CAPITAL STORIES FOR CHILDREN

- 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 :

Liberals Don’t want you to see this!!!

https://www.facebook.com/derekmke/videos/vb.369309166748535/1233022310195490/?type=2&theater

WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGOESPOT.COM
Tues, Jan 15, 2019
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****

Ilhan Omar just won her first fight in Congress and it could be the first step toward Sharia Law

The Democrat Party and their pals in the mainstream media have dismissed critics’ cries of their acceptance of Sharia Law as “conspiracy theories.”

But the Democrat majority in the U.S. House has just proven everything they have said is a lie.

And what Ilhan Omar and the Democrats just did to embrace Sharia Law will confirm all your suspicions.

231 Democrats just voted in favor of allowing Ilhan Omar to follow Sharia Law and wear her hijab.

The resolution overturned a 181-year tradition that banned House Representatives from wearing headwear and passed along party lines.

Sharia Law commands that all female adherents wear the hijab as part of right living.

And House Democrats upheld the commandment by voting overwhelmingly in support of the resolution.

Time Magazine reports:

The same day that the first two female Muslim congressional representatives in history took office, the House voted to permit religious headwear on the floor for the first time in 181 years.

The change, which was passed as part of a rules package, amended an 1837 rule that was originally intended to ban representatives from wearing hats on the House Floor. After a vote of 234 to 197 on Thursday, Congress members will now be allowed to wear head coverings, such as kippahs, hijabs and turbans.

Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, a Somali-American Muslim and refugee, became the first member of Congress to wear a religious headscarf on the floor. She celebrated the vote in a tweet.

“I thank my colleagues for welcoming me, and I look forward to the day we lift the Muslim ban separating families all over the U.S. from their loved ones,” Omar wrote.

This isn’t the first time Democrats have voiced support for Sharia Law and the Muslim faith.

One of the delegates of the 2016 Democratic National Convention was the radical Islamic extremist Linda Sarsour.

Sarsour was one of the organizers of the anti-Trump “Women’s March” that claimed the hijab was a symbol of freedom

And Obama called the Muslim call to prayer “one of the prettiest sounds of earth at sunset.”

Further, devout Muslim and former U.S. Representative Keith Ellison served as the Chair of the Democrat Party for the last two years.




Legal Experts: NYT’s ‘Bombshell’ Report Casts Skepticism on FBI, Not Trump

Alex Wong, Chip Somodevilla, Win McNamee/Getty Images

Several top legal experts say the New York Times‘ report that the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) launched a criminal and counterintelligence investigation into President Trump after he fired former FBI Director James Comey casts more skepticism on the FBI than on the president.

It was first reported in the Washington Post on June 14, 2017, that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was investigating Trump for obstruction, and that the investigation was launched days after he fired Comey. It was the first time an investigation into Trump himself was revealed. Previously, Comey had told Trump he was not personally under investigation.

But the Times report on Friday revealed more details about the investigation into Trump. It said in addition to a criminal investigation into whether he had obstructed justice by firing Comey, Trump was also being looked at in a counterintelligence investigation on whether he was acting on behalf of Russia by firing Comey.

Legal experts and political strategists on both sides of the aisle said the Times‘ report showed the FBI was motivated by revenge for Comey’s firing rather than by any evidence Trump was acting on behalf of Russia.

Mark Penn, a Democrat and former strategist for Bill and Hillary Clinton, wrote in an op-ed on Sunday that the FBI and the Justice Department’s actions “appear to be wholly without justification — and were based instead on politically inspired emotion and hysteria.”

“I didn’t support Donald Trump, and there are lots of things he does I don’t support,” he wrote. “But the idea that he was the Manchurian candidate working for the Russians when he ran on an America First platform is patently ridiculous.”

Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and senior fellow at the National Review Institute, argued that the only thing the report showed was that the FBI was out to get Trump all along. He wrote on Sunday that the Times‘ report was “clearly intended to be a blockbuster report.”

“But in truth, the only thing the story shows is that the FBI, after over a year of investigation, simply went overt about something that had been true from the first. The investigation commenced during the 2016 campaign by the Obama administration – the Justice Department and the FBI – was always about Donald Trump,” he wrote.

McCarthy argued that the FBI and DOJ had “rationalized” that Trump fired Comey to impede the investigation, and coupled that with a memo that Comey himself wrote and leaked to the media that alleged Trump had tried to impede the investigation into former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn.

“Legally, none of this was obstruction. Yet, the FBI and Justice Department settled on this novel and flawed legal theory: Even though the president has constitutional authority to fire subordinates and weigh in on investigations, he may somehow still be prosecuted for obstruction if a prosecutor concludes that his motive was improper,” McCarthy wrote.

“The FBI, hot-headed over the director’s dismissal, concluded that this obstruction theory was a sound enough basis to go overt with the case on Trump they had actually been trying to make for many months,” he wrote.

McCarthy also noted that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein at the time had also discussed wearing a wire while talking to the president, and invoking the 25th Amendment, before appointing Mueller to take over the FBI’s Russia investigation.

“What this chain of actions supports is that there is a deep state — a group of unelected officials who now wield power far beyond their constitutional authority – who believe, like Comey, that they know best,” Penn said. “In this case it was aided by Obama administration holdovers who never accepted the outcome of the election and sought to prevent it and later reverse it.”

Neither Penn nor McCarthy supported Trump during the election, but have both frequently spoken out about what they believe is improper behavior at the DOJ and FBI.

Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School and lawyer who has worked for both Democrats and Republicans, said the “real benefit” of the story is exposing the cognitive bias that has led to the “current quagmire.”

“What if there were no collusion or conspiracy but simple cognitive bias on both sides, where the actions of one seemed to confirm precisely the suspicions of the other?” he wrote.

Turley noted that the Times story does not suggest “any basis for the original allegation” that Trump was a Manchurian candidate controlled by Russia, and that the story even notes “no evidence has emerged publicly that Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials.”

Instead, he wrote, there were two separate narratives that fed off the actions of each other. Turley wrote:

There likely was bias in the initial assumptions, with a willingness at the FBI to believe Trump would be a tool of the Russians, and a willingness by Trump to believe the FBI would be a tool of the Clintons. Every move and countermove confirmed each bias. Trump continued to denounce what he saw as a conspiracy. The FBI continued to investigate his obstructive attitude. One side saw a witch hunt where the other saw a mole hunt.

In other words, there may have been no Russian mole and no deep state conspiracy. Moreover, the motivations may not have been to obstruct either the Trump administration or the Russia investigation. Instead, this could all prove to be the greatest, most costly example of cognitive bias in history, and now no one in this story wants to admit it.

Republican lawmakers who have been investigating the DOJ and FBI are less forgiving.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said Sunday that the FBI officials who would have launched the investigation into Trump all exhibited animus towards Trump, and have all either been fired, demoted, or have otherwise left the FBI, including former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, former FBI Deputy Head of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, and former FBI General Counsel Jim Baker.

“These four people are the ones who have this extreme animus towards the President. They’re the ones who are saying to start this counterintelligence investigation on the President. It’s ridiculous,” he told Fox News’ Judge Jeanine Pirro.

“And remember when it happened, it happened just days after their best pal, Jim Comey is fired. So remember that critical week, those critical eight days. May 9th, Comey gets fired. May 17th, Bob Mueller gets named Special Counsel. Andy McCabe is running the FBI.”

House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA) said in a statement:

This is yet more evidence that FBI leaders actually had no real evidence against the Trump team. Instead they were simply trying to undermine a president they didn’t like and avenge Comey’s firing. By relying on the Steele dossier — a fraudulent document funded by Democrats and based on Russian sources — FBI leaders were either complicit or too oblivious to notice they were being used in a disinformation operation by the Democratic Party and Russian operatives.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he found the Times‘ report “astonishing” and said he would investigate.

“To me, it tells me a lot about the people running the FBI, McCabe and that crowd. I don’t trust them as far as I throw them. So, if this really did happen, Congress needs to know about it and what I want to do is make sure how could the FBI do that? What kind of checks and balances are there?”




Donald Trump: U.S. Will ‘Devastate Turkey Economically if They Hit Kurds’

4

Tatyana Zenkovich/pool photo via A

President Donald Trump threatened on Sunday to “devastate Turkey economically” if Turkish forces attack the Kurds in Syria after the United States withdraws.

The office of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan responded on Monday by telling Trump it would be a “fatal mistake” to treat a Turkish attack on the Kurdish YPG militia, which Turkey considers a terrorist organization, as an assault on the Kurdish people.

Trump delivered his warning to Turkey in a pair of tweets discussing his Syria policy on Sunday. Trump encouraged both Turkey and the Syrian Kurdish militia to back away from a confrontation:

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump

Starting the long overdue pullout from Syria while hitting the little remaining ISIS territorial caliphate hard, and from many directions. Will attack again from existing nearby base if it reforms. Will devastate Turkey economically if they hit Kurds. Create 20 mile safe zone....

109K

5:53 PM - Jan 13, 2019

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump

....Likewise, do not want the Kurds to provoke Turkey. Russia, Iran and Syria have been the biggest beneficiaries of the long term U.S. policy of destroying ISIS in Syria - natural enemies. We also benefit but it is now time to bring our troops back home. Stop the ENDLESS WARS!

86K

A spokesman for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan responded on Monday by warning Trump, “It is a fatal mistake to equate Syrian Kurds with the PKK, which is on the U.S. terrorist list, and its Syria branch PYD/YPG.”

“Turkey fights against terrorists, not Kurds. We will protect Kurds and other Syrians against all terrorist threats,” spokesman Ibrahim Kalin promised.

“Terrorists can’t be your partners and allies,” Kalin told Trump. “Turkey expects the U.S. to honor our strategic partnership and doesn’t want it to be shadowed by terrorist propaganda.”

Erdogan’s communications director Fahrettin Altun added that Turkey will “continue its anti-terror fight decisively.”

“Terror is terror and it must be eradicated at its source. This is exactly what Turkey is doing in Syria,” Altun said.

The PKK, or Kurdistan Workers Party, is a violent Kurdish separatist organization in Turkey that the U.S. State Department indeed lists as a foreign terrorist organization. The PYD (Democratic Union Party) is the largest Syrian Kurdish political party, while the YPG (People’s Protection Units) is effectively its armed wing. The YPG militia was one of the most effective battlefield allies of the United States in the war against the Islamic State.

Turkey insists the PYD and YPG are actively allied with the PKK and are essentially branches of the same Kurdish separatist organization. Turkey’s looming strategic nightmare involves Kurds in Iraq, Syria, and Turkey joining together to declare an independent state that would absorb territory from all three nations. Turkey complains that weapons given by Western allies to the YPG to fight ISIS are finding their way across the border into PKK hands.

The United States disputes this characterization and wants Turkey to halt its military incursion into Syria against Kurdish forces, an assault Turkey named “Operation Olive Branch” because it believes peace can only be established by pushing Syrian Kurdish forces away from the Turkish border. President Trump strives to assuage fears that U.S. military withdrawal from Syria will give Turkey a green light to massacre the Kurds.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu complained on Monday that President Trump should not issue public demands while the U.S. is negotiating with Turkey to reach an understanding about Syria.

“Strategic partners do not talk via Twitter and social media,” Cavusoglu said.

The foreign minister said Turkey has proposed a “buffer zone” along the Turkey-Syria border that seems compatible with Trump’s demand for a safe zone around the Kurds, presuming the Kurds agree to fall back outside the buffer zone. He criticized the administration of Trump’s predecessor, former President Barack Obama, for refusing to consider this proposal due to “various excuses” and said the Trump administration is only entertaining it now due to “Turkey’s determination.”

The New York Times noted Trump’s tweet was the first time he has publicly threatened Turkey, a fellow member of NATO. The Times worried Trump’s aggressive comments could “upend Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s attempt to reach a deal with Turkey to protect them.”

Pompeo did not appear perturbed by Trump’s tweets when he spoke with reporters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on Monday.

“You’ll have to ask the president,” he said when asked what Trump meant by economic devastation for Turkey. “We have applied economic sanctions in many places, I assume he is speaking about those kinds of things. You’ll have to ask him.”

Pompeo endorsed Trump’s demand for a safe zone around the Syrian Kurds. “If we can get the space and the security arrangements right it would be a good thing for everyone in the region,” he said.

Just as Turkish and U.S. policies are at odds concerning the connection between Syrian Kurds and the Turkish PKK separatists, so the current proposals clash over the difference between Turkey’s desire to establish a “buffer zone” around its border and the U.S. plan for a “safe zone” around the Kurds.

Despite Turkey’s talk of peace and olive branches, it has repeatedly made clear it intends to attack the Kurds if they do not withdraw from the envisioned “buffer zone,” which is considerably larger than what U.S. planners and the Kurds are comfortable with. Turkey’s determination to push east of the Euphrates River is especially worrisome.

Washington and other concerned foreign powers do not place a great deal of faith in Turkey’s assurances that it can fight Kurdish “terrorist” militias without harming civilians or engaging in battle with Kurdish units directly supported by the West during the fight against ISIS.

Cavusoglu stated on Sunday that Turkey is offended by Trump administration officials, such as National Security Adviser John Bolton, and foreign governments, such as Israel, telling the Turks they cannot push as far into Syria as they deem necessary for their own security interests.

“We do not seek permission from anyone. We would take necessary steps against terrorists near our borders, and we will decide the timing on our own,” Cavusoglu said.




Donald Trump was just stabbed in the back on the caravan by one shocking traitor

Donald Trump is considering declaring a national emergency and ordering the military to build the border wall.

It may be his only chance to stop the migrant invasion.

But he was just stabbed in the back by the last person he ever suspected.

Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano wrote an op-ed claiming Trump’s proposed executive action to build the wall is unconstitutional.

Napolitano wrote on Fox News:

We know from the plain wording of the Constitution and from history that all expenditures of money from the federal treasury and all federal use of private property must first be approved by Congress. In 1952, the Supreme Court ruled on this when President Harry Truman seized American steel mills during a labor strike and directed the secretary of commerce to hire folks to operate the mills, pursuant to his own emergency declaration that steel was vital to the war effort in Korea. The court held that only Congress could authorize the seizure or adverse government occupancy of private property and the expenditure of money needed to operate the mills.

Then, in 1976, Congress provided a definition — which, shortly thereafter, the courts refined — of a national emergency: the existence of events truly beyond the ordinary, wherein there is a palpable and immediate threat to lives, safety or property that cannot be addressed by the employment of ordinary government assets or the exercise of ordinary governmental powers. That is hardly the case today with the former Central American caravan in Mexico now settled in and housed by the Mexican government away from the border.

Trump supporters were stunned.

There were rumors floating in 2017 around that Napolitano was considered for a Supreme Court nomination.

But now conservatives breathed a sigh of relief knowing the President passed on Napolitano for Neil Gorsuch.




Stacey Abrams: ‘I Wouldn’t Oppose’ Non-Citizens Voting in Local Elections

AP Photo/John Bazemore

Stacey Abrams said she would not oppose the extension of voting rights to non-citizens in local elections, offering her remarks in a Friday-aired interview on PBS’s Firing Line with Margaret Hoover.

Abrams ran for Georgia’s governorship as the Democrats’ nominee in 2018 and is the Democrats’ former leader in Georgia’s House of Representatives.

MARGARET HOOVER: What is your view about some municipalities, like San Francisco, who have decided that it’s okay for some non-citizens to vote in local elections?

STACEY ABRAMS: I think there’s a difference between municipal and state and federal.

Part of municipality — I’m not arguing for it or against it, but I will say, having been deputy city attorney, there’s a very — the granularity of what cities decide is so specific, as to, I think, allow for people to be participants in the process without it somehow undermining our larger democratic ethic that says that you should be a citizen to be a part of the conversation.

MARGARET HOOVER: So, in some cases, you would be supportive of non-citizens voting?

STACEY ABRAMS: I wouldn’t be — I wouldn’t oppose it.

Abrams predicted demographic change would benefit the Democrat Party. Hoover did not ask Abrams to which demographic changes the latter was referring.

Abrams said:

Georgia [is] changing fairly dramatically and very quickly. And I could see that there was a pathway for Democrats to surge and to start to reclaim more power in the state. I believe that we are a purple state. I like to say we’re blue and just a little confused. But the notion being that, as we continue to change demographically, our politics are gonna keep changing.

Abrams blamed “voter suppression” for her electoral defeat in Georgia’s governor's race, describing the election as “stolen from Georgians.”

Abrams called for “mail-in voting” to become standard in national elections. Hoover did not ask about vulnerabilities to fraud in such a system.

“I think that voting by mail makes a great deal of sense,” said Abrams. “I would love to see mail-in — you know, vote by mail be a national standard.”

Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter.

Ciao...G'day...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/liberals-dont-want-you-to-see-this.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: