Title :
link :
Going nuts in the backyard…(Photo Helene Lauzier)
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.BLOGSPOT.COM
Fri.Jan. 11, 2019
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
I could learn to love James Carville
Dems Shouldn’t Have Done Response – Trump ‘Didn’t Want to Be There’
https://mail.yahoo.com/d/folders/1/messages/197331
A Never Trump RINO got this rude awakening that let him know his career was over
Never Trump RINOs still populate Congress.
But their leader just found out he made a career-killing mistake.
That’s because one Trump ally delivered a rude awakening that left this Never Trump RINO seeing stars.
Mitt Romney received thunderous applause from the fake news media and fellow Never Trump RINOs for his January 1 op-ed slamming Donald Trump because of his supposed poor character.
But Romney’s message fell flat with the broader Republican Party.
Senator Rand Paul ripped Romney as a stale big government Republican.
Georgia’s David Perdue cautioned that Romney could turn into Jeff Flake on steroids.
And Indiana freshmen Senator Mike Braun swooped in for the kill shot.
Braun told Breitbart that Mitt Romney represented the failed, career politicians who sold out the American people that motivated to him to run as a pro-Trump candidate for Senate in the first place.
Psychologists Declare Traditional Masculinity ‘Harmful’
Breitbart reports:
The Trump presidency made a deep descent in December,” Romney wrote in the Post last week. Romney suggested that “on balance, his conduct over the past two years, particularly his actions this month, is evidence that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office.”
Sen. Braun, who has championed the president’s America First agenda and defeated Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) by nearly six points in 2018 midterms, said that he ran for office because he was tired of the Mitt Romney “old way of governing.”
Braun represents the people of Indiana as a fellow freshman senator alongside Romney.
“One of the reasons I ran is because it’s no longer business as usual and to me, Mitt Romney would epitomize business as usual and the old way of governing,” Braun charged. “Many people were shaken by the fact that there is a novel approach and a new style. Thank goodness, because what we had is dismal.”
Some in the media – as well as in the Republican Party – thought the Romney op-ed spelled doom for Trump.
Instead, Romney’s attack showed the rank-and-file of the GOP still stands with the President.
The Trump presidency made a deep descent in December,” Romney wrote in the Post last week. Romney suggested that “on balance, his conduct over the past two years, particularly his actions this month, is evidence that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office.”
Sen. Braun, who has championed the president’s America First agenda and defeated Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) by nearly six points in 2018 midterms, said that he ran for office because he was tired of the Mitt Romney “old way of governing.”
Braun represents the people of Indiana as a fellow freshman senator alongside Romney.
“One of the reasons I ran is because it’s no longer business as usual and to me, Mitt Romney would epitomize business as usual and the old way of governing,” Braun charged. “Many people were shaken by the fact that there is a novel approach and a new style. Thank goodness, because what we had is dismal.”
Some in the media – as well as in the Republican Party – thought the Romney op-ed spelled doom for Trump.
Instead, Romney’s attack showed the rank-and-file of the GOP still stands with the President.
Poor Mitt, seems like he’s a social justice jackass in drag.
Nancy Pelosi Was Just Betrayed By The Last Person She Ever Suspected...Poor baby...
Democrats have been fighting against Trump’s border wall for months.And with Speaker Pelosi now running the House of Representatives, Democrats are vowing to block any border security bill from passing Congress.
But Nancy Pelosi was just betrayed on the border wall by the last person she ever suspected.
When Democrats took over the House of Representatives, that signaled an end to any further conservative legislation passing Congress.
The conventional wisdom was that with Nancy Pelosi in charge of the House, any more signature policy pieces were dead on arrival and that President Trump would simply have to be content with appointing more judicial nominees and getting the Republican-held Senate to confirm them.
But that line of thought may be wrong.
According to one top Democrat in the House of Representatives, President Trump can still get his border wall even without Congress signing off on it.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-WA) admitted on ABC this past weekend that President Trump has the executive authority to declare a national emergency and direct the Department of Defense to construct the wall without Congressional approval.
Breitbart reports, “Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” House Armed Service Committee chairman Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) said President Donald Trump does have the authority to declare a national emergency and have the military build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.”
When asked by ABC host George Stephanopoulos whether the President had “the authority to declare a national emergency and have the military build his wall?”, Congressman Smith stunned Stephanopoulos with this response.
“Well, unfortunately, the short answer is yes. There is a provision in the law that says the president can declare an emergency.”
Smith qualified his answer by saying the President could be challenged in court over the merits and definition of what constituted a “national emergency”, but Smith admitted that Congress can do little to stop the President from using his authority to direct the Department of Defense to secure the border.
The comments come after weeks of Democratic stonewalling and obstructionism against a border wall, with Nancy Pelosi going so far as to describe it as an “immorality” to the press last week.
Smith’s answer opens up a wide variety of questions. How far would Democrats go to challenge the President if he declared a state of emergency?
It’s unclear what it means if they would have to challenge the President, though at the same time the President has rarely used the power for domestic affairs.
If President Trump attempted to build a wall along the southern border with Mexico using his executive authority, the inevitable legal challenges could end up all the way to the Supreme Court.
President Trump has hinted he may follow through with the power Smith referred to on ABC this past week, but has yet to officially state his intentions to bypass Congress and build the wall using the military.
We will keep you up to date with any new developments in this ongoing story.
Dick Morris: What the Pundits Missed About Trump’s National Address
By Dick Morris
President Donald Trump delivers national address from the Oval Office. (Carlos Barria / Getty Images)The pundits who are dismissing President Donald Trump’s national address on Tuesday night are missing two key points:
1. By embedding his discussion of the wall into a broader program of border security, he broadened his base of support.
Polls show that about 40 percent of voters approve of the wall. But 60 percent want more border security. By contesting the wall within a variety of improvements in border security that will flow from his appropriation request, he expands those who back his program.
2. By stressing the human aspects of stopping the flow of criminal aliens and drugs over our border, Trump broadened his appeal to female voters.
In a sharp departure — both in style and in substance — from his previous remarks on the subject, he showed the human face of the issue. By telling the stories of innocent victims of crimes by people who are here illegally, he showed how to direct our compassion at those who need it.
This president, who has structured his image around confrontational, red meat, speeches at rallies to adoring and noisy supporters, the dignity of the Oval Office was a needed antidote.
Now….we wait. The unions whose workers are not getting paid — the leftist Treasury workers union that has infected the IRS among them — will pressure the Democrats to relent. Trump can and should withstand the pressure. Schumer and Pelosi cannot.
Sign the petition telling President Trump to demand the wall — Click here!
New York Times issues correction to bombshell report on Manafort, Oleg Deripaska
Written by Foxnews
New York Times issues correction to bombshell report on Manafort, Oleg Deripaska
Written by Foxnews
The New York Times was forced Wednesday to correct a bombshell report that accused Paul Manafort of attempting to pass internal Trump campaign data to a Russia oligarch with close ties to Vladimir Putin during the 2016 presidential race.
The story, which carried the bylines of reporters Sharon LaFraniere, Kenneth P. Vogel and Maggie Haberman, was based on an accidental disclosure made in a filing by Manafort's defense team. The filing, redacted portions of which were viewable for a brief time due to a formatting error, revealed that Special Counsel Robert Mueller claimed Manafort had "lied about sharing polling data ... related to the 2016 presidential campaign" with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian-Ukrainian businessman who the U.S. claims to have links to Russian intelligence and was charged last year with tampering with potential witnesses.
The Times' initial story went one step further. Citing "a person knowledgeable about the situation," the paper reported that Manafort had asked his deputy, Rick Gates, to "tell Mr. Kilimnik to pass the data to Oleg P. Deripaska." Deripaska is a former client of Manafort who signed a contract in 2006 agreeing to pay the political operative $10 million per year, and the two maintained a business relationship until at least 2009. If true, the report would have shed light on the clearest example of a relationship between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.
The story appeared on the front page of Wednesday morning's print edition. However, the paper was forced to publish a correction by early Wednesday afternoon.
"A previous version of this article misidentified the people to whom Paul Manafort wanted a Russian associate to send polling data," a note at the bottom of the story read. "Mr. Manafort wanted the data sent to two Ukrainian oligarchs, Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov, not Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to the Kremlin."
Why asked how the original, incorrect version of the story made it to print, a New York Times spokesperson said, "We published a thorough correction and have no comment beyond it."
Manafort pleaded guilty last year to conspiracy charges in Washington and faces sentencing in a separate case in Virginia, though none of the charges are directly concerned with the alleged collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.
Tuesday's filing was supposed to refute the claims by the special counsel that Manafort lied to Mueller’s team despite agreeing to cooperate. Prosecutors say Manafort violated their plea agreement by lying, but his defense insists it wasn’t intentional and that his mistakes were due to illness, exhaustion and extensive questioning from investigators.
Manafort’s lawyers say he’s suffering from anxiety and depression, lacks contact with his family, and had little time to prepare for hourslong questioning by the investigators.New York Times issues correction to bombshell report on Manafort, Oleg Deripaska Featured
Written by Foxnews
The New York Times was forced Wednesday to correct a bombshell report that accused Paul Manafort of attempting to pass internal Trump campaign data to a Russian oligarch with close ties to Vladimir Putin during the 2016 presidential race.
The story, which carried the bylines of reporters Sharon LaFraniere, Kenneth P. Vogel and Maggie Haberman, was based on an accidental disclosure made in a filing by Manafort's defense team. The filing, redacted portions of which were viewable for a brief time due to a formatting error, revealed that Special Counsel Robert Mueller claimed Manafort had "lied about sharing polling data ... related to the 2016 presidential campaign" with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian-Ukrainian businessman who the U.S. claims to have links to Russian intelligence and was charged last year with tampering with potential witnesses.
The Times' initial story went one step further. Citing "a person knowledgeable about the situation," the paper reported that Manafort had asked his deputy, Rick Gates, to "tell Mr. Kilimnik to pass the data to Oleg P. Deripaska." Deripaska is a former client of Manafort who signed a contract in 2006 agreeing to pay the political operative $10 million per year, and the two maintained a business relationship until at least 2009. If true, the report would have shed light on the clearest example of a relationship between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.
The story appeared on the front page of Wednesday morning's print edition. However, the paper was forced to publish a correction by early Wednesday afternoon.
"A previous version of this article misidentified the people to whom Paul Manafort wanted a Russian associate to send polling data," a note at the bottom of the story read. "Mr. Manafort wanted the data sent to two Ukrainian oligarchs, Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov, not Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to the Kremlin."
Why asked how the original, incorrect version of the story made it to print, a New York Times spokesperson said, "We published a thorough correction and have no comment beyond it."
Manafort pleaded guilty last year to conspiracy charges in Washington and faces sentencing in a separate case in Virginia, though none of the charges are directly concerned with the alleged collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.
Tuesday's filing was supposed to refute the claims by the special counsel that Manafort lied to Mueller’s team despite agreeing to cooperate. Prosecutors say Manafort violated their plea agreement by lying, but his defense insists it wasn’t intentional and that his mistakes were due to illness, exhaustion and extensive questioning from investigators.
Manafort’s lawyers say he’s suffering from anxiety and depression, lacks contact with his family, and had little time to prepare for hours long questioning by the investigators.
Democrats Approved $500 Million for Border Wall… In Middle East
Democrats Approved $500 Million for Border Wall… In Middle East
Dems Approved $500 Mil for Border Wall... in Foreign Country As the government shutdown continues with the battle over border wall funding not yet resolved, the left’s hypocrisy on the issue continues to be revealed.
We have yet another example of how Democratic objections to funding the wall look more like a temper tantrum than an actual, legitimate concern.
President Barack Obama helped the Middle Eastern country of Jordan with its construction of a border barrier to the tune of half a billion dollars in 2016.
Wait. A country wanted to help stop refugees from entering and Democrats were not only OK with that, but helped pay for it? It gets even better.
When the project began in 2008, the price tag was only $20 million. Since then it had grown, as had the cost and amount of funding provided by the United States. So, the United States has funding for a border barrier for a foreign country. But the United States building a barrier and improving upon what is already there is “immoral.” It is “ineffective.”
At least, those are claims being made by Democrats. Every member of Congress has a constitutional duty to “provide for the common defense” of the United States. The funding of such falls under their purview. So, how does funding a foreign country’s border barrier but not our own get passed off as the moral high ground?
As the government shutdown continues with the battle over border wall funding not yet resolved, the left’s hypocrisy on the issue continues to be revealed.
One example of this, of course, is that the Democrats have previously approved higher amounts of spending on a barrier of some form along the southern U.S. border.
Now, we have yet another example of how Democratic objections to funding the wall look more like a temper tantrum than an actual, legitimate concern.
In February 2016, Vice News reported that then-President Barack Obama helped the Middle Eastern country of Jordan with its construction of a border barrier to the tune of half a billion dollars.
Jordan wanted the wall to “stem the flow of refugees and also wall off the increasingly important (military) American base from the disintegration of Syria and Iraq,” the website reported.
Wait. A country wanted to help stop refugees from entering and Democrats were not only OK with that, but helped pay for it?
It gets even better. When the project began in 2008, the price tag was only $20 million.
That plan, at that time, was to “to erect a set of surveillance towers along a 30-mile (50 km) stretch of the border with Syria,” Vice News reported.
Since then it had grown, as had the cost and amount of funding provided by the United States.
Vice News wrote in 2016 that “since 2013 (the project) has refocused on detecting Islamic State fighters and arms smuggling, as well as refugees, on both sides of the border. When completed later this decade, the border wall will have a camera-studded high-security fence, plus a network of ground sensors and a set of fixed and mobile surveillance towers that will be able to see and detect activity five miles away on either side of the fence.”
So, the United States has funding for a border barrier for a foreign country. The United States has given additional funding to improve the border barrier and security system for a foreign country.
But the United States building a barrier and improving upon what is already there is “immoral.” It is “ineffective.” At least, those are claims being made by Democrats.
Nancy Pelosi ✔@TeamPelosiWe repeat: nothing for the ineffective, immoral and costly 'border wall'. #TrumpShutdown
They are wrong and have been proven as such. Even the Border Patrol union has stated that walls are proving effective, where in place, along the United States southern border.
ForAmerica ✔@ForAmericaSchumer and Pelosi: Walls don't work. Border Patrol Agent: "I've been a border patrol agent for 21 years. I can personally tell you from the work that I have done on the southwest border that physical barriers, that walls actually work." #BuildTheWall #SecureOurBorder
But wait, there’s more!
The March 2018 omnibus spending bill spells out spending authorization for up to $500 million to Jordan for its border barrier and security on page 394. That same bill only allowed for 33 miles of fencing along the Texas border with Mexico.
Both now-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer, both Democrats, voted “yea” on it. They both have been outspoken critics of funding for our southern border wall, as proposed by President Donald Trump.
Every member of Congress has a constitutional duty to “provide for the common defense” of the United States. The funding of such falls under their purview.
In addition, they are elected by and paid by the American public, whom they are to serve.
So, how does funding a foreign country’s border barrier but not our own get passed off as the moral high ground?
Democrats in Congress are not doing their job. And they are putting the security of foreign nationals and foreign nations — as well as partisan politics — ahead of the security of and United States and her people.
Is Hillary Anti-Semitic?
By Dick Morris
Is Hillary Anti-Semitic?
By Dick Morris
Hillary Clinton (Drew Angerer / Getty Images)In 1984, I met with Bill and Hillary in the breakfast room at the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion where they usually hung out in the mornings. As Bill’s race for a third term loomed ahead, I told them that I wanted an increase in my fee — news that was anathema to the penny-pinching Clintons.
I had worked for Clinton to help him get elected Governor in 1977-78. But, after he won, he fired me and hired another consultant. He lost re-election in 1980 and hired me to get him back in as soon as the votes were counted.
I helped him get back in as governor but they didn’t want to pay me more. So I threatened to quit, politely. “Well, of course, if you would rather hire someone else…”
That set them off. Bill got red in the face and accused me of “Mau Mauing” him (Mau Mau was a terrorist group fighting for independence in Kenya).
For her part, Hillary stiffened visibly and blurted out, “Money! That’s all you people care about is money!”
Jewish people can instantly pick up on when they are being stereotyped and I glared at her and said, in a quiet but subtly threatening voice “Hillary, by ‘you people’ I assume you mean political consultants.”
She took the lifeline gratefully and said, “of course that’s what I meant.”
Did her remark smack of anti-semitism? You be the judge.
This story is in my new book “Fifty Shades of Politics,” a collection of a hundred short, autobiographical stories and anecdotes from my political career.
An easy read and, at $13.99 an easy lift.
Not in bookstores (it’s self-published) but on amazon.com. It’s a lot of fun. The Clintons like you’ve never seen them before!
Order “50 Shades Of Politics” By Dick Morris in paperback edition — Click Here!
Sheila Jackson Lee Says the Unthinkable About Killing of Black Girl by Black Man
Sheila Jackson Lee Says the Unthinkable About Killing of Black Girl by Black Man
A tragic death that was wrongly held up as a racial attack has forced many on the left to quickly backpedal, but a Democrat congresswoman is bizarrely doubling-down on her inflammatory rhetoric.
Back on Dec. 30, a 7-year-old girl named Jazmine Barnes was shot and killed in Houston. Barnes was black, a fact that should not matter but quickly became a major factor in the case.
At first, authorities thought a white man may have been involved in the crime. They posted details about a person of interest in the case, but made it clear that this was only one of several angles they were looking into.
As it turns out, two men have been arrested in the case and charged with capital murder in Jazmine’s death, according to USA Today. Both men are black, and authorities now think the killing was a case of mistaken identity.
The first arrest was announced Sunday. The second on Tuesday.
But before those arrests were made, and apparently eager to push a specific narrative, voices including “social justice” activist Shaun King used online platforms to openly declare that a racist white man had murdered the black girl, despite the fact that this was nothing but speculation.
“A 40 y/o white man w/ a beard … pulled up on 7 y/o Jazmine Barnes and her family near a Houston Walmart and shot and killed her,” King posted on Jan. 1 to over a million followers from his verified Twitter account.
URGENT. ALL HANDS ON DECK. A 40 y/o white man w/ a beard in a red pickup truck pulled up on 7 y/o Jazmine Barnes and her family near a Houston @Walmart and shot and killed her and injured others. I am joining the search for her killer and have a $25,000 reward. Need him NOW.
25.6K
Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee quickly jumped into the fray. During a news conference on Friday, she declared that the girl had been the target of a racially motivated hate crime.
“I believe – and having written hate crime legislation, knowing the criteria, I believe that this should be looked at as a hate crime,” the outspoken liberal declared. “We don’t want to have on the street someone who is willing to kill children and possibly kill them in the name of hate.”
She said similar things the next day, saying “do not be afraid to call this what it seems to be — a hate crime,” according to ABC News and The New York Times.
An attorney working with Barnes’ family echoed the same theme, and seemed to blame the girl’s tragic death on widespread racism in America. “(W)e do believe that (the killing) was racially motivated in part because our nation at this moment is highly racially charged,” he declared, according to Fox News.
That narrative, of course, quickly fell apart with the arrests of the first black suspect.
Incredibly, however, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee refused to acknowledge that she may have wrongly rushed to call the incident a hate crime and essentially pin it on white America — when a black man has reportedly confessed to the killing.
“Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, when asked Sunday by a reporter about some of the comments made in the aftermath of the young girl’s death in Houston on Dec. 30, said it was ‘absolutely not’ irresponsible to make that suggestion,” Fox News reported.
“(N)othing is irresponsible when it comes to the loss of a precious 7- or 8-year old,” the Democrat pushed back.
Nobody disputes that the girl’s death was tragic and senseless, but for a sitting congresswoman to say that “nothing is irresponsible” when pushing potentially inflammatory narratives about a matter of life and death is an appalling statement.
Really, nothing is irresponsible, ever? What she’s essentially saying is that the ends always justify the means, at least when a victim happens to be a certain race.
What if a man had been wrongly linked to a crime he didn’t commit because people like Jackson Lee refused to wait before all the facts had come in? What if people incorrectly believed that racism was behind the girl’s death, and a wedge of hate between Americans was driven even further?
The fact of the matter is that yes, there is a point where this is very irresponsible. When someone is killed, what they and their families deserve is calm and clear-eyed justice, not widespread speculation and race-baiting.
Jumping to the wrong conclusions and making everything about race — facts be damned — is exactly how shameful lynchings used to happen in our country’s darker times. That was deeply wrong then, and would be just as wrong now even if the skin colors involved were switched.
We need less inflammatory rhetoric, not more. We need the patience to wait for facts, not a rush to push narratives over reality. Yet liberals like Jackson Lee seem to view everything through the lens of racism, even when it’s not there.
That’s sad … and if she truly wants a better America for all races, she should acknowledge that her words sowed seeds of division, and think carefully before fanning racial flames. We can all be better than that.
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/2019/01/going-nuts-in-backyardphoto-helene.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment