be a serious entrepreneur,” Branson continued, “you have to be prepared to step off the precipice. Yes, it’s dangerous. There can be times, having jumped, when you find yourself in free fall without a parachute. There is a real prospect that some business ventures will go smashing into the ground.”

Which is why so many people – the vast majority, in fact – choose the relatively safer and more comfortable route of getting a salaried job rather than trying to start their own company. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

But somebody has to create those jobs. Entrepreneurs.

And to get more of them, as Branson notes, we need to start teaching our youth about “the value of wealth creation” and encourage kids with gumption to start their own businesses rather than focusing entirely on getting an often-useless college degree.

Indeed, even liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman acknowledged a few years ago that “It’s no longer true that having a college degree guarantees that you’ll get a good job, and it’s becoming less true with each passing decade.”

“A great deal of entrepreneurship can be taught,” Sir Richard explains, “and we desperately need to teach it as we confront the huge global challenges of the twenty-first century.”

Yep.

And not only does entrepreneurship need to be taught, it needs to be championed and celebrated. Because there are no jobs without
job-creators.

And the sooner anti-rich/anti-business politicians such as Andrew Gillum recognize that fact, the brighter and more prosperous our nation’s future will be.

(Mr. Muth is president of CitizenOutreach.org and publisher of NevadaNewsandViews.com. He blogs at MuthsTruths.com. His opinions are his own.)

In yet another bizarre tu

‘Confidential’ Kavanaugh emails posted by Cory Booker were cleared, despite dramatic claim of defying rules

In yet another bizarre turn of events at Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Republicans have revealed that documents Democratic Sen. Cory Booker published Thursday morning in supposed defiance of Senate rules had already been cleared for release.

“All of this drama this morning apparently was for nothing and it’s unfortunate,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told reporters after a chaotic start to the third day of Kavanaugh’s hearing.

Earlier Thursday, Booker dramatically said he would “knowingly” violate Senate rules to release emails marked "committee confidential" that showed Kavanaugh discussing racial profiling as a White House lawyer in 2002. Booker referred to his actions as an act of “civil disobedience” and said he was prepared to face punishment.

“I am going to release the e-mail about racial profiling and I understand that the penalty comes with potential ousting from the Senate,” said Booker, a possible 2020 Democratic candidate for president.

At another point, Booker said, “This is about the closest I'll probably ever have in my life to an, ‘I am Spartacus’ moment.”

But it turns out, Booker didn’t actually break any rules. The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee said they worked with the George W. Bush library and the Justice Department overnight to clear the emails. The restrictions were waived early Thursday morning.

“We cleared the documents last night shortly after Senator Booker’s staff asked us to,” said Bill Burck, a lawyer for Bush involved in the release of documents. “We were surprised to learn about Senator Booker’s histrionics this morning because we had already told him he could use the documents publicly."

Therefore, Booker’s act of defiance was not an actual violation of the rules because nothing that he released was marked committee confidential at the time of its release.

"Apparently, some just wanted to break the rules and make a scene, but didn’t check their email," a spokesman for committee Republicans said in a statement. The committee posted the same documents.

"Clearly, he is running for president," GOP Sen. John Thune later told Fox News, speaking of Booker.

A spokeswoman for Booker said the lawmaker and Senate Democrats “were able to shame the committee into agreeing to make last night’s documents publicly available.” But she did not address when Booker first learned the materials had been cleared.

“Cory said this morning that he was releasing committee confidential documents, and that’s exactly what he’s done,” Booker spokeswoman Kristin Lynch said.

The emails appeared to be cleared in part because of the involvement of Utah GOP Sen. Mike Lee.

“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I will happily work with any of my colleagues from across the aisle to go through the necessary steps and processes to try and get specific classified documents released to the public,” Lee tweeted.

Booker released 12 pages of emails – which had been marked “committee confidential” – online for the public to read. The emails included internal post-9/11 discussions surrounding issues of racial profiling.

In a 2002 email, Kavanaugh, who was working as a lawyer in the Bush White House, said he “generally” favored race-neutral security measures, but said they need to “grapple” with the “interim question of what to do before a truly effective and comprehensive race-neutral system is developed and implemented.”

Mike Lee ✔@SenMikeLee

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I will happily work with any of my colleagues from across the aisle to go through the necessary steps and processes to try and get specific classified documents released to the public. #Kavanaugh #SCOTUS

10:35 AM - Sep 6, 2018

Kavanaugh wrote that the “interim question” is of “critical importance to the security of the airlines and American people in the next 6 months or so, especially given Al Qaeda’s track record of timing between terrorist incidents.”

The episode began a day earlier when Booker first implied Kavanaugh had been open to racial profiling tactics, citing the email exchange between Kavanaugh and a colleague.

However, Booker at the time did not provide Kavanaugh a copy of the emails to review while questioning him about it, prompting an objection from Lee, who charged that it was inappropriate to “cross-examine” Kavanaugh about documents that he “can’t see.”

The emails had been marked "committee confidential." But Booker said Thursday he would release them anyway, saying the document is a “great illustration of the absurdity of the process” because there’s nothing in it that’s “national security-related.”

Top Republicans mocked and denounced Booker for the move.

“Running for president is no excuse for violating the rules of the Senate or of confidentiality of the documents that we are privy to,” Cornyn told Booker, before he was informed there was no violation.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, dinged Booker for repeating his point.

“Can I ask you how long you’re going to say the same thing three or four times?” Grassley asked.

“I’m saying I’m knowingly violating the rules,” Booker replied. “Senator Cornyn has called me out for it.”

“How many times are you going to tell us that?” Grassley replied.

Cornyn, at one point, read the Senate rule that said senators who disclose confidential business could suffer expulsion from the body.

Booker replied, “Bring it.”

A number of Democrats, including Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, threw their support behind Booker’s move.

“I completely agree with you. I concur with what you are doing…So if there is going to be some retribution against the senator from New Jersey, count me in,” Durbin said.

“We support what Sen. Booker is doing here,” Klobuchar said.

Meanwhile, outbursts from protesters continued to interrupt the proceedings, as they have all week.

“Confirmation hearings are supposed to be an opportunity for the American people to hear from the nominee," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said. "Unfortunately, it seems that some on the political left have decided to try to turn this hearing into a circus.”

It came as Kavanaugh entered the final stretch of questioning in his confirmation hearing Thursday with Democrats springing a series of cryptic questions – in an apparent attempt to box the nominee into an embarrassing admission or at least throw him off what has been a relatively steady performance.

Under questioning, Kavanaugh denied that he once suggested the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling on abortion rights is not settled law. Kavanaugh has repeatedly described the abortion ruling as important Supreme Court precedent difficult to overturn.

Kavanaugh was asked about a 2003 email which was disclosed Thursday, where he wrote: "I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so."

Kavanaugh said he was not discussing his views, but rather "what legal scholars might say."

In an especially combative moment late Wednesday, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., asked Kavanaugh whether he ever had discussed Special Counsel Robert Mueller or his Russia probe with anyone at Kasowitz Benson Torres, the law firm founded by Marc Kasowitz, a former personal attorney to President Trump.

“I don’t recall any conversations of that kind with anyone at that law firm… I haven’t had any inappropriate conversations about that investigation with anyone,” Kavanaugh said Thursday, when given the chance to elaborate on Harris' question from a day earlier.

He added, “I’ve never given anyone any hints, forecasts, previews, winks, nothing about my view as a judge or how I would rule as a judge on that or anything related to that.”

For the most part, the hearings have focused on Kavanaugh’s writings and, in particular, key opinions he authored while serving on the nation’s most prestigious appellate court.

The confirmation hearing has been chaotic at times, with Democrats trying to delay the proceedings as they complain they haven’t received enough records from Kavanaugh’s past work.

Kavanaugh served for more than a decade on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and, before that, for five years as a lawyer in the White House Counsel’s office in the George W. Bush administration. He also worked for independent counsel Ken Starr for three years during the probe that led to the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.

Kavanaugh’s elevation from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court would mark a generational rightward shift on the Supreme Court, raising the stakes beyond those of last year’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch.

The judge’s nomination, though, will ultimately succeed or fail depending on a handful of swing-vote senators, including vulnerable red-state Democrats and moderate pro-choice Republicans who have all said that they would withhold judgment on the nominee.

Republicans command a narrow 51-49 Senate majority. Party leaders have said they hope to have Kavanaugh confirmed by a floor vote by early October, when the next Supreme Court term begins.

Fox News’ Gregg Re, Judson Berger, Kaitlyn Schallhorn, Bill Mears, Chad Pergram, Griff Jenkins, Shannon Bream and Jason Donner and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Ted Cruz SNAPS at Kavanaugh hearing (drops Hillary bombshell!)

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz finally snapped during the Democrats endless political theater in the opening round of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate hearing on Tuesday.

Cruz said that liberal lawmaker’s constant interruptions were a clear attempt to “distract and delay” the confirmation of Kavanaugh… and Democrats actions were a “joke” that proved they were more interested in “re-litigating” the 2016 presidential election than actually helping America move forward.

Tuesday, Democratic senators waited only seconds into Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley’s opening statement at the confirmation hearing before interrupting.

Right on cue, scores of liberal protesters jumped up from their seats and began shouting one-by-one until they were arrested and removed from the room. After numerous needless delays, Cruz finally had enough.

Finally taking control of the room, Cruz wasted no time. “The multiple motions we’ve seen from Democrats demanding we ‘delay this confirmation, delay this confirmation’ — that reveals the whole joke! Their objective is delay,” Cruz said.

“So what is this fight about? If it’s not about documents… if it’s not about Judge Kavanaugh’s credentials… if it’s not about his judicial record, then what is this fight about? I believe this fight is nothing more — and nothing less — than an attempt by colleagues to re-litigate the 2016 presidential election,” Cruz continued.

“2016 was a hard-fought election all around. It was the first presidential election in 60 years where Americans went to the polls with a vacant seat on the Supreme Court. One that the next president would fill. Americans knew who had been on that seat: The late Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the greatest jurist ever to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court,” Cruz said.

“And it was the first time since President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s re election campaign that a Supreme Court seat was directly on the ballot. Both candidates knew the importance of the vacant Supreme Court seat, and it was a major issue of contention in the election.”

“Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were both clear about what kind of justices and judges they would appoint,” Cruz told the audience, “During all three presidential debates, both candidates were asked what qualities were most important to them when selecting a Supreme Court justice.”

That’s when he dropped a bombshell about the truth behind Democrats objections.

“Secretary Clinton’s answer was clear,” Cruz explained. “She wanted a justice who would be a liberal progressive willing to rewrite the Constitution. Willing to impose liberal policy agendas that she could not get through the democratic process. That the Congress of the United States would not adopt – but that she hoped five unelected lawyers would force on the American people. That’s what Hillary Clinton promised for her judicial nominees.”

Trump gave a different answer, and promised to elect a constitutional defender, Cruz said.

“The American people made a choice that night. Now, my Democratic colleagues are not happy with the choice of American people made. But, as President Obama said: Elections have consequences,” Cruz said.

“This Democratic Party obstruction is all about trying to reverse that election!” Cruz said.

“We know that every Democratic member of this committee is going to vote ‘no,” Cruz later concluded. “We don’t have to speculate… They publicly announced they are voting ‘no.’ Doesn’t depend on what they read in documents and what Judge Kavanaugh says in this hearing.”

“This is about Democratic senators trying to re-litigate the 2016 election and — just as importantly — work to begin litigating the 2020 presidential election. We had an opportunity for the American people to speak and they did. They voted in 2016 and they wanted judges and justices who will be faithful to the Constitution.”

Amen!

Tucker: We’ve Got a Pretty Good Idea Who the Op-Ed Writer Is. We’re Confirming Now.
BY MALACHI BAILEY

Tucker Carlson started his show Wednesday night by saying he has a good idea who wrote an anonymous hit piece about the Donald Trump White House that was published that afternoon by The New York Times and has been creating a mini-firestorm in the political world.

“It was written anonymously. It’s the work of someone who claims to be an official inside the Trump administration, a member of the underground resistance within the West Wing,” Carlson said of the commentary piece, according to The Hill.

“We think we’ve got a pretty good idea who wrote this piece,” Carlson continued. “We’ve called the White House for comment on it tonight, but until we can confirm the identity, of course, we’re not going to accuse anyone in public. We’ll keep you posted on that.”

The Op-Ed in question was written for The Times by someone claiming to be a member of the Trump administration.

The disclaimer offered by The Times claimed the author was “a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure.”

The content of the article itself is framed in scathing terms, but when it’s read with an element of skepticism, it comes across as griping by a subordinate of the kind that could be familiar in any organization with a high-profile leader.

Carlson summarized the article’s portrayal of Trump as someone who is an “unpredictable and mercurial boss who is light on policy detail and given to say outlandish things.”

We already know these things about Trump. Anybody who watches only a few minutes of media coverage on Trump could have written it.

The fact that it was supposedly written by someone from within Trump’s own administration gives it added weight, of course. But when the writer openly admits to “working diligently from within to frustrate parts of (Trump’s) agenda and his worst inclinations,” readers should beware that they’re reading the words of a clearly disgruntled individual — and someone whose own motivation and agenda can only be guessed.

That is the problem with anonymous sources. They often give too much attention to stories that should not have any attention, and allow criticism of well-known figures by individuals shielded by the anonymity the media grants them.

The use of anonymous sources by the establishment media has backfired before.

An instance of this is when CNN ran a story about Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen knowing the president had prior knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer.

One of the unnamed sources in that story ended up being Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, who later admitted “I did not know the details about that meeting, and I should not have encouraged any reporter,” according to Fox News.

Davis had some advice for the media, “Don’t even float stories on background, which is our expression for anonymously, unless you have a certainty of the facts, and you’re asking reporters to go look to confirm those facts.”

Anti-Trump stories — or any news stories, for that matter — based on anonymous sources should be taken with a grain of salt until the source is revealed. And even then, some skepticism is definitely in order.

College Kicks Nike to the Curb: ‘If Nike is Ashamed of America, We Are Ashamed of Them’A billboard featuring former San Francisco 49ers quaterback Colin Kaepernick is displayed on the roof of the Nike Store on Sept. 5, 2018, in San Francisco, California. (Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

By Steven Beyer

A new ad by Nike featuring former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick has been causing quite a stir around the nation. For one college, however, it was the final straw and the educational institution is now cutting ties with the sports apparel company.

According to Yahoo, the private Christian school The College of the Ozarks announced that they will be ending their affiliation with Nike due to the recent ad campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick.

The new ad features the quarterback with a line that reads, “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.”

Colin Kaepernick ✔@Kaepernick7

Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything. #JustDoIt

3:20 PM - Sep 3, 2018

Jerry Davis, the president of the college, said that the new ads promote a disrespect for the United States.

“In their new ad campaign, we believe Nike executives are promoting an attitude of division and disrespect toward America,” he said.

“If Nike is ashamed of America, we are ashamed of them,” he continued. “We also believe that those who know what sacrifice is all about are more likely to be wearing a military uniform than an athletic uniform.”

The school’s director of admissions and vice president of patriotic activities Marci Linson echoed the president’s sentiments saying, “Nike is free to campaign as it sees fit, as the college is free, and honor-bound by its mission and goals, to ensure that it respects our country and those who truly served and sacrificed.”

This isn’t the first time the college has made a patriotic stand.

Last year, the school required all of its athletes and coaches to stand for the national anthem. They even went so far as to say that they would refuse to participate in the event if a member of the opposing team knelt for the national anthem.

The decision was named the “No pledge, No play” rule..

That decision, however, required the college to make their own sacrifice when the Division II men’s basketball postseason tournament rolled around.

The school had asked the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletes to require players and coaches to stand for the anthem for games conducted on their campus.

The NAIA refused to comply with the request and as a result, the small college stepped down, forfeiting from the tournament.

The school’s president said that they would rather forfeit a game than lose their honor.

At the time, he said, “we’re living in a culture that doesn’t know right from wrong anymore.”

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/2018/09/www_6.html

Baca juga

WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.BLOGOESPOT.COMThursday, Sept. 6, 2018All Gave Some~Some Gave All*****Burt Reynolds RIP THE LIBERTY DAILY