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 :

WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.BLOGSPOT. COM
Mon., Feb. 18, 2019
All Gave Some~Some Gave All

A pair that beats a “full house”.

 

 

Bill Weld: Not to be Trusted, Not to be Elected
by Marta Hernandez in politics
victorygirlsblog.com/author/marta-hernandez/

Ex-Massachusetts governor and 2016 Libertarian Party vice-presidential candidate Bill Weld has decided that the 2020 election won’t be exciting enough with 738 frothing liberal loons fighting for the title of “Biggest Proglodyte” like so many rabid raccoons over a garbage can, so he has decided he will challenge Republican incumbent Donald Trump for the nomination.

Pardon me while I throw up.

As unpalatable as Trump may sometimes be, he at least tries to keep the promises he made on the campaign trail, no matter how hamhandedly.

But Weld – obviously desperate for some attention – has decided will be the one to challenge the President this year. Because his ticket got a whole 3 percent of the national popular vote in 2016? Because he’s oh-so moderate (fiscally conservative and socially liberal)? Because he has executive experience as Governor of Massachusetts?

Let’s examine that, shall we?

The first thing that I will note is that Weld is so“trustworthy,” that despite the promise he made to the Libertarian Party that he would remain loyal and be a Libertarian “for life” when he begged the party faithful for the VP nomination in 2016, he quickly decided he’s a Republican again as soon as he sniffed that Trump might be vulnerable in 2020. I know a lot of libertarians who decided to take him at his word, and they were sorely disappointed, which makes me giggle, given the fact that Weld’s treachery is nothing new.

In 2016, instead of staying the course and promoting his party’s candidates, he all but endorsed the C-Hag.

Instead of promoting the top of the LP ticket on serious policy issues – fiscal responsibility, respect for the Second Amendment, privacy, etc., – this leftist buffoon proceeded to genuflect in front of Hillary Clinton and kiss her shriveled backside on national television, probably in hopes that as President she would hand him a plum assignment as a US Ambassador, like her husband tried to do, but whose confirmation was given the finger by Jesse Helms, who rightfully pointed out that Weld was unqualified to be the US Ambassador to Mexico.

…when Maddow asked Weld if there was any argument he could make to persuade voters in swing states to vote for the Libertarian Party and help it draw the 5 percent vote it needed to qualify as a minority party and receive federal funds — and easier ballot access — in future elections, how did Weld respond? He damned Johnson with faint praise —regurgitating bloodless bromides about how libertarians are fiscally responsible and socially tolerant — and then changed the subject to Clinton again. “I’m here vouching for Mrs. Clinton,” he cooed. “I think she deserves to have people vouch for her other than members of the Democratic National Committee.”

Further, Weld talked a good game on fiscal responsibility and smaller government, but in reality was just another big-government spender – probably one reason why he was so popular in Massachusetts.

So how has the Weld revolution turned out? Did the first Republican to be elected governor of Massachusetts since 1970 make good on his vow to reduce state government radically?

Not according to one high state official, who in August 1995—more than four and a half years after Weld took office—portrayed a state still mired in government, taxes, and regulation. Far from shrinking, the state’s tax revenues and budget had climbed every year since 1992. The official characterized Massachusetts in Year 5 of the Weld administration much as the governor himself had five years earlier: “A bunch of boards . . . regulate barbers and cosmetologists and landscape architects and the like, . . . because somebody thought government ought to save both people and shrubs from the trauma of a bad haircut. . . . We’re choking on an excess of benevolence. . . .

“[The state] props up segments of industry that ought to die a noble death in the marketplace. It creates social distortions like welfare that destroy the people they’re supposed to help. . . . In our cities we’ve got people living in places where government interference has completely driven out all the economic and social vitality of the community. These places are nothing short of public sector hells. . . . If a program fails, government historically . . . has slapped another program on top of it. . . . That’s how Massachusetts wound up with 23 separate agencies serving the disabled; 41 separate job-training programs. . . . The Code of Massachusetts Regulations has grown so vast, bookshelves buckle under it.”

Weld makes a lot of promises, which he promptly breaks as soon as it becomes convenient. Fact is he loves higher taxes, more regulation, and bigger government bureaucracy – everything that true conservatives (and libertarians) despise.

Gosh, that certainly sounds like someone I want in the White House!

NOT.

Meanwhile, Weld’s other betrayals have included gun control and support for eminent domain.

He also supports US membership in the United Nations – the most mismanaged and corrupt organization in this world, other than some socialist governments in third world shitholes.

He supported John Kasich. KASICH – probably one of the most unlikable characters in politics today, who thinks it’s perfectly cool to force religious bakers to make cakes for gay weddings, regardless of their religious beliefs and at the point of a government gun. Kasich, who supported the 1990s “assault” weapons ban and who wants expanded background checks on guns because SCHOOL SHOOTING EPIDEMIC (except there isn’t one). Kasich, who supports Medicare expansion.

If Weld is a Republican, then I’m an ice-skating goat that’s wearing pimp pants.

Weld is a big-government liberal who has been jumping in and out of parties and elections where he thinks he has a shot at a nomination or election – or at least an opportunity to get attention. In 2006, for instance, he dropped out of the New York GOP race for governor; and he had been also nominated by the New York State Libertarian Party as its candidate for Governor on which he reneged.

Weld is a desperate has-been politician, who is floating around as a perpetual candidate for any political party that will have him, probably because his fragile ego can’t take not having at least a little spotlight shined on him. He’s also a despicable leftist cockroach, who should be universally shunned by anyone with conservative views.

He should have a “D” behind his name – D for disgraceful, detestable, doucheface, dickbag Democrat.

Written by Marta Hernandez, an immigrant, writer, editor, science fiction fan (especially military sci-fi), and a lover of freedom, her children, her husband and her pets. She loves to shoot, and range time is sacred, as is her hiking obsession, especially if we’re talking the European Alps. She is an avid caffeine and TWD addict, and wants to own otters, sloths, wallabies, koalas, and wombats when she grows up

Guess What The FBI Just Revealed About Ilhan Omar’s District

Ashley (Kimber)

The FBI just revealed Congress’ resident Anti-Semite district is -get this- the ISIS recruitment capital of the US.

Well, THAT’S a shocker, huh?

According to Fox News:

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. – More men and boys from a Somali American community in Minneapolis have joined – or attempted to join – a foreign terrorist organization over the last 12 years than any other jurisdiction in the country.

FBI stats show 45 Somalis left to join the ranks of either the Somalia-based Islamic insurgency al-Shabab, or the Iraq- and Syria-based ISIS combined. And as of 2018, a dozen more had been arrested with the intention of leaving to support ISIS. Both numbers are far higher than those of alleged terrorist wannabes who left or attempted to leave the country from other areas in the country where Muslim refugees have been resettled.

In the case of the Somalis, it’s no longer just the men. Early last year, a female was apprehended by authorities on charges of supporting providing material support to Al Qaeda and arson.

WONDERFUL.

Because nothing shows how GRATEFUL you are that a nation has taken you in as a refugee quite like becoming a terrorist and attacking that very nation.

Local authorities contend it has been challenging for them to penetrate the Somali-American community in Minneapolis, who remain a unique immigrant population that hasn’t actively assimilated with the neighboring township. In the neighborhood of Cedar-Riverside, for example, it’s possible to go about day-to-day business without ever interacting with a non-Somali.

“You can buy your clothes at a Somalia mall. You can buy insurance at a Somalia insurance adjuster. You can buy real estate at a Somali real estate adjuster,” explained a U.S official. “I think that is pretty unique.”

And pretty un-American. GONE are the days of the “melting pot.” These immigrants simply want to recreate Somalia in the USA.

So… what does Ilhan think? Well, she thinks we should be compassionate.

As for Omar, she spoke up for a group of six Somalis arrested in 2015 for trying to cross into Mexico, as part of a plan to join ISIS in Syria. As the case went to trial the following year, the then-state representative wrote a letter to the trial judge requesting “compassion” – and lighter sentencing on behalf of one of the Minnesota men, who was facing 30 years jail time.

“Such punitive measures not only lack efficacy, they inevitably create an environment in which extremism can flourish, aligning with the presupposition of terrorist recruitment,” Omar wrote. “The best deterrent to fanaticism is a system of compassion. We must alter our attitude and approach; if we truly want to affect change, we should refocus our efforts on inclusion and rehabilitation.”

FAAAANTASTIC.

Don’t expect ANY of this to get better any time soon.

Anti-Semite Rep. Omar’s District Is the Terror Recruitment Capital of USA
By S.Noble

Screenshot of Little Mogadishu USA. If they don’t want to assimilate, why are they here? Thank a Democrat.

According to Fox News, the FBI revealed that Anti-Semitic Rep. Ilhan Omar’s district is the nation’s terror recruitment capital of the United States.

“More men and boys from a Somali American community in Minneapolis have joined – or attempted to join – a foreign terrorist organization over the last 12 years than any other jurisdiction in the country,” Fox News reported Saturday, citing data from the FBI.

Data showed that over the past 12 years, a total of 45 Muslims left the Minnesota city to join a radical Islamic group like ISIS or al-Shabab. Of the 45, roughly a dozen Somalis left as recently as 2018 and some even reportedly this year.

“Both numbers are far higher than those of alleged terrorist wannabes who left or attempted to leave the country from other areas in the country where Muslim refugees have been resettled,” Fox notes.

OMAR IS A VERY SHADY PERSON

Ilhan Omar moved to this district in 1995 from Somalia. She is currently 37 years old. Omar was 13 years old when she arrives. Given she has shown herself to be anti-Semitic, it is concerning. Terrorists do believe in infiltrating our society and our politics, in addition to committing terrorist acts.

Omar is very far-left and anti-American as well. She sent a letter to a judge pleading on behalf of ISIS terrorists and she supports BDS, an anti-Semitic movement. There are other bad signs, like her support of dictator Nicolas Maduro. She is also quite nasty and was probably married to her brother in a possible immigration scam.

This is a woman who is receiving accolades and sympathy from Democrats like Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Clyburn, Rep. Pelosi, Sen. Schumer, and many others. After she attacks people, they act as if she is the victim. They treat her like a child, but she’s a cunning woman, well into adulthood.





Jon Voight Fiercely Defends His Film 'Roe V. Wade'
By HANK BERRIENPhoto by Dia Dipasupil/Getty Images

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Mail, Oscar winner Jon Voight fiercely defended his new film, “Roe v. Wade,” which has triggered ferocious backlash from pro-abortion advocates. Although the move is not due to be released until March, criticism has abounded from pro-abortion advocates, prompting Voight to passionately defend the film, which was shot privately because the flimmakers sensed there would be huge outrage from pro-abortion advocates..

Voight, 80, who won an Oscar for Best Actor for 1978’s “Coming Home,” and plays US Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger in the film, stated that “people know nothing” about the actual case of Roe v. Wade, continuing:

There is so much stuff that has been said about Roe vs. Wade, this decision of the Supreme Court in the 70s. Really people are talking about it and getting excited and upset but they know nothing about it. Thank God somebody said let's make a movie about it and show all the aspects. The script was loaded with information that I never heard before. It is going to be exciting for people to see.

Responding to those who have already criticized the film, Voight stated, “This moment — it is the tenor of the times that there is a lot of emotion and not an awful lot of scholarship — looking into things and finding the truth. So the thing is to encourage everybody to look for the truth. This will help. And that is why I did it. I said this is going to help. We will all go to school a little bit. Hopefully it will be entertaining too. There are some very good actors in it.'

The Guardian reported in mid-January:

With dialogue such as: “We have been in our second civil war for over 50 years now”, “Doctors must protect life … from the point of conception”, and “This is a conspiracy”, Roe v Wade’s trailer leaves no doubt what its intentions are; it also features news items about Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the supreme court followed by the line, “It will flip the decision.”

Writer Nick Loeb dismissed the criticism from some opponents that the film is “right wing propaganda.” He said that more than 150 mostly negative reviews have been written already, adding, “A lot of people do not want to hear the truth, they do not want to know the real story, people are afraid of it and twisted.”

Loeb pointed out that the film takes a neutral position on the issue, saying, “We as producers and directors did not take a position. We wrote the characters as they were in real life. If people want to protest against the truth, they do what they want to do. Everything in the movie is 100 percent accurate.”

Voight concluded, “People are expressing themselves to it without knowing what it is. It was the same thing with the court decision in the first place. They did not know what it meant … So everybody gets on the same page, and then we can start saying, ‘Here is what I feel; here is what you feel”’.



As far as roles he still wants to play, Voight asserted, “I am looking for stories, and if I think there is some truth to something, a good story and a part for me, I will be tempted to go that way. That is what I base it on. I do not have any prejudgments. When I see the piece I know if it resonates with me.”

The Daily Mail reported, “Facebook has reportedly refused to authorize ads promoting the movie because the social media network considers the film a political ad. The film's producers wanted to buy advertising on Facebook but the firm said the ad did not align with its new 'issues of national importance' guidelines, according to Breitbart.”




Why Trump will win the wall fight
BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “If my fellow citizens want to go to hell, I will help them. It is my job.” He was expressing the limited role of courts in challenges to federal law. It is not the task of judges to sit as a super legislature to question the agendas of the political branches. They will gladly send Congress to hell. It only needs to point to the destination.

In the matter of the border wall, Congress could not have been more clear where it was heading. It put itself on the path to institutional irrelevancy, and it has finally arrived. I do not agree there is a national emergency on the southern border, but I do believe President Trump will prevail. This crisis is not the making of Donald Trump. This is the making of Congress.

For decades, Congress frittered away control over its authority, including the power of the purse. I have testified before Congress, warning about the expansion of executive power and the failure of Congress to guard its own authority. The two primary objections have been Congress giving presidents largely unchecked authority and undedicated money. The wall funding controversy today is a grotesque result of both of these failures.

Start with the National Emergencies Act of 1976. Presidents have long declared emergencies based on their inherent executive authority. The use of that authority produced some conflicts with Congress, the most famous seen in the case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company versus Charles Sawyer, in which the Supreme Court declared that the federal seizure of steel mills during the Korean War was unconstitutional because Congress had never granted President Truman that authority.

However, Congress later gave presidents sweeping authority under the National Emergencies Act of 1976. While this law allows for a legislative override by Congress, the authority to declare national emergencies is basically unfettered. It is one of many such laws where Congress created the thin veneer of a process for presidential power that, in reality, was a virtual blank slate. At the same time, Congress has continued to give the executive branch billions of dollars with few conditions or limitations.

This is why President Obama was able to go to war in Libya without a declaration and fund the entire war with billions of undedicated funds. Neither House Speaker Nancy Pelosi nor most of the current Democratic leadership made a peep of objection at this. But when it comes to the wall, Democrats have indicated they will rely on the ruling in House of Representatives versus Sylvia Burwell, in which the court declared the House of Representatives had standing to sue over executive overreach and that Obama violated the Constitution in ordering the payment of billions to insurance companies without authorization from Congress.

I was lead counsel for the House of Representatives in that case. Ironically, Pelosi vehemently opposed the litigation as a frivolous and unfounded challenge to presidential authority. We won the case. Superficially, it may look like the wall controversy. Obama sought funds from Congress and, when unsuccessful, acted unilaterally. But Obama ordered the money directly from the Treasury as a permanent appropriation, like the money used to pay tax refunds. Congress had never approved such payments.

Conversely, Trump is using appropriated funds. Like the authority under the National Emergencies Act, Congress gave this money to the executive branch without meaningful limitations. Trump now has almost $1.4 billion in newly approved funds to use for border protection. He has identified about $8 billion in loosely dedicated funds for military construction, drug interdiction, and forfeitures. Even if a court disagreed with the use of this money, Trump has the power and funds to start construction of the wall.

Congress has yielded more and more power to the executive branch over decades. In many areas, it has reduced the legislative branch to a mere pedestrian in government, leaving real governing decisions to a kind of “fourth branch” of federal agencies. For their part, presidents have thus become more and more bold in circumventing Congress. When Obama gave a State of the Union proclaiming his intention to bypass Congress after it failed to pass immigration reform, Democrats applauded loudly.

Many of them, like Pelosi, denounce this unilateral action by Trump yet ecstatically supported the unilateral actions by Obama, including his funding of some critical parts of the Affordable Care Act after Congress denied any funds. Democrats insist Trump can be challenged on his use of emergency authority since they do not believe an emergency exists on the southern border. They will fail spectacularly if the case gets to the Supreme Court. While the source of funding can be challenged, there is no compelling basis to challenge the national emergency declaration.

The reason? Congress has never been particularly concerned over past declared emergencies, which have continued with perfunctory annual renewals. Most such emergencies are entirely unknown to the vast majority of Americans. Indeed, the first proclamation of a national emergency occurred under President Wilson in 1917, “arising from the insufficiency of maritime tonnage to carry the products of the farms, forests, mines, and manufacturing industries of the United States.”

Remember that national emergency over the “anchorage and movement of vessels” with respect to Cuba? How about the national emergency over uncut diamonds from Sierra Leone? Then there were the declarations over property owned by certain figures in Zimbabwe, the presidential election in Congo, and issues concerning Yemen, Burundi, Myanmar, Lebanon, Somalia, and South Sudan. All of these were “national emergencies.”

Curiously, Pelosi has called for the declaration of a national emergency to deal with the “epidemic of gun violence in America.” She also said that she wished Trump would add that declaration but that a “Democratic president can do that.” Yes, a Democratic president certainly could, and that is the key point here. Congress gave all presidents the power to make such declarations, and Pelosi is now making the case for Trump today.

While Democrats insist this emergency declaration is simply an effort to use executive power to get what Congress would not give Trump, any litigation would be an effort to use judicial power to do much the same thing. The House of Representatives would try to convince a federal judge of the merits against a wall, after failing to convince enough members of Congress to override the emergency declaration and a presidential veto.

That brings us back to Holmes. Congress has the authority to rescind the national emergency declaration of Trump with a vote of both chambers. The legislative branch should do so. If Congress cannot muster the votes, however, a federal judge is unlikely to do so. Simply put, the courts were not created to protect Congress from itself. Congress has been heading to hell for decades, and it is a bit late to complain about the destination.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

---

Anti-Nevada Sex Puritans Set Sights on Wrong Target

(Chuck Muth) – About the worst thing you can do when it comes to the horrific crime of sex trafficking – especially of underage girls – is to trivialize it through absurdity.  Yet that’s exactly what the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCSE), formerly “Morality in Media,” did earlier this month.

As reported in a February 11 article published by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, NCSE named the State of Nevada to its annual “Dirty Dozen” list of “major, mainstream facilitators of sexual exploitation” – along with American corporate icons such as Amazon, Google, HBO, Netflix, Twitter, Sports Illustrated and even United Airlines.

Now, think about what this Washington, DC group is saying…

If you search Google for a recipe for Hungarian goulash, you’re facilitating sexual exploitation.  If you order a book on gardening from Amazon, you’re aiding and abetting sex trafficking. If you watch HBO or Netflix, you’re an accessory to sex crimes.  

Indeed, if you tweet about a story you read in Sports Illustrated on Major League Baseball’s spring training camps while flying on United Airlines to a Bible convention in Alabama, you’re all but a street “pimp.”

That’s right…YOU.

And according to NCSE, Nevada was added to its list because “legalized prostitution in Nevada’s rural counties has turned the state into a ‘magnet for sex traffickers and prostitution tourists.’”

Oh, puh-lease.  Talk about absurd.

The closest legal brothels to Las Vegas – arguably Ground Zero for illegal prostitution and sex trafficking – are an hour and a half away.  And because of extremely strict licensing and regulatory oversight of those legal brothels, there are no underage girls working in them and no one is working there against their will.

Sex trafficking in Nevada’s rural counties is all but non-existent.

On the other hand, Las Vegas is awash with gentleman’s clubs, nudie bars, escort services, massage parlors, “girls to your room” in luxurious Strip resorts, adult sex shops, and good old-fashioned slam-bam-thank-you-ma’am in the back seat of cars behind convenience stores and in seedy motels.

Yet NCSE doesn’t talk about THAT.  

Instead it focuses on Nevada’s legal rural brothels which prohibit underage girls from working in the trade, keeps the consenting women who work there safe, protects the public through weekly health exams for sexually transmitted diseases, and contribute significant tax revenue and charitable donations to the communities where they’re located.

NCSE’s linking of Nevada’s legal rural brothels to the illegal sex market in Las Vegas is like comparing a car that needs a quart of oil and a carwash to one with four flat tires, a busted windshield, a smashed bumper, a blown engine and a cigarette lighter that doesn’t work.

Where are your priorities, people?

Or think of it this way: To claim that Nevada’s legal rural brothels are a “magnet for sex traffickers” is like saying legal pharmacies such as Walgreens and CVS are magnets for illegal drug traffickers.  We’re talking apples and oranges here, folks.

In naming Nevada to its “ignominious” list, NCSE cites a Lyon County Sheriff’s Department audit of its four legal brothels last fall that purportedly found “signs of potential sex trafficking” - while failing to note that audit report was generated by the local sheriff who was secretly funding a ballot question to ban legal brothels in part because his ex-wife had gone to work for one.

Yeah, that’s a credible report.

Nevertheless, Lyon County voters – not wanting the crime and disease rampant in Las Vegas’ illegal sex market – defeated the ballot question by a whopping 80-20% margin.  Leading NCSE to accuse “Lyon County residents who voted against the brothel ban” of being “complicit in the sexual exploitation of ‘countless women.’”

Hogwash.  And how insulting.

The adult women who work in Nevada’s legal brothels are business women and entrepreneurs who have chosen such sex work of their own free will – even though that’s not a career choice many others would make.  

They’re not the problem; they’re part of the solution.  The anti-Nevada puritans at NCSE should get off their backs.  Live and let live.

 G’ day…Ciao…
Helen & 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/2019/02/www_17.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: