Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.BLOGSPOT. COM
Wed. Feb. 20, 2019
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
Socialists are Nothing More Than Parasites
Pretty flowers? Yes!
Donald Trump trumpeted the evils of Socialism in Miami recently with an address to Venezuelan Americans focusing on the train-wreck that is Venezuela under Socialist policies. The truth will eventually come out and heads will roll.
ISIS Brides Want to Come Home Now
Bernie's Running Again: 'Our Campaign Is About Transforming Our Country'
By Susan Jones
(File Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
(CNSNews.com) - "I am running for president because now more than ever, we need leadership that brings us together, not divides us up," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Tuesday in a video announcement.
Sanders said it's not just about winning: "Our campaign is about transforming our country and creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice."
Sanders said he is trying to raise a "million-person grassroots movement" that will "help transform this country so that finally we have a government that works for all of us, and not just a few."
In an interview with CBS News Tuesday morning, Sanders was asked for his opinion of capitalism:
"Look, I think what we see in this country and around the world is a lot of great entrepreneurs, but I think what is happening is some of these folks -- we have a system which allows these people to accumulate huge amounts of income and wealth.
"So when I talk about democratic socialism, somebody wants to call me a radical, okay, here it is. I believe that people are inherently entitled to health care. I believe people are entitled to get the best education they can. I believe that people are entitled to live in a clean environment. People are entitled to have decent-paying jobs. That's what I believe."
Sanders predicted that President Trump will say that Sanders wants the United States to become Venezuela:
"Bernie Sanders does not want to have the United States become the horrific economic situation that unfortunately exists in Venezuela right now," Sanders said. "What Bernie Sanders wants is to learn from countries around the world why other countries are doing a better job in dealing with income and wealth inequality than we are."
Sanders said his 2020 presidential campaign will be a "continuation of what we did in 2016."
"You may recall that in 2016, many of the ideas that I talked about -- Medicare for all, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, making public colleges and universities tuition-free -- all of those ideas, people said, ‘Oh, Bernie, they're so radical, they are extreme. The American people just won't accept those ideas.’
“Well, you know what's happened over three years? All of those ideas and many more are part of the political mainstream.”
"So you're saying the party came your way?" host John Dickerson asked Sanders.
"I don't want to say that," Sanders replied. "I think most people would say that," he added.
In his interview with CBS, Sanders had sharp words for Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks chairman and CEO, who has warned that a radical leftist cannot defeat Donald Trump.
"Oh, isn't that nice!" Sanders told Dickerson. "Why is Howard Schultz on every television station in this country? Why are you quoting Howard Schultz? Because he's a billionaire.
"There are a lot of people I know personally who work hard for a living, make $40-, $50-thousand dollars a year who know a lot more about politics than, with all due respect, does Mr. Schultz. But because we have a corrupt political system, anybody who is a billionaire, who can throw a lot of TV ads on television, suddenly becomes very, very credible.
"So with Mr. Schultz -- what is he, blackmailing the Democratic Party? If you don't nominate Bernie Sanders, he's not going to run? Well, I don't think we should succumb to that kind of blackmail."
Schultz has argued that if you're worried about Donald Trump, Democrats need to pick a candidate who isn't so "radical." "That's also what his theory is," Dickerson told Sanders.
Sanders replied, "I think his deeper theory is, hey, I'm a billionaire, leave me alone and let me make as much money as I can without paying my fair share of taxes. He's a billionaire. He's thinking of running for president, suddenly he's a very famous guy. That is a problem with our political system."
Liawatha Warren Says Officials Can Use 25th Amendment On Pres
by Toni Williams in politics
Liawatha Warren, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, believes unelected officials can use the 25th Amendment to take out President Donald Trump. Everybody’s throwing around the 25th Amendment these days like they actually know what the Amendment says. Even worse, Assistant Directors of the FBI and Congress Critters say it as though just the saying of it is enough to prove the point. Did that make sense? You know, scream Trump must be removed because of the 25th Amendment and the sheeple nod and bleat agreement. This weekend, to piggyback on Andrew McCabe and his 60 Minutes interview with Scott Pelley, Princess Get-Me-A-Beer Warren took her shot at the 25th Amendment.
The Nevada Independent reported her remarks:
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Sunday in Las Vegas that Trump administration officials have an obligation to invoke the 25th Amendment if they believe the president cannot fulfill his duties.
The comment came in response to former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe telling CBS’s “60 Minutes” that then-acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had considered the idea out of concern for Trump’s “capacity and about his intent at that point in time,” referring to the days after Trump fired James B. Comey as FBI director.
“My point here is that if they believe that Donald Trump cannot fulfill the obligations of his office, then they have a constitutional responsibility to invoke the 25th amendment,” Warren, a Democratic presidential candidate, said after a rally in Las Vegas. “Their loyalty under law is not to him personally. It is to the Constitution of the United States and to the people of United States.”
Oh, Elizabeth of Forked Tongue, you should try being loyal to the Constitution some day instead of being the craven, greedy, anything for power fraud that you are now. You probably couldn’t get re-elected in Massachusetts then. Massachusetts has given us Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Warren and Ed Markey recently. Can you say “icky”? Sure you can.
By the by, if you haven’t read Deanna’s fisking of the McCabe interview, you should. It’s right here. If you thought the Deep State was for tin foil hat types, the dead eyed McCabe dispelled that notion. If you have a terminal case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, you were probably cheering and The Constitution didn’t enter your mind.
Speaking of The Constitution, back to Liawatha Warren. Every citizen and aspiring citizen should be loyal to The Constitution. They should also try reading it. Now, I know that Senator Warren graduated from and taught law school. One would think somewhere along the way she would have read it. Maybe she didn’t teach Constitutional Law. I was gonna make an Obama joke but, you write your own.
I am going to cite here The Constitution according to Cornell Law School because I heard that school knew something about law. Here is the first part of Section 4:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Easy peasy, right? If you watched McCabe on 60 Minutes or read the above statement by Liawatha Warren, it’s that easy. Like a to-do list: Invoke 25th Amendment. Drop kick Trump to the curb. Install Pence as President. Win 2020 Presidential Election. Is it really that easy? Nah, dude. Not even close. The next section says:
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
The hard part would be “….Congress shall decide the issue,…”. Yes, yes, I am laughing too. Apparently, all these nimrods shouting the 25th Amendment at the tops of their lungs only read the first bit. Don’t you hate it when things get all, like, hard?
I know she didn’t read the hard because here is what she said to a local Nevada reporter:
Just FYI, Liawatha: Rosenstein, McCabe and James Comey didn’t work with President Trump day in and day out. Those weaponized Obamabots just hate that the bad orange man beat the beloved (to them) Hillary. Those arrogant bureaucrats were more than willing to dump this Constitutional Crisis into your lap, baby girl.
So, Liawatha and all y’all in Washington, D.C. better get on the right side and behave yourselves. The 25th Amendment is not your way out.
California Governor Wants National Guard To Help Struggling Pot Industry Instead Of Protecting Borders
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is hoping to pull National Guard troops away from the U.S.-Mexico border to help protect his state’s struggling marijuana industry.
Faced with competition from a robust black market, the legal cannabis industry in California has not experienced the growth that supporters had expected. Newsom — who enjoyed hundreds of thousands in campaign donations from the marijuana lobby — wants to aid the industry by re-deploying at least 150 California National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border and instead use them to combat illegal grows in Northern California.
“There are legitimate concerns in Northern California particularly as it relates to illegal cannabis grows. They are getting worse, not better,” Newsom stated, according to the Los Angels Times. “I want to see more enforcement.”
California citizens voted to legalize recreational marijuana in November 2016, and the law officially changed in January 2018. Proponents initially anticipated a thriving cannabis industry within the country’s most populous state. California officials, for example, estimated there would be up to 6,000 licensed cannabis shops within the first few years and that the industry would bring up to $1 billion a year in revenue.
Instead, the state only issued 547 temporary and annual licenses by December 2018, and California is only expected to rake in $471 million in revenue this fiscal year. New Frontier Data, a firm that analyzes marijuana sales, estimated the black market accounts for as much as 80 percent of the marijuana sold in the state. California’s illegal pot market is estimated to be four times that of the legal market.
Beyond a thriving black market, experts blame California’s lackluster marijuana sales on complex and burdensome regulations by the state government.
Newsom’s plan to target drug cartels and illegal grows comes after he blasted the Trump administration’s security prioritization at the U.S.-Mexico border. The Democratic governor announced on Feb. 11 that he would be pulling most of the state’s 400 National Guard troops from the southern border, rebuking an agreement his predecessor made with President Donald Trump in 2018 to beef up border security.
“We are not interested in participating in this political theatre. I think it is political theatre,” Newsom said in Sacramento as he announced his decision. He went on to claim that border crossings are at record lows and argued that immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens. “The whole thing is ludicrous,” he said of Trump’s border security efforts.
The Democratic governor — who is serving his first year in office — offered further criticism of the president’s border agenda in his State of the State address.
Socialists are Nothing More Than Parasites
by Marta Hernandez in politics 
President Trump’s State of the Union address, as well as his speech at Florida International University today, hit back hard against the sludge-covered wave of socialist thought that has infested parts of our country. It was a big, glorious middle finger to the likes of Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Rashida Tlaib – a bold statement of defiance informing these socialists that their dream of a Marxist plague will not happen.
“And to those who would try to impose socialism on the United States, we again deliver a very simple message: America will never be a socialist country,” Trump said toward the end of his speech in Miami on Monday.
This is exactly the type of rebellion we need in the US today, as a cancerous scourge of socialism tries to attach itself like so many pubic lice to the life source of our nation. Those unwilling to put in the effort to support themselves and to succeed are voting for politicians who will steal from their neighbors at the point of a government gun, while at the same time working to disarm those from whom they steal to ensure a “peaceful” transfer of wealth.
I’m thrilled that Donald Trump is standing up to these parasites, and brazenly telling them their dream is not going to happen, because the wholesale condemnation of those who have achieved economic success in this country is worrisome.
Men and women who have studied, worked, taken risks, and bled to achieve what only a few could are being condemned as parasites and told they shouldn’t exist.
Lee J. Carter@carterforva
Billionaires shouldn't exist. Pass it on.
People like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have a limited understanding of economics, and still look at wealth as a finite pie. Instead of growing the entire pie, Occasional-Cortex believes that billionaires are simply hogging most of it, while the rest of us are left with crumbs, without understanding that as the pie grows, more and more people earn bigger pieces of it.
“I’m not saying that Bill Gates or Warren Buffett are immoral, but a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong,” Ocasio-Cortez said during an event honoring the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. on Monday.
It’s difficult to believe that this imbecile holds a degree in economics. Her professors at Boston University should either be embarrassed, or they are as frighteningly ignorant and incompetent as she is.
By condemning people who help grow the economy, Occasional-Cortex and her ilk want those whom they consider deserving of stealing the fruits of others’ labor, to have a piece of a much smaller economic pie. The socialists believe that somehow those who have made billions with their ingenuity and courage are taking away from those who haven’t, instead of providing a product for which people want to pay them money.
Canadian-born Guy Laliberte had nothing when he decided to take a small troupe of circus performers to the US. He took a chance that Americans would love what this group had to offer, and flew to LA without a return ticket. The self-made billionaire is now the CEO what became Cirque du Soleil. Do you think Cirque du Soleil would have been the raging success that it was if people weren’t willing to pay money to see the shows?
Howard Schultz – the former CEO of Starbucks – grew up in a housing complex for the poor. In 1987 Schultz became Starbucks CEO and grew the coffee chain from about 60 stores to more than 16,000 outlets worldwide. Schultz came up from nothing. Starbucks now employs thousands of people, pays them well above minimum wage, provides education benefits to veterans and their families, and allows its employees to progress and grow their careers from within.
How do I know this? My son started working at a Starbucks store as a barista when he was 16. This high school kid, who started this part time job at $10 per hour. Six months later, he was earning $15 as a trainer, and continued working there while in college, earning benefits and stock options. My son didn’t have to agitate for a “living wage.” He earned it.
Oprah Winfrey grew up in poverty and started off her career by becoming the first African American TV correspondent in Nashville. She’s now worth more than $3 billion. She came up from a local TV station to a national television show and has developed her own brand, her own broadcast network, and her own magazine. Oprah’s Harpo Studios alone employs roughly 13,000 people. Should she not exist? Does she not contribute to the economy?
The Jeff Bezos that Occasional-Cortex loves to malign started Amazon in his house. Amazon now employs more than half a million workers. Bill Gates started Microsoft in a garage, and he is now worth roughly $97 billion and is one of the biggest philanthropists in the world and employs 131,000 people worldwide.
Billionaires are employers, they help elevate the neighborhoods in which their companies locate, they employ thousands of people and provide opportunities for them to achieve and succeed. They invest in other ventures and provide a means for them to succeed. Those employees, in turn, rent and buy homes, they eat at restaurants, they contribute to charities, and they pay taxes.
These are the people Occasional-Cortex and crew want to tax out of existence. They are the producers, the inventors, the risk-takers, and the ones who put their blood, sweat, and tears into their businesses. These are the people who grow the economic pie, and penalizing them for their success will disincentivize hard work and achievement. Taking away their earnings and redistributing them to those who have neither the skill nor the desire to reach that level of skill, knowledge, or ingenuity will simply remove the desire to work and achieve. Why bother striving to improve, if the government will simply steal from your neighbor and give it to you? Why bother remaining in the country, providing jobs, investing in new ventures, and growing that economic pie, if the government will simply take what you have produced and give it to those who haven’t?
Part of the reason I am a strong supporter of Virginia Delegate Nick Freitas is because he understands and appreciates the producers of the world and wants to ensure they have every incentive to remain, to earn, to contribute to their communities, to provide employment opportunities, and to flourish without some envious Marxist pointing a gun at their head and demanding they hand over their earnings to those who don’t have the skills or the knowledge to reach that level of achievement.
Socialism is nothing but institutionalized envy – a way to use government force against the thinkers, the producers, the investors, employers, and risk-takers who have achieved and earned more than you have. It’s the tool of the indolent and entitled, who believe they deserve a piece of their neighbors’ earnings precisely because they are less wealthy and less capable. They take up government force as their preferred way of doing business because they cannot or will not work hard enough to attain what others have, and the only way they know to elevate themselves in society is to pull others down.
If you steal from billionaires, they will have less, and you won’t look like an abject failure.
Socialism needs class envy. It needs worthless parasites to leech off the producers of society by voting for those who will use government guns to suck those producers dry. The outcome is that wealth creators will have less, and so will everyone else when you remove the incentive to grow, to create value, to succeed, to invest time and money in new ideas and ventures.
Socialism cannot be allowed to win, and the parasitic, anti-Semitic (is it any wonder that some of the most odious anti-Semites in Congress are Marxist?), adulterous, lying, hypocritical, barely employed, plagiarist sack of manure Karl Marx should be relegated to the trash bin of history where he belongs.
President Trump Should Take Some Credit For Our New Morning In America
Ronald Reagan beat Walter Mondale with wit, optimism, and a simple question in the 1984 election: Are Americans better off now than we were? Donald Trump should do the same.
By Joshua Lawson
In 1984, Ronald Reagan defeated Democratic challenger Walter Mondale in a landslide for the ages. Outside of Washington D.C. and Mondale’s home state of Minnesota, Reagan cruised to a colossal victory, winning 49 out of 50 states and more electoral college votes than any candidate before or since. Mondale’s win in Minnesota was, in the end, a margin of only 3,761 votes—less than 0.1 percent. If Reagan had won just one more vote in each of Minnesota’s more than 4,000 precincts, he would have swept the nation and won every state.
How did this happen? How, a mere eight years after a failed primary attempt at Gerald Ford in 1976, did a “renegade,” “cowboy,” “anti-intellectual” former Hollywood actor become the dominant force in American politics? Much credit is undoubtedly due to Reagan himself—a once-in-a-century citizen-politician whose combined charm, tenacity, wit, and poise earned him the nickname “The Great Communicator.”
There was also Mondale’s especially weak candidacy. During a roaring economic revival, he spoke an “inside thought” out loud and told Americans that he would definitely raise taxes. But, perhaps to this day, not enough credit is given to the brilliant 1984 Reagan re-election campaign known as “Morning in America.” For President Donald Trump’s successful re-election in 2020, many illuminating lessons from 1984 would be indispensable to his bid seeking four more years in the White House.
Give Americans a Message of Optimism
First, the 1984 “Morning in America” campaign was glossed from head to toe in a sincere and unrelenting sense of optimism. The best ad from the election cycle, “Prouder, Stronger, Better” featured uplifting scenes of people going back to work, purchasing new homes, and once again—after years of Carter malaise—proudly raising the American flag. Instead of a negative campaign of gritty, black and white ads focusing on Mondale’s radical positions, “Prouder, Stronger, Better” (as it was officially known) focused on how things were looking up in America for the first time in a long time.
The positive changes Reagan’s administration brought between January 1981 and November 1984 could not be denied. President Trump’s re-election campaign can take a lot from this playbook, given how good things are for the country right now.
Hispanic unemployment fell to 4.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2018. White unemployment stands at 3.1 percent, the lowest it has been since 1968. Black unemployment numbers finished 2018 at just 6.2 percent, the lowest number ever recorded since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started tracking black unemployment rates in 1972. These are incredible realities that should be restated constantly and relentlessly. The very groups that President Trump has been accused of maligning and marginalizing are the very groups that have benefited most from his economic policies and the increased confidence that now permeates the marketplace.
Just like in 1984 when new home purchases were at a four-year high, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, more people purchased new homes in the final month of 2018 than any time since May of 2008. When Trump took office in 2017, GDP growth was an anemic 1.8 percent—it ended 2018 at 3.5 percent. There is an air of hope and economic flourishing not felt since the short-lived dot-com boom of the late ‘90s.
In fact, you have to go back to 1984 to find a time Americans felt like the economy was truly on the ascent and working for them. Trump should channel these positive and uplifting storylines while using real Americans to relay how America is on the right track. We know from the favorable poll results after the president’s recent optimistic and hopeful State of the Union address that the public will respond. They’re longing for this type of message.
Salt in Some Humor And Wit
Besides its optimistic and heartening ads, another lesson from the 1984 campaign was that a candidate with a sense of humor should not be afraid to deploy it as a weapon. The issue for 2020 is what type of weapon Trump chooses to use. If it is the equivalent of a mace or war hammer, an unwieldy blunt instrument, then humor can harm more than it helps. “Warhammer” humor may play at a massive rally of the stalwart Trump base, but it alienates the still persuadable “middle” electorate.
The suburban mothers who crippled the GOP’s midterm efforts in 2018 must be won back if Trump is to be re-elected president. This will require a more affable, disarming, and precise wit. If some of Trump’s more polarizing attacks can come off as blunt hammers, Reagan’s humor at its best was a rapier—agile, fast, light, and devastating. In 1984, Reagan used his affable wit to take on Mondale’s tax proposals, penchant for Soviet appeasement and American disarmament, and bloated spending record.
Most importantly, Reagan used humor to deflect attacks on his age. In many ways, the 1984 election was put out of reach on October 21. During his second debate with Mondale, Reagan fielded a politely delivered but vicious question asking whether Reagan was too old to properly carry out the duties of the presidency.
Instead of calling out questioner Henry Trewhitt, complaining it was unfair, or pivoting to lash out at Mondale, Reagan displayed the humor and finesse that endeared him to millions—he took a breath, smiled, and calmly stated that he would not make age an issue of the campaign, that he would not exploit for political purposes his opponent’s “youth and inexperience.”
The response was perfect. It remains the most flawlessly executed comeback ever seen in a presidential debate. Everyone laughed—Trewhitt, the audience, even Mondale himself. The rest is history.
President Trump is an accomplished political fighter and, like Reagan, possesses a rare Teflon-like quality that seems to inoculate him from damaging setbacks and criticisms that would spell the end of most typical candidates. Trump should continue to punch back. He must not yield in fighting ridiculous charges and unsubstantiated claims from an increasingly hostile press.
But a little bit of Reagan’s light touch, his “aww shucks” demeanor, and his poise under fire will allow Trump to get his points across effectively while not putting off the moderate voters he needs to win re-election. Using his knack for humor to disarm and charm rather than to bludgeon would pay political dividends for Trump in 2020.
Are Americans Better Off Now Than a Few Years Ago?
The final and perhaps most integral key to the 1984 campaign was comparing the America of Reagan’s first term with the backwards, pessimistic, failed policies of Mondale’s far-left Democratic Party. In his first successful run, Reagan closed the 1980 debate against Jimmy Carter by asking Americans if they were better off now than they were four years ago. It was a simple but poignant question. Reagan knew that the vast majority of Americans were not, so he offered his optimistic vision of a proud and prosperous America not seen since the early Eisenhower years.
In 1984, Reagan’s campaign flipped the 1980 closing statement into an even more compelling follow-up: “Do you want to return to where we were less than four short years ago?” Americans saw tangible, heartening progress in nearly every facet of life between 1981 and 1984, so the answer to this question (which ends the “Prouder, Stronger, Better” spot) was a no-brainer.
In November 2016, ISIS was still a threat, America troops lingered in Syria and Afghanistan with no end in sight, North Korea was as dangerous as ever, and American companies were closing their doors or moving overseas en masse. The contrast from then to now is remarkable, and the president should trumpet it.
While doing so, he should unmask the radical leftist campaigns of the likes of Beto O’Rourke, Kamala Harris, and Bernie Sanders for what they are: completely antithetical to the American principles of liberty, consent of the governed, and the Judeo-Christian values the United States was founded on. Americans must be shown, in clear contrast, just how undesirable a Democratic victory in 2020 would be.
The primary focus, however, should be on the Trump recovery and the inherent greatness of the country. Reagan’s 1984 campaign was in part so successful because Reagan’s team essentially forced Mondale to run against America itself.
The media will not remind them, so the Trump re-election effort must remind citizens how America is once again respected by her allies and feared by her enemies, and that businesses are returning to the United States and the economic outlook is stronger than it has been in decades. Trump should proudly and optimistically proclaim that he has made America great again, so why would we want to return to where we were less than four short years ago?
Joshua Lawson is a graduate student at the Van Andel School of
Statesmanship at Hillsdale College. He is pursuing a masters degree in American politics and political philosophy.
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_19.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment