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
Sat., April 6, 2019
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****

 

What’s the difference between Howard Schultz and the rest of the Democrats????

Answer...Very little.

Howard Schultz: “Abortion should be

banned in third trimester”.

I Employ Dozens Of Wonderful Guatemalans, And I Want The Border Wall

It's not as simple as 'open borders' versus 'build the wall.' We need to preserve rule of law while letting hard-working immigrants contribute to our economy.
By Ben Williams

“I’ve always felt that a person’s intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view he can entertain simultaneously on the same topic,” said Abigail Adams toward the end of the 18th century. This is how I feel about immigration policy.

Mrs. Adams’ quote came to mind in the last few days, as we planted trees on the farm. To be honest, the “we” doing the actual sticking in the ground was almost entirely a crew of younger men. My usefulness is more in carrying batches of trees out, picking up boxes, and performing whatever odd jobs a nearly worn-out old man can do.

“We” planted a lot of trees, too—right at 70,000 slash pine seedlings. While 70,000 may sound like a lot trees, and it is to us, in the larger scheme of the overall forestry industry, it’s not really that many. The vast majority of our trees went into the same ground where a similar planting effort two years ago failed due to drought. Beyond the expense of planting more than 100 acres a second time, we’ve also lost two years of growth on something that takes 14 years at minimum before it’s ready for any sort of harvest.

Planting by hand is more expensive and difficult than planting by machine, but when done by a skilled crew, it’s more cost-effective than the alternatives. The crews plant further to the edges of the fields and  can adjust where they stick the tree, so they end up avoiding old stumps and other things that a machine would just plant a tree on top of.

Of course, Mrs. Adams’s words have nothing to do with how trees get planted. They bear directly on my seemingly conflicting views on immigration, since I employ a crew of young men, mostly immigrants, to plant these trees.

Many Years of Interactions with New Americans

Having previously spent 35 years in the seafood business here in Florida, my view of immigrants has come to be positive to a great degree,because of many thousands of interactions across the fish case. These  more often than not involved me in my rubber boots and apron waiting on a customer, helping him select a fish, then cleaning it for him.

On more than a few occasions, the customer could not speak English, nor could I speak Chinese or Farsi or but the smallest amount of Spanish, so their instructions for how I was to clean the fish were communicated by hand. This wasn’t too hard when they simply wanted the fish to be scaled and gutted, with head removed. It was a bit more difficult when they desired trimming the fins, removing the gills, and sectioning the fish into chunks. And it got really complicated if they wanted the bones removed while keeping the fish basically intact.

It’s posited as one of the great values of capitalism that when we engage in voluntary interactions—when we trade value for value—and when we truly understand what is in our own self-interest, that we will find politely and honestly treating others garners the same in return. This has been true for me, at least from across the fish case.

The other end of the seafood business, the sourcing of product for the market, also generated positive interactions with immigrants. Miami is a major import point for all manner of seafood from South and Central America. Only the dullest of minds could not realize how valuable immigrants are to facilitating that trade. Whether due to familial connections or an understanding of how things worked in a particular place, or simply the ability to seamlessly surmount language barriers, immigrants have made much of that trade work. Our customers in the market, whether immigrant or native-born, benefited from this also, as it enhanced the quality and variety available to them.

If you wait on a customer for decades, and if you source from a supplier for similar lengths of time, you will inevitably end up talking to one another. Invariably, the time will come when you and the supplier or customer go past the simple pleasantries of “Yes, ma’am” and “What have you got today?” to actually asking a question of substance. It’s those small extra learnings about each other that help tie us together as human and that let us more easily accept differences. These interactions create individuals from groups rather than groups from individuals, the latter being something the political professionals seek to do, so they can more easily herd us.

So, too, has been the general experience of working with a number of crews from Central America over the last few years here at the farm. Some of the men are able to speak English (the crew leaders in particular), and as in the fish market, we end up eventually getting to the learning questions—the ones that bind us as humans.

The Stories of Immigrants from Guatemala

The tree crew and its leader were from Guatemala this time. As we hauled trees to the guys doing the planting, the crew leader taking time to assess planting density and give general directions, we had time to talk.

I discovered he is almost 38, has been coming to the United States for the planting season for 20 years, and likes his job. For all those years, he’s worked for the same company—something that points back to that trading value for value idea.

Back home, he farms coffee on his own land. Knowing nothing of coffee farming, I asked questions to learn. Turns out that farming coffee is as hard as planting trees, though in different ways. He also offered that some, if not all of, the other men also farmed coffee, most on their own land.

We also discussed that his wife was working their coffee farm while he was here, and that it was a busy time back home. The common thread—my wife and I having worked the fish market together, and now working the tree farm, in unison with what him and his wife are doing—was hard to miss.

Now, when you think all that through rationally, you realize this man has made a decision not all that different from one a friend’s daughter and son-in-law have made. The son-in-law takes off and works wherever his company sends him, for up to six weeks at a time, while his wife works her job here. It’s exactly the same setup, borders between nations rather than states being the big difference.

In each instance, the effort, the industry, the pulling in tandem, the familial attachments, and the personal sacrifices in service of a better life are exactly the same. In both instances, I think admiration is due.

More Complex than ‘Open Borders’ vs. ‘Build the Wall’

I know, so far I sound unconflicted. You’d even possibly assume me to be an open borders advocate. To be honest, I would lobby hard for more immigration, tilted towards our neighbors to the south. But there is more to it, much more, some of it seemingly at odds with my initial exploration of the issue.

It is the antithesis of embracing immigrants to embrace the lawbreaker ahead of the legal.

You see, I agree with building “the wall” provided it’s coupled with a thorough vetting of those arriving with claims of asylum, and a generally robust and prompt response to illegal crossings. I’d even entertain the idea of ending “birthright citizenship” as it currently exists and imposing some requirement for a level of proficiency in English to be attained before citizenship is granted.

Now, all of a sudden, after those last couple of sentences, you’re thinking I’m anti-immigrant. You’d be wrong, just as wrong as your initial assumption that I’m an open borders advocate.

The apparent disconnect comes down to the value of the rule of law. For I am as certain as I can be that a good portion of what makes coming to the United States (or, for that matter, England or Canada or any other nation embracing rule of law and basic ideals of liberal Western democracy) a desire for so many has to do with the freedoms and the safety and the economic opportunity that flow from those ideals.

This being so, it is a reasonable conclusion that to properly serve those immigrants who follow the law, to put them at the head of the line, to align our resources and policy to accommodate and embrace them, and to serve more of them, means that we must stem the flow of those who seek access illegally. In my view, a view not from some theoretical vantage, or from a place where seeking votes is the actual goal, but a view informed by interaction, by having served and having been served, is that it is the antithesis of embracing immigrants to embrace the lawbreaker ahead of the legal.

People carry culture with them, and culture can be learned and unlearned. We need to teach a culture of legality.

When we acquiesce to the demands of the illegal as compared to embracing those who demonstrate a culture of legality, we send the wrong message. People carry culture with them, even on to the third and fourth generation, and culture can be learned and unlearned. We need to teach a culture of legality. If we desire to remain a place where immigrants want to come, then we must chose legality over illegality and embrace first and foremost those immigrants who embrace that.

By setting standards, by embracing the admirable, by adhering to ideals that have shown worth and efficacy in producing free and prosperous societies, we will remain a place where immigrants seek to bring the benefits of their abilities and talents. By doing that, we will remain an example, and it is by being an example that we can do the most good.

Realistically, we can’t take in enough people to solve the social and political problems of billions in dozens of countries around the globe. But by being an example and showing the way, we can help billions.

It’s Okay if Political Categories Don’t Speak for You

That brings me back to the difficult truth penned by the most admirable Mrs. Adams. At one time, I assumed it was a deficiency in me that caused this inability to pick a political side, to climb into one of the camps on this issue. But the other day, while working out in the field, her thought really hit home.

In considering the positives I see in immigration, balanced with an understanding of the need for the rule of law, I’ve come to a different conclusion than lots of people. That conclusion: it’s those who smugly and sanctimoniously pick a side, adhere to a party line, and are willing to be driven by the political professionals rather than rationally think through such a complex and difficult issue themselves who are the problem.

A final thought: Those “political professionals”—the ones with knowledge of how to drive people emotionally, of how to divert and narrow and conflate and wordsmith such that huge amounts of us become distrustful of one another—I’d venture Mrs. Adams would find them, at best, distasteful and, at worst, dangerous. In her world, a “faction” was something to avoid rather than embrace as a tool for political gain.

Ben Williams holds an inshore U.S. Coast Guard captain’s license, commercially fishes in northeast Florida, and runs a silviculture operation. He and his wife ran seafood markets for more than 30 years.






Dems Have Vastly More to Fear from Full Mueller Report than GOP

BY ROGER L. SIMON Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler is huffing and puffing away about his committee's subpoena-in-waiting lest Attorney General William Barr not be sufficiently forthcoming about the details of the Mueller Report.

“But if we cannot reach an accommodation, then we will have no choice but to issue subpoenas for these materials,” Nadler warned. "And if the department still refuses, then it should be up to a judge — not the president or his political appointee — to decide whether or not it is appropriate for the committee to review the complete record.”

Methinks the chairman doth protest too much. In other words, it's all a charade for the faithful. He doesn't really want to do anything. Likely Nadler is secretly praying Barr redacts the whole damn thing or ties things up in the courts for long enough for the investigation to disappear at least somewhat down the memory hole.

The full text of the Mueller report is a booby-trap for the Democrats. And many of them not named Schiff must know or suspect it.

Sure there will be one or two tidbits to keep the heavy breathers at CNN distracted as their ratings continue to fall through the basement, but largely the report will be four hundred pages demonstrating what we all now know did not happen — i. e. collusion between Trump or anyone on his campaign and the Russians (not that we didn't know that over a year ago).

The natural question will then be — what was all this for? Cui bono? A full airing of the report, what Nadler claims he wants, will instead "open the door," as they say in court, more than ever for an investigation of why this probe was launched in the first place, by whom and for what reason. The results of that investigation will be quite scary, if not humiliating, for Democrats because they will lead close to, if not over, their highest doorstep — the portals of the Oval Office during the previous administration.

Over the next few months we will be seeing the fight of our political lives to keep that threshold from being crossed. The skirmish over the report is but a relatively tame preamble. Nadler has to be very careful not to anger Barr too much because the attorney general has within his control the ability to appoint a special counsel and make life miserable for the Democratic Party straight to the election of 2020 and beyond.

Meanwhile, besides whatever Barr decides to do, several other vectors are pointing at the Democrats and their DOJ/FBI/media allies. One is obviously hearings from the Senate Judiciary Committee under chairman Lindsey Graham. The second is the investigation into the provenance of the Russia probe and the attendant FISA court decisions (Steele dossier, etc.) to spy on U.S. citizens by inspector general Michael Horowitz. He is supposed to be working in concert with John Huber, a U.S. attorney appointed by Jeff Sessions ages ago with the power to carry out in the courts the results of Horowitz's discoveries and who has since been silent.

Many are skeptical of both of these men, whether they have the backbone to follow through. That may have been true in the past, but I would caution, however, that times change, situations change. The misfire of the Muller investigation creates a different world. So many unanswered questions are sitting there crying out for answers. Even the most reluctant investigator or prosecutor may be constrained to deal with them or face historical disdain. And remember, Mueller was a hero to the Democrats for two years until just a couple of days ago. The same thing can happen with Huber in reverse. We just don't know.

But we do know there are all those unanswered questions, most of which only point in one direction. Ex-CIA director John Brennan, who assured us on myriad occasions that Trump was virtually Putin's lackey, now tells us he may have been misinformed by his "sources." Were I a reporter anxious to make my reputation, I might ask Mr. Brennan who those sources were and what they said.

He is unlikely to answer, but, yes, we do have some media on our side who can find out and they are more powerful than conventionally thought. (John Solomon and Sara Carter to name two, Catherine Herridge for another). In fact, they are very powerful because, in concert with events, they are changing public opinion.

And there is proof that is happening, if we are to believe Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale, who reported -- talk about game-changers -- that an astounding 34 percent of those attending the massive Trump rally in Michigan on March 31 were Democrats. Parscale smartly used cell phone numbers to get an accurate read on how people voted.

No, the Republicans have little to fear. As Chairman Mao would put it, let a hundred Mueller reports bloom.

UPDATE: I see the NYTimes has made its latest salvo against Trump in re: Mueller. As almost always with the paper, the article relies on anonymous sources, just as did in its now discredited Pulitzer Prize reporting on the subject. At question of course is whether Trump "obstructed" justice in a crime it is now admitted never happened. The Kafkaesque nature of this accusation is obvious. It's hard to imagine Donald Trump, of all people, as Joseph K., but those are times in which we live.  Remember Trump complaining loudly a couple of years ago that he was "wiretapped" and the media uniformly dismissing him as paranoid? Kafka indeed.

Roger L. Simon - co-founder and CEO Emeritus of PJ Media - is an award-winning novelist and an Academy Award-nominated screenwriter.





Brennan, Comey, and Clapper, the three stooges of collusion

by Washington Examiner

" John Brennan has a lot to answer for,” tweeted Terry Moran, ABC News senior national correspondent, after the revelation that Robert Mueller’s investigation burst the collusion bubble. We couldn’t agree more.

Moran called out the former CIA director for “going before the American public for months, cloaked with CIA authority and openly suggesting he’s got secret info.”

Right again.

To call his behavior irresponsible would be an understatement. The truth is, Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper used their influence and newfound liberal sympathy to paint a picture of an intelligence community sounding the alarm about a Manchurian president. The trio had a setback when the president revoked Brennan’s security clearance. Brennan was promptly given space on the New York Times op-ed page to declare: “Mr. Trump’s claims of no collusion are, in a word, hogwash.” His security clearance was pulled precisely “to scare into silence others who might dare to challenge” the president. We now know, as we long guessed, that it was Brennan talking hogwash, and tendentious hogwash at that.

Trump was “certainly close” to being an unindicted co-conspirator to charges filed by Mueller and other federal prosecutors, Comey said a few months ago.

Perhaps even worse than the troika throwing their reputations and assumed insider knowledge behind Collusion palooza was that they also chose to reinforce the sensational claim that the president was being blackmailed by Vladimir Putin. In March 2018, Brennan told MSNBC that Russia “may have something on him personally,” and added, "The Russians, I think, have had long experience with Mr. Trump, and may have things that they could expose.”

The following month, Comey told ABC News “it’s possible” the Russians had compromising material on Trump. Then in June, he tweeted, “Thought experiment: Make a list of all the public figures in this country and around the world the current president has criticized. Ask yourself: ‘Why is Putin missing from the list?’ No responsible American should ever stop asking, ‘Why?’”

In July, after a bizarre and indeed disgraceful press conference Trump held with Putin in Finland, Clapper told CNN: “More and more I come to a conclusion after the Helsinki performance and since, that I really do wonder if the Russians have something on him.”

The ultimate irony here is that Brennan, Comey, Clapper, and those who followed their lead are the ones doing exactly what Moscow wants. Russia’s interference in the 2016 election was done to help Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton, but the larger goal was, as Attorney General William Barr wrote last Sunday, to sow division, incite chaos, and undermine faith in America’s electoral integrity and in our politics more broadly.

It’s not as though Brennan, Clapper, and Comey don’t know that. “We must get better at disagreeing without hating,” Comey tweeted last August. “The Russians know ‘a house divided against itself cannot stand.’ So they push us on social media from all sides.”

In his New York Times piece, Brennan wrote: “We knew that Russian intelligence services would do all they could to achieve their objectives, which the United States intelligence community publicly assessed a few short months later were to undermine public faith in the American democratic process, harm the electability of the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, and show preference for Mr. Trump.”

These comments now read like mea culpas. They were not intended to be admissions of incompetence and guilt, but that is what they are. The three stooges, Brennan, Comey, and Clapper, knew very well they were giving Putin what he wanted but pretended it was others doing his dirty work. They may still be lauded as heroes of the #Resistance, but their reputations and those of the intelligence and law enforcement communities over which they presided are stained. It will take much cleansing to restore them. They helped Putin succeed beyond his wildest dreams and turned the past two years into a political nightmare.





Joe Biden’s Ukraine Problem Is The Real Scandal

by Nina Bookout in politics 1 Comment

Joe Biden isn’t having a very good week or year for that matter. The issues with how handsy he is are finally coming back to haunt him. Hence his cringeworthy non-apology video from yesterday. However, that’s not the only problem he should be dealing with. Let’s talk about his Ukraine problem shall we?

In February 2014 Obama put Biden in charge of the Ukraine issue after the President was ousted and Russia sent troops into Crimea.

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza [1] [Public domain], cropped and modified

And that’s where Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm, paying Hunter Biden to be on the board, comes in. You see, by the next year, the entire firm was being investigated for corruption. And that included Hunter Biden.

“U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.”

Isn’t that something? But that’s not all. You see just last year Biden bragged ON VIDEO that he was able to get the prosecutor on the case, Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, fired. How? By telling President Petro Poroshenko the U.S. would pull $1 Billion in loan guarantees. The relevant portion starts at just after 50 minutes in.

Yes indeed. Here we have a former Vice President telling the world that he threatened a country over a prosecution that involved his son. As John Solomon points out, Ukraine isn’t exactly lily white. But no matter. The current prosecutor, whom Biden termed as a “solid” guy, reopened the case and wants to have a chat with Attorney General Barr.

Ashe Schow ✔ @AsheSchow

Forget the inappropriate touching, THIS Biden scandal is some Clinton Foundation level problematic:

As Vice President, Joe Biden Bullied Ukraine Into Firing Prosecutor Investigating Company That…
In 2016, while he was still vice president, Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko into replacing the country’s top prosecutor by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan...

The inappropriate touching and sniffing is definitely cringeworthy. However, this is very much the definition of collusion and corruption. You see, even the U.S. authorities have been looking into this case.

“But what makes Lutsenko’s account compelling is that federal authorities in America, in an entirely different case, uncovered financial records showing just how much Hunter Biden’s and Archer’s company received from Burisma while Joe Biden acted as Obama’s point man on Ukraine.

Between April 2014 and October 2015, more than $3 million was paid out of Burisma accounts to an account linked to Biden’s and Archer’s Rosemont Seneca firm, according to the financial records placed in a federal court file in Manhattan in an unrelated case against Archer.

The bank records show that, on most months when Burisma money flowed, two wire transfers of $83,333.33 each were sent to the Rosemont Seneca–connected account on the same day. The same Rosemont Seneca–linked account typically then would pay Hunter Biden one or more payments ranging from $5,000 to $25,000 each. Prosecutors reviewed internal company documents and wanted to interview Hunter Biden and Archer about why they had received such payments, according to interviews.”

Remember, Biden was tapped to be Obama’s point man on the Ukraine crisis in February 2014. Hunter started raking in money that April. Interesting timing isn’t it?

Conservative Tribune ✔ @conserv_tribune

So if collusion's bad, what's rigging prosecutions to help your kids? Asking for a friend...

Investigative Journalist Uncovers Stunning Biden Docs... In Ukraine
In a Monday piece, investigative reporter John Solomon revealed what may be -- surprisingly -- the biggest problem for Biden in 2020.

westernjournal.com

27 people are talking about this

Especially since, at the time that Hunter Biden was named to the Burisma board, the White House told everyone that Biden’s new job will have exactly ZERO influence on U.S. foreign policy. Except that the entire thing was shady as all get out as Mollie Hemingway points out.

“It sounds more like a cliched movie plot — a shady foreign oil company co-opts the vice president’s son in order to capture lucrative foreign investment contracts — than something that would actually happen in real life. But the indications as of this afternoon are that the board appointments actually happened, and that a Ukrainian energy company has retained the counsel of the vice president’s son and the Secretary of State’s close family friend and top campaign bundler.”

As for the foreign influence that wasn’t going to happen? Guess what folks? A sitting Vice President threatening a country because of a probe involving the company his son is with is foreign policy at its worst!

Why did Biden think this kind of threat and action would be ok? That’s just one of the many questions he needs to answer regarding this particular scandal.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

Ciao…..G’day…….
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/2019/04/www_5.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: