Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY
.BLOGSPOT.COM
Monday, October 22,2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
We have worried some about losing a powerful bat in the Red Sox lineup in games in LA where there will not be a DH. Fret not. JD will start in left and Mookie will play second, his original position.Problem? No problem. The power bats will be there.
Now say a prayer for our gang...This will be a humdinger of a series.
The Conservative Alternative to the Drudge Report
![FAKE NEWS UPDATE! Muslim Jamal Khashoggi — the Nephew of a Billionaire Middle East Arms Dealer — was Not a ‘Journalist’ — He Was a Friend of Osama Bid Laden Which is Why the Treasonous, Anti-American Mainstream Media LOVES Him [‘Enemy of the People’]](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/UKtB9wLahmqsyrCdPui-iBOSnKfxpAjEDzroInAJatmq68Lqfyx0ShrlUNNRwYbOst2JPTEGCX1AHppPyznRW5YCLnwrubHMJnNw-72QAuoQmYu0pU2y8ZZsUxHuAD8Z2At9lJx6)
FAKE NEWS UPDATE! Muslim Jamal Khashoggi — the Nephew of a Billionaire Middle East Arms Dealer — was Not a ‘Journalist’ — He Was a Friend of Osama Bin Laden Which is Why the Treasonous, Anti-American Mainstream Media LOVES Him [‘Enemy of the People’]
President Trump Warns Democrat Voter Fraud Cheaters: ‘Violators Will be Subject to Maximum Penalties, Both Civil and Criminal!’
Complaint Filed Against Christine Blasey Ford’s Lawyers
BY CILLIAN ZEAL
Tom Williams / Pool / Getty Images Christine Blasey Ford, center, is flanked by attorneys Debra Katz, left, and Michael Bromwich during her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.The conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch announced Friday it had filed a complaint against lawyers for Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford, arguing that they hadn’t kept their client properly informed about her options for testifying.
The complaint was filed “to the Board of Professional Responsibility of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Debra S. Katz, Lisa J. Banks, and Michael R. Bromwich for violating the rules of professional responsibility in their representation of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee during the hearings on the nomination of the Honorable Brett Kavanaugh,” the group announced in a news release.
“According to the Judicial Watch complaint, by not informing their client Dr. Ford that Sen. Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee offered in a letter to ‘fly female staff investigators to meet Dr. Ford … in California, or anywhere else, to obtain (her) testimony,’ Katz, Banks, and Bromwich violated” two rules of conduct.
The rules in question state that “(a) lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information” and that “(a) lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.”
The complaint notes that the day after Ford’s identity was revealed, “Ms. Katz went on several television shows asking that the (Senate Judiciary) Committee hold a public hearing so that Dr. Ford could offer her testimony.”
“Sen. Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, honored that request. In a letter sent on September 19, 2018, he informed Ms. Katz and Ms. Banks that the Committee was scheduling a hearing on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination for September 24, 2018, in order to ‘give Dr. Ford an opportunity to tell her story to the Senate and, if she chooses, to the American people,'” the complaint said.
“He informed Ms. Katz and Ms. Banks that the hearing could be public or private, and that Dr. Ford could also choose to have a public or private staff interview with Committee staff, either by phone or in-person.
“‘To that end,’ Chairman Grassley continued, ‘Committee staff has attempted to contact you directly by phone and email several times to schedule a call at a time convenient for you and your client. We thus far have not heard back from you with regard to that request.’
“He reiterated that ‘my staff would still welcome the opportunity to speak with Dr. Ford at a time and place convenient to her.’”
In her testimony, however, Ford said she would have preferred to give her testimony in California.
When questioned about her fear of flying, she told the committee, “I was hoping that they would come to me, but then I realized that was an unrealistic request.”
Later, prosecutor Rachel Mitchell asked Ford, “Was it communicated to you by your counsel or someone else, that the committee had asked to interview you and that — that they offered to come out to California to do so?”
After a bit of kerfuffle over whether or not this represented a privileged conversation between Ford and her lawyers, the accuser seemed to indicate that the offer wasn’t explained in detail to her.
“I just appreciate that you did offer that. I wasn’t clear on what the offer was,” Ford said. “If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and had you — had been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not — it wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.”
This wasn’t a terribly complicated offer; the Senate Judiciary Committee would have interviewed her in California. How difficult was this for a gaggle of people who have done postgraduate work in law to elucidate to their client?
It’s pretty obvious that either Ford or her lawyers are lying about this. At least in this case, I believe Ford. She surrounded herself with Democratic operatives who realized it was to the advantage of the left to have this testimony aired in the open. If they didn’t make this clear to their client, however, they violated their professional obligations — and they need to face the consequences for it.
In the statement, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said this wouldn’t be the end of their Kavanaugh-related inquiries, either.
“We are concerned that ethics rules were violated by Dr. Ford’s attorneys during the Kavanaugh confirmation and took action to get accountability,” Fitton said.
“We already filed a Senate ethics complaint against Sen. Cory Booker over his admitted rule breaking and are considering additional steps to address the misconduct committed by Justice Kavanaugh’s opponents.”
Anti-Trump Republican Group Exposed as Fully Funded by Major Democrat Donor
BY MALACHI BAILEY
Anti-Trump Republican Group Exposed as Fully Funded by Major Democrat Donor
BY MALACHI BAILEY
A “Republican” group that opposes President Donald Trump known as Republican Women for Progress is being completely funded by one male Democrat billionaire.
“We believe that Republican women deserve to speak up, not stand aside. That we need to connect better, smarter. That being engaged in American politics is mission critical,” the group’s website claims.
However, the website also claims the group was formed from an earlier group, Republican Women for Hillary, which in turn was created to support Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Someone should inform these women that Clinton is not a Republican woman.
“On election night we felt a range of emotions: It went from disbelief to sadness to anger to a sense of urgency. It was rough,” the women said.
Considering the “Republican” group’s strikingly un-Republican history, it’s not a surprise to find out who is paying their bills.
The PAC’s October quarterly filing revealed that Republican Women for Progress is funded by Reid Hoffman, billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn and frequent donor to Democrats. Hoffman gave the group a generous $400,000.
Previous filings show Hoffman’s support for hard-line Democrats like Sen. Cory Booker, Sen. Sherrod Brown and Sen. Bob Casey, to name just a few.
Did Hoffman simply turn a new leaf and decide to support Republicans?
Of course not. The Republican Women for Progress is just another generic anti-Trump organization.
The women’s group responded Friday after the Washington Free Beacon published a story about the donor.
“In terms of the Reid Hoffman donation, even a male tech billionaire and major Democratic donor recognizes the important role women should play in the Republican party. We are pleased to have the support of donors across the ideological spectrum to ensure the voice of republican (sic) women is heard across the country,” the women said.
Or perhaps Hoffman realizes that the group is anti-Trump and his contribution could help destabilize the GOP. It’s either the case that they’re aware of his agenda or they are unwittingly being used as tools by a Democrat billionaire.
This “Republican” group is little more than another underhanded Democratic Party front.
Even Donald Trump’s die-hard campaign supporters have to be a little surprised with how his presidency has turned out. Trump brought a much-needed hardliner attitude to the race in terms of fighting terrorism and stopping illegal immigration, but no one was under the impression that we were watching one of the all-time great ideological conservatives make a run for the White House.
Trump, who was a Democrat for most of his adult life, managed to find his way to the “right” point of view on most issues, but we weren’t talking about a guy who read Buckley in his spare time or kept a shrine to Reagan in his bedroom. Trump was a new kind of conservative – one more inclined to populist nationalism than old-style fiscal prudence.
And so what a refreshing surprise it has been to watch Trump solidify himself as one of the top five conservative presidents of all time (and, frankly, making a damn fine play for the top spot). Between the way this administration has slashed regulations, obliterated taxes, and nominated judges to the federal judiciary, you’d be hard-pressed to come up with a president who has done so much for the conservative agenda in such a short amount of time.
And the guy’s still at it!
On Wednesday, Trump said he would work with his Cabinet secretaries to make additional cuts to the federal budget, aiming to take a chunk out of the runaway deficit.
“We’re going to ask every Cabinet secretary to cut 5 percent for next year,” Trump said.
Clearly, a five percent budget cut across the board is only going to be a drop in the bucket when compared to the totality of the federal annual budget, but this shows that Trump is properly concerned about adding to the debt – a concern that has been utterly absent from the last two administrations.
BENGHAZI SURVIVOR HAS CHOICE WORDS FOR THOSE WHO CRITICIZE TRUMP OVER KHASHOGGI
WORLD
Virginia Kruta | Associate Editor
ARLINGTON, TX – JANUARY 12: (L-R) Mark “Oz” Geist, Kris “Tanto” Paronto, and John “Tig” Tiegen attend the Dallas Premiere of the Paramount Pictures film “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” at the AT&T Dallas Cowboys Stadium on January 12, 2016 in Arlington, Texas. (Photo by Jason Kempin/Getty Images for Paramount Pictures)
Benghazi survivor Kris “Tanto” Paronto had a few choice words for those who have been critical of President Donald Trump’s response to the death of Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi at Turkey’s Saudi Arabian Embassy.
Addressing his tweet to the “leftist journalists & liberalists” who are angry about the Trump administration’s handling of the situation, Paronto asked, “Where in the hell were you when @BarackObama left 30+ AMERICANS to die in Benghazi Libya including an Ambassador?”
Kris Paronto@KrisParontoLeftist journalists & liberalists screaming that the President isn’t doing enough to the Saudi’s because one of their own was killed.Where in the hell were you when @BarackObama left 30+ AMERICANS to die in Benghazi Libya including an Ambassador?!!You all are a disgrace .
1:50 AM - Oct 20, 2018
Saudi state media reported on Friday that Khashoggi had, in fact, been killed inside the embassy. So far, eighteen arrests have been made — and some of those arrested have close ties to the Saudi crown prince.
Turkish officials claim to have a recording of Khashoggi’s death, which they have said was essentially a hit, ordered by the crown prince himself and carried out by professionals.
Despite an early report that U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had been granted access to the recording, the top diplomat has refuted that claim in a statement.
The investigation, currently being carried out by Saudi and Turkish officials, is still ongoing.
U.N. Declares Climate Crisis, Ignores Mass Migration as Cause
Moving millions of people from underdeveloped nations to more advanced countries means higher energy demand, more C02
By Brian LonerganEma
il
United Nations officials made front-page news recently, issuing a report claiming the purported consequences of climate change in the coming years will be more dire than previously estimated.
The report chiefly blamed increased greenhouse gas emissions for a rise in global temperatures and warned that transforming the world economy on an unprecedented scale will be required to avoid catastrophe.
Compiled by over 90 authors from 40 countries, the report also details the effects of climate change on migrants. Nowhere to be found in the report, however, is the problem whose name apparently must not be spoken: the destructive impact of mass migration on the environment.
For reasons presumably tied to conflicting political agendas, few governmental organizations are willing to admit that mass migration is harmful to the environment. The research we have on this topic is damning.
Quite simply, immigration-generated population growth is fueling an increase in energy demand and the waste product that accompanies it. Immigrants to the United States alone produce about four times more CO2 in the United States as they would have in their countries of origin.
U.S. immigrants produce an estimated 637 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually — equal to Great Britain and Sweden combined. Strangely, governments that stress the urgency of addressing climate change are also some of the biggest opponents of border enforcement and immigration limits.
One of the most popular talking points of climate change advocates is that the United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, yet consumes about a quarter of the world’s fossil fuel resources.
If that is true, then why do some of the same people support immigration policies that significantly increase American fuel consumption as well as its carbon footprint? The two positions are wildly inconsistent.
The U.N. is among the worst practitioners of this hypocrisy. While issuing apocalyptic warnings about climate change, the U.N. simultaneously encourages countries to accept even more migrants.
This recently caused Poland’s interior minister to recommend that his country quit the U.N.’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration because it may encourage more illegal alien arrivals and is not in the interests of the host country. Hungary has announced it will not sign up for the pact, and the United States pulled out last year.
The environmental damage from mass migration extends beyond just increased CO2 output. The land around our southern border is riddled with trash, and it is directly proportional to the numbers of those who make the perilous journey to enter our country illegally.
How much trash? According to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, when Arizona was experiencing over 120,000 border apprehensions, over 65,000 pounds of border trash was being collected annually.
That’s more than 32 tons of garbage — plastic water bottles, abandoned vehicles, human waste, medical products, and much more — on the ground. In the following years, as apprehensions fell as low as 70,000, border trash collections dropped as well – reaching a low of just 19,000 pounds in fiscal year 2015 before jumping back up in 2016.
“For committed environmentalists, this should be a five-alarm crisis demanding immediate action. Curiously, it is not. With this kind of pollution caused by mass migration, surely our federal government is on the case. That assumption would be wrong.”
Keep in mind that this is only one of four southern border states, and not even the largest. The impact of this scale of pollution includes watershed degradation, soil erosion, damage to infrastructure, loss of vegetation and wildlife, and escaped campfires.
For committed environmentalists, this should be a five-alarm crisis demanding immediate action. Curiously, it is not. With this kind of pollution caused by mass migration, surely our federal government is on the case. That assumption would be wrong.
The Immigration Reform Law Institute has argued that federal immigration-regulating agencies — in particular, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security — have ignored the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), our nation’s preeminent environmental law, for decades.
Since it became law nearly a half century ago, NEPA has required any agency, before implementing actions or programs that will affect the environment, to issue an environmental impact statement analyzing and publicizing those effects.
The federal government’s immigration programs are probably the most environmentally consequential programs there are, yet no such analysis has ever been done.
Regardless where one stands on the controversial issue of climate change, those who advance it as a high-priority issue have an obligation to be transparent about all of its contributing factors.
If mass migration is indeed harmful to the environment, then anti-border policies must be re-evaluated in the name of environmental responsibility. To deny the impact of mass migration on the environment for the sake of political correctness helps no one.
Brian Lonergan is director of communications at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a public interest law firm working to defend the rights and interests of the American people from the negative effects of mass migration.
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/2018/10/www_21.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment