FAIRY FOR CHILDREN

- Hallo friend FAIRY FOR CHILDREN, In the article you read this time with the title , we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article adventure, Article animation, Article fantasy, Article The latest, Article wit, we write can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title :
link :

http://ift.tt/2ihVQGgT. COM
Wed. Aug.30, 2017

~All Gave Some~Some Gave All~ God Bless America~

NoKo missile over Japan...Getting dangerous...

Which Members of Congress Are Anti-Israel?

At the start of the new Congress in 2017, a resolution (non-binding) was introduced to support Israel against the attacks it has received before the biased United Nations and anti-Israel Obama Administration. Below are the members of the U.S. House of Representatives who voted against Israel and with the United Nations/Obama: In an overwhelming display of bi-partisanship, the House voted 342-80 to voice its displeasure with the UN resolution that attempts to impose parameters for the peace process, and singles out Israel for blame while ignoring Palestinian terrorism and incitement to hatred of Israel and Jews. Most importantly, the vote shows strong support for the long-standing U.S. policy to veto one-sided United Nations resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It states that attempts to impose peace from outside bodies, whether the UN or any other international agencies or conferences, such as the upcoming Paris meeting scheduled for January 15, harm Israel’s security as they reduce her ability to negotiate in her best interests. Democrats AZ Raul Grijalva CA John Garamendi CA Jared Huffman CA Mike Thompson CA Jerry McNerney CA Mark DeSaulnier CA Nancy Pelosi CA Barbara Lee CA Jackie Speier CA Eric Swalwell CA Anna Eshoo CA Salud Carbajal CA Judy Chu CA Karen Bass CA Mark Takano CA Maxine Waters CA Alan Lowenthal CO Diana DeGette DE Lisa Blunt Rochester GA Sanford Bishop GA John Lewis GA Hank Johnson HI Tulsi Gabbard IL Robin Kelly IL Luis Gutierrez IL Danny Davis IL Janice Schakowsky IL Bill Foster IL Cherie Bustos IN Andre Carson IA Dave Loebsack KY John Yarmuth MA Niki Tsongas MA Jim McGovern MA Katherine Clark MA Stephen Lynch ME Chellie Pingree MI Dan Kildee MI Debbie Dingell MI John Conyers MN Betty McCollum MN Keith Ellison MN Richard Nolan MS Bennie Thompson MO Lacy Clay NV Ruben Kihuen NH Annie Kuster NJ Donald Payne NJ Bonnie Watson Coleman NY Gregory Meeks NY Jose Serrano NY Paul Tonko NY Louise Slaughter NC G. K. Butterfield NC David Price OH Marcy Kaptur OR Earl Blumenauer OR Peter DeFazio PA Mike Doyle SC Jim Clyburn TN Steve Cohen TX Al Green TX Beto O'Rourke TX Joaquin Castro TX Eddie Bernice Johnson TX Lloyd Doggett VT Peter Welch VA Bobby Scott VA Don Beyer VA Gerald Connolly WA Pramila Jayapal WA Denny Heck WI Mark Pocan WI Gwen Moore Republicans MI Justin Amash NC Walter Jones TN John Jimmy Duncan TX Louie Gohmert So, now we know who the anti-Israel members of the U.S. House are in 2017-2018.

8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules against Planned Parenthood

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Medicaid recipients are entitled to care, but cannot dictate to the states where they get that care. Legal experts say the ruling is a major setback for Planned Parenthood. (Associated Press)

By Alex Swoyer - The Washington Times

Planned Parenthood had been on a legal winning streak, piling up decisions from judges who have ruled that states can’t stop the country’s largest abortion clinic network from receiving federal grant money.

But they suffered a major setback last week when a federal appeals court ruled that Arkansas can kick Planned Parenthood out of its network of Medicaid-approved health providers.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Medicaid recipients are entitled to care, but cannot dictate to the states where they get that care — meaning Planned Parenthood customers can’t protest the removal of the network from Arkansas’s list of approved clinics.

“The plaintiffs are asserting a right — the absolute right to a particular provider of their choosing — that [the law] does not grant them,” Judge Steven Colloton wrote in the majority opinion.

Planned Parenthood can still protest its removal through the regular administrative process, but its customers can’t force it to be added back into the mix of medical services providers, the court said in the 2-1 ruling.

That’s at odds with rulings in a number of other appeals courts, which said the Medicaid Act prohibits states from cutting out providers without giving sufficient cause.

According to the Washington Examiner Joe Arpaio may challenge Jeff Flake for Arizona Senate seat

After receiving President Trump's first pardon, Joe Arpaio's plans have gone from possible prison to book-writing, speeches and potentially another run for office in Arizona, with Sen. Jeff Flake's seat one opportunity he is eyeing.

The former Maricopa County sheriff told the Washington Examiner he's upset at negative reaction to the Friday pardon, and that he feels Republican politicians are insufficiently supportive of the president, who he calls a great man.

"I could run for mayor, I could run for legislator, I could run for Senate," Arpaio said Monday. One particular race, however, is likely to gain significant attention: the GOP primary next year facing Flake, R-Ariz., a forceful Trump critic.

"I'm sure getting a lot of people around the state asking me" to challenge Flake, said Arpaio, who served 24 years as sheriff before losing reelection in 2016. "All I'm saying is the door is open and we'll see what happens. I've got support. I know what support I have."

Arpaio said he swore off another candidacy in January, when he left office, but that "with what I've seen happening in recent months, especially what's happening with our president, I said, 'Hey, why not?'"

Arpaio, who is 85 years old, said people should not scoff at his potential candidacy.

"Why do you say ‘wow'?" he admonished, adding: "They just say Sheriff Joe Arpaio comma 85 years old. Why do they always say that?"

Arpaio said he believes "there is discrimination against senior citizens, big time" and that "I'm proud to be my age. I work 14 hours a day. If anyone thinks my age is going to hold me back, I've got news for them."

"The bottom line is there's no way I'm going to go fishing. I have no hobbies," he said, declining to say how likely he is to seek office.

Flake is facing a re-nomination challenge from former state Sen. Kelli Ward, who is more closely aligned with Trump, but who has been branded a conspiracy theorist by opponents.

Arpaio said he has not spoken with Trump at any point in 2017, and said he also never spoke with Trump during a "cold case posse" investigation by Arpaio's office of President Barack Obama's birth certificate. He and Trump were prominent players in the "birther" movement.

Arpaio was convicted of contempt last month for defying a judge's order that his department not arrest suspected illegal immigrants without suspicion that they committed a state crime. He faced a maximum six months in prison.

The ex-sheriff said he may sue journalists who have called him racist or misreported details of the case against him. He says his attorney is reviewing the possibility and that he was "surprised" by negative reaction to the pardon by Flake and Arizona Sen. John McCain.

Breaking: CIA Insider Reveals Billion-Dollar Operation to Take Down Trump

For the past few years, liberals have been complaining nonstop about President Donald Trump’s use of Twitter to convey his thoughts and opinions to the American people.

There have been a lot of theories floated among liberals on how to get Trump to stop tweeting. So far, former CIA operative Valerie Wilson gets the prize for most creative, and most ludicrous, idea yet.

Wilson, who had her identity leaked during President George W. Bush’s time in office, has started a GoFundMe page to stop Trump from tweeting. She isn’t planning on buying off Trump — she’s planning on buying Twitter.

The page, which has set a goal of $1 billion, explains that by raising this money, Wilson would be able to buy a majority share in the company, and would be able to kick Trump off of Twitter.

Follow

Valerie Plame Wilson

✔@ValeriePlame

If @Twitter executives won’t shut down Trump’s violence and hate, then it's up to us. #BuyTwitter #BanTrump http://ift.tt/2w43oPT

2:21 PM - Aug 18, 2017

“Twitter is a publicly traded company. Shares = power. This GoFundMe will fund the purchase of a controlling interest in Twitter,” the GoFundMe page’s description explains.

Wilson is also a self-described “anti-nuclear activist” and justifies this fundraising scheme as a way to stop nuclear war.

“There’s a real danger that Trump’s tweets could actually start a nuclear war. Let’s delete his account before that happens,” the description reads.

As of Thursday morning, Wilson’s campaign had raised just over $38,000 — a far cry from what she would actually need.

The whole idea is inane, of course, but even absurd ideas sometimes require a response.

The Associated Press reported Wednesday that White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders released a statement essentially dismissing the campaign.

“Her ridiculous attempt to shut down his (First Amendment rights) is the only clear violation and expression of hate and intolerance in this equation,” the statement read.

USA Today noted that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has defended Trump’s ability to tweet, stating that it was important that people could “hear directly from our leadership.”

Clearly, the idea of freedom of speech doesn’t sit too well with Wilson.

Much like former Green Party nominee Jill Stein’s attempt to raise money for a recount of the 2016 election, this effort won’t do anything. As for the money being raised, we should note that Wilson she claims that if she can’t raise the necessary funds, all the money will be “donated to Global Zero, a nonprofit organization leading the resistance to nuclear war.”

That’s heartening, and who could doubt it?

This is just another sad attempt by a desperate liberal to stop Trump all because they don’t like what he says. It’s really quite sad to see just how desperate these never Trump folks are getting.

Report: President Trump Growing Increasingly Frustrated With Secretary of State Tillerson

Last month, the State Department was combating rumors that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was planning to resign.

Now, reports indicate that President Trump is growing increasingly frustrated with Tillerson due to his ‘establishment thinking.’

A source tells Axios that Trump said “Rex just doesn’t get it, he’s totally establishment in his thinking,” upon returning from a meeting regarding a new Afghanistan strategy.

Axios reports:

There’s a ticking problem with Rex Tillerson, and it’s growing louder by the day, according to officials inside and close to the White House.

President Trump has been growing increasingly frustrated with his Secretary of State. One time recently, after Trump had returned from a meeting on Afghanistan, a source recalled Trump saying, “Rex just doesn’t get it, he’s totally establishment in his thinking.”

Axios reports that they’ve heard a number of reasons from various sources indicating why Trump is growing weary of Tillerson – ranging from his inability to fill key posts, disagreements over re-certification of the Iran nuclear deal, and a downgrade in morale at the department.

The report goes on to suggest that comments Tillerson made over the weekend could fan the flames.

During an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, the Secretary of State seemed to defend the government in general when it came to a response to the racist riots in Charlottesville, but hung the president out to dry.

“I don’t believe anyone doubts the American people’s values or the commitment of the American government, or the government’s agencies to advancing those values and defending those values,” Tillerson said.

But when asked a follow-up regarding the president, Tillerson simply stated “The president speaks for himself.”

In the meantime, Trump has invited Tillerson to a weekly luncheon with Vice President Mike Pence later this afternoon.

It should be an interesting conversation. There are rumors that President Trump has been considering replacing Tillerson with U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. I guess we’ll have to see if those rumors become reality.

Trump voters pick Confederate Jefferson Davis over Obama for president
by Paul Bedard Statue of Confederate president Jefferson Davis on Monument Avenue in Richmond, Va. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

The national debate over Confederate war memorials has fed a lot of interesting public polls, but none quite like the latest Public Policy Polling survey.

In their poll, PPP asked a couple of timely questions, one on rebel Gen. Robert E. Lee and another on Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

Turns out that Lee isn't overwhelming hated in America. PPP said 36 percent have a favorable view of him, compared to 24 percent with an unfavorable view. Some 40 percent have no opinion of him.

Politically, Trump voters give him a very positive rating, 61 percent favorable to 10 percent unfavorable. Those who voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race have a different view, 17 percent favorable to 40 percent unfavorable.

Then asked if Americans would like Barack Obama or Davis as president, Obama wins overall, 56 percent to 21 percent.

But here again the politics of those polled is significant. Said PPP, "In a finding that says a lot about how we got to where we are today, Trump voters say they would rather have Jefferson Davis as president than Barack Obama 45/20." Among Clinton voters, 92 percent chose Obama.

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com

Why Any 2020 GOP Challenge to Trump Is Doomed

Neither Ohio's governor nor certainly Arizona's endangered senator could best the president in a primary

by Eddie Zipperer

Someone should slap a picture of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative on a sepia Wanted poster and round up a posse to track it down because that sucker “Shawshanked” through the wall, escaped through the drain pipe, and headed for Zihuatanejo.

The Trump-Russia collusion narrative was last spotted aiding and abetting the left-wing media in their attempt to destroy the Trump presidency. We believe this narrative to be unarmed and badly injured. If you know its location, do not try to apprehend it on your own. Instead, contact CNN immediately.

It’s been a month and a half since CNN has tweeted the word “collusion” and weeks since it last tweeted the term “Trump-Russia.” Meanwhile, Google trends shows that searches for “Trump Russia collusion” are the lowest they’ve been in over six months.

With the left-wing media’s favorite anti-Trump narrative on the lam, several new narratives are competing to fill the anti-Trump, anti-reality vacuum. My favorite of these narratives (stop me if you’ve heard it) is the one where President Trump is going to be primaried in 2020. But in addition to the frequent speculation over Ohio’s Gov. John Kasich, pundits are now suggesting the president could get challenged by — get ready to spit your coffee out — Jeff Flake.

President Trump: Jeff Flake is toxic

Jeff Flake might primary Donald Trump in 2020. If you're ever going to tweet the GIF of Ray Liotta's gut-busting Goodfellas laugh, now is the time.

A piece in Hot Air written by the mysterious, anonymous "Allahpundit" asked the question, "If someone's going to primary Trump in 2020, why not Flake?" Allahpundit waxes giddy over the idea, saying, "Flake primarying Trump in 2020 as revenge would be fascinating."

Then, last Wednesday, Flake himself said on "Political Rewind" that Trump is "inviting" a 2020 primary challenger.

So why not Flake?

Donald Trump worries about competition from Jeff Flake like General Motors worries about competition from Schwinn. Like Coca Cola worries about a nine-year-old's lemonade stand. Like great white sharks worry about Michael Phelps.

The Five Buzzwords Used by the Left to Control Public Debate

Terms and phrases misused, misunderstood and misapplied by liberal pundits and activists

by Brendan Kirby

George Orwell knew that the way to control the debate is to control the language. “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Truth,” he wrote in his science fiction classic, “1984.”

But even Orwell might blush today at the way progressives have mastered the tactic. To take just one example, illegal immigrants became “undocumented immigrants” and then — in some circles — “undocumented Americans.” Use of such terms as “illegal immigrants” or “illegal aliens” — the legal moniker — became tarred as racist, with those who utter those words shunned.

2.) Dog Whistles. This refers to seemingly neutral words that actually are super-secret coded messages to racists and other contemptible people.
                                                                                                                                                   The only people who seem to be able to decode the messages, though, are racists, liberal pundits, and left-wing activists.

“Law and order?” Code for taking away the rights of blacks, say those on the Left. “Cosmopolitan,” the word White House adviser Stephen Miller used to highlight CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s elitism during a briefing-room debate over immigration policy? It’s an anti-Semitic dog whistle that had its origins with Nazis in Germany. (Never mind that Miller himself is Jewish).

Former FBI agent Michael German this month even told CNN anchor Erin Burnett that “Western culture” is a dog whistle.

3.) Divisive. This pejorative is nearly always applied to Republicans, especially President Donald Trump.

What progressives really mean when they apply it to politicians is, “advocates policies I don’t like.” If a politician calls for open borders and less aggressive enforcement of immigration laws, he is a “unifier” or is “trying to bring us together.”

But such positions are controversial and opposed by at least half the country. It makes no more sense to call these positions unifying than it does apply the “divisive” label to the opposite position — that immigration laws should be enforced to the fullest extent of the law.

Both ends of the spectrum are legitimate positions in a representative democracy. Either view can be wise or misguided, depending on someone’s perspective. But neither is inherently unifying or divisive.

The same goes for a host of other issues. People should stop accusing politicians of divisiveness for having the temerity to take positions they don’t agree with.

4.) Microaggression. This sounded liked a joke when it came into popular usage a few years ago. But it is anything but funny. Originally attributed to psychiatrist and Harvard University professor Chester Pierce in 1970 to describe insults against African-Americans, the term has been expanded in recent years to apply to virtually every aggrieved social group.

“Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life,” a document co-authored by Columbia University Teachers College adjunct professor Christina Capodilupo, listed subtle slights that could hurt “marginalized” groups. One infamous example is, “America is a melting pot,” which the document concluded might make immigrants feel pressured to assimilate.

Guidance on the Equal Forum website at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for guidance advised that telling a woman “I love your shoes” constituted a microaggression.

But even Capodilupo suggested that criticism of microaggression has been used to shut down a free exchange of ideas rather than a call for self-reflection.

“It was never meant to give a vernacular that then makes it OK to stop talking,” she told The Chronicle of Higher Education in June 2016. “It was to ask people to be flexible in their thinking and to be open-minded to the concept that we don’t all walk through the world in the same shoes.”

5.) Courage. Political courage is an admirable trait. A willingness by a politician to risk his career by doing what is right was the basis of President John F. Kennedy’s 1957 Pulitzer Prize-winning “Profiles in Courage.”

Progressives, however, often use “courage” as a synonym for “opposing Trump” or Republicans, generally. This particularly is true when the politician opposing Trump is a Republican.

Trump Hands-On with Harvey, His First Natural

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) bathed in left-wing accolades in July after he cast the deciding vote against the "skinny" repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

"It certainly was a McCain moment," gushed "Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski after the vote. "Mark Halperin, talk about that moment and what it meant, what it means for the future."

Halperin, an MSNBC political analyst, answered: "Well, he's not afraid of the president, and he's not afraid of doing what he thinks is right."

No one doubts McCain's personal courage, considering his having enduring abuse over five and a half years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam or his current personal battle against cancer. But it hardly took courage to oppose a president with approval ratings south of 40 percent or a health bill that was even less popular. This is particularly true for a politician who almost certainly will never face voters again.

What Catholics Lost When They Started Tearing Down Their Great Altars

If the grand altars, with all their gold and statues and size, are at their core outward signs of inward devotion, what does it say about plain altars that more resemble a table than a temple?

By Dominic Lynch

For most of the Catholic Church’s 2,000-year history, it has been known for its magnificent churches. In the popular psyche, the stereotypical Catholic church has high, arched ceilings, statues of saints, massive crucifixes, incense that seems to pour from the walls, and gilded, beautiful, and (sometimes) obnoxious altars.

There is perhaps no better example of this than St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, the Vatican itself, which fulfills every Catholic stereotype to the highest degree. If any building could embody the very essence of Catholicism, it would be the Vatican.

But those stereotypical churches are fading into the pre-Vatican II past and being replaced with churches that are, simply, bland. Statues of saints have been removed, the incense is gone, the ceilings and walls have a color palette comparable to Starbucks, and the Great Altars have been replaced with simple blocks of marble, or sometimes even wood. These losses may be aesthetic, but they reveal something deeper about the changes in the Catholic Church following the tumult and fallout of the Second Vatican Council.

Different Sources of Community and Outreach

I attend two parishes in Chicago with some regularity. One is a traditional parish that celebrates most of its Masses in Latin, doesn’t shy from public rosary or Eucharistic processions, and has a healthy, loyal congregation. This type of engagement — public on major feasts, but otherwise focused on parish-centric activities — used to be a major component of parish life that has largely dried up.

Parishes do still hold processions, pastors still assert themselves in the community, and faith is still lived outside the church building. But the style of community engagement and parish building that drove (and continues to drive) traditional Latin Mass parishes is vastly different from the way it is done in more contemporary parishes, and not necessarily in a bad way.

Activities like rosary groups, First Friday devotions, and catechesis-centered book groups may be old-fashioned, but they generally achieve the same ends as theology on tap and keynote speaker events do for other parishes. For example, the contemporary-minded parish I attend is similar to the traditional one except that its Masses are exclusively in English, there is a stronger emphasis on community-building (speaker series, networking opportunities, etc.), and displays of faith outside the church building are more limited. But it also has a strong, loyal congregation.

One of the major differences between the two is that the Latin-Mass parish kept its Great Altar, while the English one removed it long ago for something more modest. To many Catholics today what separates one parish from another is more about the politics of the place and less about the aesthetics. It is not uncommon for young adults or a young family to “parish shop” around their city or suburb until they find a place that aligns with their priorities.

Does the pastor speak more about abortion, or more about climate change? Does the parish school have a rigorous curriculum, or is it too watered down? How is the music at Mass? But one thing that is often overlooked, for whatever reason, are the aesthetics of a parish. Does it have a Great Altar?

What the Great Altars Symbolize

The Great Altars of the church do, at times, deserve the criticism they have received after Vatican II. Their gilded exteriors and baroque architecture can come off as gaudy if poorly executed. But if the grand altars, with all their gold and statues and size, are at their core outward signs of inward devotion — just like the Rosary and other sacramentals are for Catholics — then what does it say about plain altars that more resemble a table than a temple?

This isn’t to imply that people’s faith is weaker because churches are blander now than they used to be. But for a church that put so much emphasis on aesthetics for millennia, to shift away from it so suddenly would go a long way towards explaining the crisis that many parishes suddenly find themselves in.

The reform that came from Vatican II stripped a number of rituals (aesthetic and otherwise) from the Mass that had organically come into existence over time and for specific reasons. For instance, in the traditional Latin Mass the priest faces the altar in the same direction the congregation does, and his movements are choreographed down to which fingers handle the Eucharist. The altar, considered the point where heaven and earth meet, was designed with the according dignity.

Perhaps the largest disruption that came from the destruction of the old altars was the reordering of the purpose of the Mass, both literally and figuratively. There is a reason churches-in-the-round were rare before Vatican II, and why they are now more popular. The physical design of old churches was meant to dictate several things: ornate artwork on the walls, domes, and arches was meant to pull the eye upward and spark meditation on the divine mysteries, the altarpiece was placed in the apse to orient the congregation properly, and incense was meant to draw together and sanctify the individual properties into one event.

That sort of order and hierarchy has been misplaced and is often focused inward, not upward. The importance of physical design on the structure of the Mass is lost on a number of twenty-first-century, postmodern Catholics. But it is important to remember that how a building is designed is integral to its function.

That’s why removing the old altars was one of the most detrimental post-concilar things that could have happened: by reorienting the altar to meet the people, the Mass is now too often (though not always) about the people themselves. The number of Masses I have attended that function more as performance art and less as worship are sadly too many.

The Key Importance of the Central Focus

Vatican II certainly had a point that the church should be doing more to meet people where they’re at, instead of asking them to meet the church where it was at, which was often inaccessible. But re-orienting the structure of the Mass to focus on the congregation, in the long run, ended up de-ordering the priority of the Mass, which ultimately exists to worship God.

Whatever faults the old Mass may have had, one thing it excelled at was prioritization. Everything that happened had a reason behind it and each Mass progressed as a timeline recounting salvation history through Old Testament prayers and readings, and culminating in a re-presentation (not representation) of the “new and eternal covenant” in the Eucharist.

Contemporary Masses may be more accessible in a literal sense, but too often their priorities are in the wrong places. If a lively parish has a handful of priests to itself, why do there need to be ten or more lay Eucharistic ministers at every Mass? Why must every song sound like something from a low-budget Christian movie? And why must the altar and tabernacle be so plain?

Coming into focus 60 years after Vatican II is what we lost with the Great Altars. The Catholic Church has lost not only the altars themselves, and the artistic treasures most of them contained, but also an appreciation for the spiritual and religious impact aesthetics can have in a sacred space.

The rich history of the church — everything from Latin to kneeling for communion to saint statues — has been put on the postmodern, post-concilar backburner in favor of “innovations” that were supposed to bring the church into the present day. But have all of these innovations worked? That’s an open question, and one worth asking of reformers and traditionalists alike.

Dominic Lynch is a freelance writer from Chicago. He contributes to Chicagoly Magazine and publishes the Monthly Memo newsletter. Follow him on Twitter.

John Mccain Infuriated Conservatives With An Unthinkable Attack On Donald Trump

John McCain has positioned himself as a bigger opponent of Donald Trump’s agenda than any Democrat.

He betrayed the President and GOP voters when he provided the decisive vote to kill the effort to repeal Obamacare.

Now he’s blasting Trump for his latest decision and conservatives are furious.

Trump pardoned Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

The Obama administration brought criminal charges against Arpaio in 2016 after they sued him in 2012 for allegedly racially profiling Hispanics.

Conservatives argued it was a political prosecution and cited the fact that the case was brought while Arpaio was running for re-election as evidence.

Arpaio lost that race – in part because of the trial – and was later convicted.

Trump had been telegraphing that he would pardon Arpaio – who strongly endorsed Trump during the campaign – for days.

When the pardon was handed down, the establishment was furious.

John McCain infuriated conservatives again when he blasted the President’s decision in a statement he released on his website.

It read:

“No one is above the law and the individuals entrusted with the privilege of being sworn law officers should always seek to be beyond reproach in their commitment to fairly enforcing the laws they swore to uphold. Mr. Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt for continuing to illegally profile Latinos living in Arizona based on their perceived immigration status in violation of a judge’s orders. The President has the authority to make this pardon, but doing so at this time undermines his claim for the respect of rule of law as Mr. Arpaio has shown no remorse for his actions.”

This was a stunning act of betrayal.

Democrats were sure to denounce the Arpaio pardon because of his strong stand against illegal immigration.

But establishment Republicans raced to be the first ones to denounce Trump’s move.

In addition to McCain, fellow Arizona Senator Jeff Flake – whose opposition to Trump has badly damaged his chance of surviving a pro-Trump primary challenger – also criticized the decision.

Follow

Jeff Flake

✔@JeffFlake

Regarding the Arpaio pardon, I would have preferred that the President honor the judicial process and let it take its course.

9:05 PM - Aug 25, 2017

Flake and McCain are two of the leading supporters of amnesty and open borders.

So it was not surprising that they disagreed with the Arpaio pardon.

But publicly rebuking Trump for exercising his constitutional powers and joining a media pile-on struck conservative critics as unseemly.

G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier

Thus articles

that is all articles This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.

You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2017/08/httpift_29.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: