Title :
link :
Florida Granddaughters are Grand WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY
.BLOGSPOT.COM
Tuesday, November 27,2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
Twitter Banned Me For Literally No Reason, But In The End They’ll Lose
By Jesse Kelly
“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”—Every third grader
I try my best not to complain about the curveballs of life that come my way, but I wish people understood the tremendous burden that comes with being a clairvoyant genius who sees the future. You see, Twitter banned my account yesterday. They did not suspend it. They banned it.
I had almost 80,000 followers and those poor people are now left aimlessly wandering the social media landscape in search of a greatness they’ll never find again. Now, I don’t really care because I’m just going to start a new account and it will be even better than my last one (if that’s possible). This isn’t about me. This is about what kind of country we have become and what kind of country we want to be.
We have become a nation of sensitive losers who care about words. We care about how things “make us feel.” The exception these days is the man who just wants to put his talent and his thoughts in the marketplace of ideas and see if people will buy it.
That man is rare today, but it was not always so. The American man used to be one who threw his family in a covered wagon and headed West into the wilderness. The American man used to be one who found out the Japanese had attacked men he didn’t know in a state he’d never visited so he ran down to the recruiting office to enlist in the Marines. That American man still exists, but he’s an endangered species.
The American spirit of free speech has been replaced by people who want uncomfortable speech censored. Nowhere is this more apparent than the social media world.
As I have said before, social media is not a small thing. It is no longer three nerds with pocket protectors huddled in their dorm rooms dreaming about a day when a woman acknowledges their existence. Social media has surpassed the telephone. It is the means of networking and communicating with others: 2.5 billion people use Facebook and Twitter.
That is not a fringe thing that is going away. It has now become the way humans interact with each other. It is completely run by Silicon Valley leftists who know the power they hold. And they are using that power.
But power is a funny thing. Power, no matter how ominous it may seem at the time, is always finite. It doesn’t last forever. If there is one thing history has taught us, it’s that silencing voices will always be a temporary solution.
Censorship is a horrible thing, but it has one fatal flaw: It doesn’t work. Voices break out. They cannot be contained. Twitter banning me from their platform only hurts them in the long run. They’ll continue to marginalize themselves, and I will continue to grow.
I enjoy talking politics, and I enjoy entertaining people. I don’t need Twitter to do it. I’ve a got a successful radio show. I’m blessed to have a network of friends who share and promote each other’s ideas.
But the bigger questions are: Where does it end? How do we accommodate dissent? Is silencing the voices we don’t like likely to lead to a better society? What happens to the voices that are silenced? Are we doing ourselves a favor by forcing conformity to doctrines that are antithetical to the core values of many Americans?
We’ll figure out the answers to these questions. We’ll solve these problems. We’ll learn to disagree agreeably, and to give voice to those with whom we vehemently disagree. Twitter won’t. But America is better than Twitter. Always has been.
Jesse Kelly is a Senior Contributor at The Federalist and the host of "The Jesse Kelly Show" on KPRC 950 in Houston. Jesse is a Marine Corps combat veteran and former congressional candidate in Arizona. He resides in the Houston area with his wife and two sons.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Likens Migrant Caravan to Jews Fleeing Holocaust---Dumb and Cunning
AP Photo/Patrick Semansky
Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) posted a tweet on Sunday evening comparing the migrant caravan members attempting to illegally cross the U.S. border to Jewish families fleeing persecution during the Holocaust.
The 29-year-old self-described Democratic Socialist referred to the hundreds of migrants attempting to rush the border at the San Ysidro port of entry in San Diego, California, on Sunday, saying the migrants are no different from the Jews who fled persecution in Nazi Germany:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
✔@Ocasio2018
Asking to be considered a refugee & applying for status isn’t a crime.
It wasn’t for Jewish families fleeing Germany.
It wasn’t for targeted families fleeing Rwanda.
It wasn’t for communities fleeing war-torn Syria.
And it isn’t for those fleeing violence in Central America.
NBC News ✔@NBCNews
A migrant family, part of a caravan of thousands traveling from Central America en route to the United States, runs away from tear gas in front of the U.S.-Mexico border wall in Tijuana, Mexico.
(
: Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters)
“Asking to be considered a refugee & applying for status isn’t a crime,” she wrote.
“It wasn’t for Jewish families fleeing Germany. It wasn’t for targeted families fleeing Rwanda. It wasn’t for communities fleeing war-torn Syria. And it isn’t for those fleeing violence in Central America,” she added.
But Ocasio-Cortez failed to note the violence caravan members have carried out while trying to storm the port of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, which connects San Diego with Tijuana, Mexico.
Some members of the caravan reportedly threw rocks at U.S. Border Patrol officials as they tried to rush the border, causing authorities to release tear gas to prevent further violence:
WendyFry ✔@WendyFry_
Here’s moment right before shot bang. You can see some rocks being thrown.
Ocasio-Cortez has made other outlandish statements on immigration since she won her congressional election in New York’s 14th Congressional District.
In her victory speech several weeks ago, she accused the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency of “human rights violations” for enforcing immigration laws.
SCIENCE SHOCKER: ADAM AND EVE FOR REAL
All mankind descended from 1 couple
In a major shock to evolutionary science, a sweeping survey of the genetic code shows the human race sprang from a single adult couple.
The research was led by the Rockefeller University and the University of Basel, Switzerland, and stunned all involved.
“This conclusion is very surprising,” said David Thaler, research associate from the University of Basel. “And I fought against it as hard as I could.”
While still holding to an old Earth with these modern humans dating back between 100,000 to 200,000 years, it’s a time far more recent than other claims in the evolutionary theory.
In addition, this Adam and Eve, the researchers say, arose after a catastrophic event than nearly wiped out the human race. The Bible’s a story of a couple created by God as a adults.
Another surprise for the scientists, however, was that nine of every 10 animal species also come from a single pair of beings.
Senior research associate Mark Stoeckle and Thaler, the two scientists who headed the study, concluded 90 percent of all animal species alive today come from parents that all began giving birth at roughly the same time, less than 250 thousand years ago — throwing into doubt the patterns of human evolution.
“At a time when humans place so much emphasis on individual and group differences, maybe we should spend more time on the ways in which we resemble one another and the rest of the animal kingdom,” said Stoeckle.
The study also suggests people and animals are very similar genetically to each other.
“If a Martian landed on Earth and met a flock of pigeons and a crowd of humans, one would not seem more diverse than the other according to the basic measure of mitochondrial DNA,” said Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at the Rockefeller University.
Stoeckle agrees, adding: “Culture, life experience and other things can make people very different but in terms of basic biology, we’re like the birds.”
Ruling in Genital Mutilation Case Shocks Women’s Rights Advocates
Women’s rights advocates said they were shocked when a federal judge in Michigan ruled this week that a law protecting girls from genital mutilation was unconstitutional. They called his decision a serious blow to girls’ rights. Legal experts said the judge made clear that U.S. states have authority to ban the practice, though only about half do.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali ✔@AyaanOutrageous. Federal judge throws out US law criminalizing FGM. Cutting girls genitals is a crime and must be prosecuted. https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2018/11/20/female-genital-mutilation-michigan/1991712002/ …
Judge dismisses female genital mutilation charges in historic case
The nation's first genital mutilation case is all but dead now that a federal judge has declared the 22-year-old FGM law unconstitutional.
#BREAKING A federal judge has dismissed several charges against Dr. Jumana Nagarwala in the historic female genital mutilation case. https://www.wxyz.com/news/judge-dismisses-several-charges-in-female-genital-mutilation-case …
Nagarwala has denied any crime was committed and said she performed a religious custom on girls from her Muslim sect, the India-based Dawoodi Bohra.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman threw out mutilation and conspiracy charges against all the defendants. He ruled that a 1996 federal law that bans female genital mutilation was unconstitutional because Congress didn’t have the power to regulate the behavior in the first place.
Heidi Kitrosser, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, explained that Congress doesn’t have unlimited authority to legislate and can only make laws that fall within powers explicitly outlined in the Constitution.
In this case, Friedman found that Congress lacked authority to regulate the practice under the Commerce Clause because the procedure is not a commercial activity. He also said Congress’ treaty powers don’t give it authority because there was no rational relationship between treaty obligations that call for equal rights and a law banning genital mutilation.
But the judge clearly stated that the power to regulate female genital mutilation lies with state governments, which have primary authority in defining and enforcing criminal law.
“The court really could not have been clearer in suggesting this is something that states can do,” Kitrosser said.
The AHA Foundation works to protect women from genital mutilation, honor violence and forced marriages. The group said the ruling was outrageous and set a precedent that cutting girls’ genitals was not a concern at the national level.
While 27 states have laws against female genital mutilation, including Minnesota and Illinois, the 23 states that don’t could become destinations for the procedure, said Amanda Parker, the foundation’s senior director. Michigan lawmakers banned the procedure after Nagarwala’s arrest.
“This is exactly how we got here. The defendants in this case had the victims shipped from Minnesota to Michigan, and the only way of holding them accountable for FGM was the federal statute,” Parker said in a statement. She said the court ruling “sends the message that the authorities are not serious about protecting girls, especially those in immigrant communities, from this form of abuse.”
Friedman said in his ruling that states without laws specifically banning female genital mutilation can still prosecute the practice under laws that criminalize sexual battery and abuse.
“No state offers refuge to those who harm children,” he wrote.
But those abuse laws often don’t take the specific issues surrounding female genital mutilation into account, said George Zarubin, AHA’s executive director.
“This is such an underground, secretive, barbaric practice,” Zarubin said. “I think the judge made a major mistake.”
Genital mutilation, also known as female circumcision or cutting, has been condemned by the United Nations. The World Health Organization says there is no health benefit to the procedure, and it can cause numerous health problems. The practice is common in parts of Asia, Africa and the Middle East and is generally performed as a way of controlling a girl’s sexuality.
It’s difficult to gauge how often genital cutting occurs in the U.S . because the practice is largely underground. A 2012 study from the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention estimated that more than 513,000 girls in the U.S. had been subjected to or were at risk of undergoing genital cutting.
Federal prosecutors have the option of appealing Friedman’s ruling, but it’s unclear if they will. The U.S. Attorney’s Office has not returned messages from The Associated Press his week seeking comment.
Molly Blythe, an attorney for Nagarwala, said Friedman’s decision was warranted under the law and it is “exactly what our justice system is designed to do.
Although the bulk of the case is now dismissed, Nagarwala and three others still face federal obstruction charges, and Nagarwala faces an additional count of conspiracy to travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct.
Blythe said Nagarwala will continue to fight the remaining charges.
If Friedman’s decision stands, the AHA Foundation will work with Congress to try to pass a new federal law to ban the procedure nationwide, said Zarubin. The foundation will also continue work to ban the practice in all 50 states.
“I think a lot of us in the community that are working to try to ban female genital mutilation in this country are beside ourselves” with this decision, he said.
Justice Roberts Says No Such Thing as ‘Obama Judge,’ But This One Raised $200k for Barack
Evan El-Amin / Shutterstock --- Then-President Barack Obama enjoys a chuckle on stage at a rally for Hillary Clinton in July 2016 in Charlotte, Noth Carolina. Obama might have been laughing again when he heard the statement from Chief Justice John Roberts that there are no "Obama" judges in the federal judiciary. (Evan El-Amin / Shutterstock)Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer has already inadvertently backed President Donald Trump’s point about bias in the judiciary. But now, someone else is potentially helping to prove it and disprove Supreme Court Chief Justice John Robert’s claim to the contrary.
And that person is a federal judge himself. One appointed by former President Barack Obama.
After Trump complained about the typically biased 9th Circuit Court of Appeals following an Obama-appointed judge issuing an injunction against Trump’s restrictions on asylum claims, Roberts spoke up. He claimed there was no bias in the judiciary, reported NPR.
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.
“That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”
While Trump and others railed against Roberts’ claim, word was surfacing about another 9th Circuit judge’s past donations and who was responsible for his appointment.
The very judge who ruled just last month that the Trump administration could not withhold federal funds from so-called “sanctuary cities” is an “Obama judge,” according to Fox News Insider.
And he’s quite possibly an “Obama judge” in more than one sense of the term.
Not only was Judge William Orrick III appointed by former President Barack Obama in 2012, but he is cited as helping to raise money for Obama during his first presidential campaign. But, no bias there, right?
The Watchdog group Public Citizen noted in its website archive that Orrick had raised at least $200,000 for Obama in 2008. In addition, he gave $30,800 to “to committees supporting Barack Obama” in 2008.
In 2004, Public Citizen noted that he raised at least $100,000 for John Kerry.
His listed fundraising and donations record shows a leftist slant. His rulings, some would argue, do the same.
The fact is, that as human beings, everyone has some bias here and there. It can be a massive undertaking for those in a profession that requires objectivity to keep themselves from allowing their own feelings to get involved.
But some professions, such as the judiciary, require it. And to be fair in rulings, it is a must.
Orrick’s listed personal donations do not prove on their own that he is biased, but they do point to a pattern that raises questions, particularly given his rulings — Orrick is also noted for being the judge who issued the restraining order in 2015 blocking the release of “undercover videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood employees plotting to sell baby organs,” according to Fox News Insider.
And all of this leads right back to Roberts’ claim that there is no such thing as an “Obama judge,” et al.
While the chief justice’s apparent intent in defending the judiciary was an understandable one, his claim simply defies logic and Americans’ decades of experience with the judiciary. And that is reason enough why he should have perhaps chosen his words with a little more care.
Of course, even though he was appointed by President George W. Bush, there are those who claim Roberts is biased toward the left, too.
One reason was his twisted logic in the 2012 ruling that upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare on taxation grounds that not even its supporters had argued. (Roberts invented a new definition of taxation “out of whole cloth,” as Avik Roy put it at Forbes)
Another reason is his siding with the Environmental Protection Agency in a key 2016 casethat outraged many conservatives — and seemed to go against a Supreme Court ruling that had been issued less than a year before.
In short, Roberts has done a good deal on the bench to lose conservative trust.
Picking a fight with Trump on the ludicrous grounds that no sitting judge in the federal judiciary is unbiased — and doing it over a ruling by the notoriously biased 9th District Court — is not the wisest move for Roberts.
And when it turns out that the judge in question just happens to have been a huge donor to the Obama campaign back in 2008, Roberts’ fight is lost before it even gets started.
Everything is bigger in Texas. A malfunctioning ATM in there dispensed $100 bills instead of $10 bills.
HOUSTON (WSVN) — A malfunctioning ATM in Texas drew a crowd overnight after it started dispensing $100 bills instead of $10s.
Fox 26 reports that an ATM at a Bank of America branch in Houston started malfunctioning around midnight on Sunday.
Customers who attempted to withdraw money in denominations of $10 instead received $100 bills. Word quickly spread on social media, causing people to line up outside of the bank.
A police officer spotted one of the social media posts after about two hours.
Authorities then guarded the machine to prevent anyone else from making withdrawals until the ATM was fixed.
“This was an incident at a single ATM in Houston caused when a vendor incorrectly loaded $100 bills in place of $10 bills,” the bank said in a statement. “We have resolved the matter. Customers will be able to keep the additional money dispensed.”
(I wonder if the same thing will happen at our Bank of America...Helen and Moe)
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/2018/11/florida-granddaughters-are-grand-www.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment