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 :

WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDA

.BLOGSPOT.COM
Sun. Aug.6, 2017

Mad Dog Mattis Did Something That Left Obama Furious

Barack Obama spent eight years weakening America’s military.

It was crucial to his scheme to fundamentally transform America.

Now Defense Secretary “Mad Dog” Mattis is putting a plan in place that will not make Obama happy.

Mattis has hit the ground running as Secretary of Defense working to undo Obama’s legacy.

He hit the pause button on Obama’s plan to allow transsexuals to serve in the Army and now he is changing the Army’s training structure.

His new plan is to eliminate any tasks or training requirements that distract from the science of war fighting.

Business Insider reports:

“Defense Secretary James Mattis and other military leaders are looking for ways to reduce the training and administrative duties that many in the armed services view as a burden.

The latest part of this effort is a review ordered by Mattis to identify and either reduce or eliminate the duties that pull military personnel away from tasks directly related to their jobs as soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.

According to a Defense Department memo obtained by Military Times, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness will direct “an effort to form a working group to determine changes to military personnel policies necessary to provide the Military Departments increased flexibility to organize, train, and equip more ready and lethal forces.”

Among the policies the memo says will be reviewed are those covering “professional military education to regain a concentration on the art and science of war fighting” and “requirements for mandatory force training that does not directly support core tasks.”

The directive appears to be part of a campaign to address what a 2015 Army War College report called the “deluge of requirements” facing commanders.”

The Army found that loading up troops with so many tasks makes it impossible for them to do their jobs.

Since ignoring an order in not an option, the number of requirements affects readiness.

Business Insider also reports:

“That report, according to Army Capt. Scott Metz, a trainer at the Army Joint Multinational Readiness Center in Germany at the time of writing, “makes the case that the Army over tasks subordinates to such a level that it is impossible for Army units and Army leaders to do everything they are tasked to do.

The authors of the Army College study also “state that since non-compliance is not a viable option, leaders must choose which tasks to conduct to standard and which tasks to just ‘report’ that they were done to standard,” Metz wrote.

Though readiness may mean different things to commanders at different levels, Metz argued that tasking unit commanders with so many duties has detracted from combat training and left US military personnel at a disadvantage on the battlefield.”

Conservatives have been thrilled with Mattis’ conduct as Secretary of Defense.

Barack Obama spent eight years where his main objective with the military was to impose left-wing social engineering.

That is all gone now with Mattis in charge.

Donald Trump Signals Frustration with Generals After Lack of Progress in Afghanistan

by CHARLIE SPIERING

President Donald Trump voiced his frustration with the war on Afghanistan, the longest war in America’s history.

An NBC report details Trump’s comments about the war, signaling disappointment that despite giving his generals military authority to advance in Afghanistan, the United States continues to lose ground to the Taliban.

“We aren’t winning,” Trump said, according to officials speaking to NBC. “We are losing.”

Trump specifically challenged his Secretary of Defense General James Mattis and the rest of his national security team, including National Security adviser H.R. McMaster.

The president’s frustrations with the war in Afghanistan demonstrate his eagerness to avoid lengthy foreign entanglements, including ones left to his presidency by former presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

The meeting took place in mid-July.

According to NBC, Trump was also frustrated that China was earning money off of Afghanistan’s minerals while America was spending the majority of the money to provide security in the region.

Trump went further, comparing the situation to a restaurant renovation debacle in the 1980s in New York City led by consultants, suggesting that the waiters on the ground likely had better ideas.

He signaled disappointment in Gen. John Nicholson, the commander leading the war effort in Afghanistan, suggesting that perhaps the soldiers on the ground would have better solutions.

In an MSNBC interview, McMaster defended Nicholson.

”I’ve known him for many years. I can’t imagine a more capable commander in any, on any mission.”

He asserted “absolutely” that Trump had confidence in Nicholson, despite his expressed reservations.

The war in Afghanistan is now heading into its 16th year. Currently the United States has about 8,400 troops in the country.

Despite their best efforts, U.S. military leaders have yet to provide Trump with a strategy that he trusts that will lead to victory.

We All Need To Admit That America Has A Tattoo Problem

America, we need to talk. You might not want to admit this, but you need to hear the truth. You have a tattoo problem.

By Mark Hemingway

For a variety of personal and professional reasons, I did an epic amount of travel in the last year, across thousands of miles and several states, and there was one cultural constant: Everywhere I went were lots of people with tattoos.

And it’s not just that people have tattoos, it’s the tattoos they have. At one point, I found myself in Breckenridge, gawking at the majestic Rocky Mountain scenery—imagine the “Sound of Music,” only swap Julie Andrews singing with a middle-aged dad yelling at the kids to stop complaining about the long drive. The view of the mountain valley was promptly ruined when one of the first things my eyes fixed on after stumbling into the parking lot was an otherwise pretty young girl whose thigh was consumed by a graphic picture of a skull dripping blood.

I’d like to chalk such a sight up to youthful indiscretion and Colorado’s reefer madness, but a few days earlier I’d been in Salt Lake City. I have many relatives in Salt Lake, and I’m fully aware that the town has changed a lot in recent decades. It’s no longer the monochromatic Mormon enclave of my youth where the most outré cultural expression imaginable involved the inadvisable addition of walnuts to Jell-O salad.

Still, that didn’t prepare me for the blond, pony-tailed soccer mom I saw at Costco with a low-cut tank exposing an amazingly detailed tat on her chest exploding into deer antlers crawling across her collarbones. As tattoos go, it was fantastic artistry, and I submit that was the problem. It was so realistic and visually arresting it looked less like a tattoo, and more like a manifestation of Lovecraftian soul-rot spreading onto her shoulders like inky kudzu. Suffice to say, this is quite the juxtaposition to confront when seeing someone hoist bulk food into a cart to feed her innocent munchkins.

You’re Not So Special Anymore, Buttercup

My experience doesn’t seem to be entirely anecdotal. If America can be divided into those who don’t have tattoos and those who do, the two groups seem to be rapidly approaching equilibrium. About one in five Americans have tattoos, and among 18-29 year-olds the latest figures peg those with ink at 40 percent.

Speaking of percentages, the Air Force is so hard up for recruits that it recently eliminated its “25 percent rule.” Like all military regulations, the 25 percent rule is painfully exact, but loosely stated, it meant that you weren’t eligible to serve, much less join a bomber crew ferrying around nuclear weapons, unless you were capable of exercising good enough judgment not to cover more than a quarter of your body in tattoos.

Back in the good old days, the problem was getting tattoos after you joined the military. My dad was a Marine colonel, and believe me, it was a problem. If you’ve never seen the tattoo parlors that set up shop on the edge of a military base, well, don’t. I’m pretty sure you can get hepatitis just by looking at them.

If tattoos were once an act of rebellion against cultural norms, now they are a well-established norm. If you want a tattoo, hey, it’s a free country. But it seems many people still get them laboring under the delusion that they’re a hallmark of individualism. The desire to use visual signals on your skin to proclaim yourself unique to people you don’t even know can’t be terribly healthy. It is, in a subtle and penetrating way, kind of selfish. Or maybe my misanthropy is showing, but the omnipresence of people begging to be noticed for such superficial reasons is surely annoying.

At a baseball game last year, I sat a few rows directly behind woman with a tattoo on the back of her neck in typewritten script that said, “I’m the hero of this story.” She seemed like a perfectly nice woman—from what I observed, she was also a doting mom—but in these circumstances I was all but forced to stare downward at her tattoo. And the more I thought about the sentiment, the more irritating I found it. It took every ounce of patience within me to make it through nine innings without marching down to her and explaining to this self-proclaimed hero of her story that there’s such a thing as an unreliable narrator.

Where’s The Excitement?

If tattoos ever had a singular redeeming quality, the fact they are now inescapable has robbed them of it. Before everyone had one, seeing one was at least exciting. And you had good reason to surmise there was a story behind it. Maybe your uncle’s career as a salesman at IBM didn’t exactly scream international man of mystery, but when he wore the wife beater at family cookouts you just knew that guy had some tales to tell about what happened on shore leave.

Of course, tattoos were also seen as exciting in more, um, stimulating ways? I think it was Halloween of ‘97 when a sorority girl in a non-regulation Catholic school uniform leapt up on a table at Rennie’s Landing to show us her tattoo. She was what today’s brosephs would refer to as a “smokeshow,” but alas, this act of youthful abandon was not for my benefit.

While I’d like to claim that the force in the universe responsible for equitably distributing female attention is, to recontextualize Tennessee Williams, a hideous b-tch goddess, the truth is that life’s not fair. My buddy Gordon, sitting next to me, is good-looking enough to have been a male model. However, Gordon was halfway inside a bottle of Wild Turkey and, handsome S.O.B. that he was, so inured to hot girls throwing themselves at him that he left my male gaze unchallenged for the big reveal.

Now, of course, it bears mentioning that as forty year-old man with daughters, the symbolism involved here makes me more than a bit uncomfortable. If you’re really looking to round out the Freudian implications of this little Halloween tableaux, it helps to know that, aside from her being dressed as a schoolgirl, I was wearing zombie make-up. And besides, finding out she had a small heart tattooed on her pelvic bone just below her waistline seems more than a little anti-climactic.

Indeed, the accompanying soundtrack to this recollection that keeps running through my brain is less “Cherry Pie” and more “Is That All There Is?” If the big payoff for intimacy is going to be knowledge of hidden tattoos, at the very least make it useful or instructive. A friend of mine used to threaten that he was going to get a tattoo on his right buttock that read, “If you’re close enough to read this, you’re cooking me breakfast.”

Still, at the time—1997 being a more innocent era, back when lurid tales of presidential sex were still kinda, sorta frowned upon—this dramatic tattoo reveal was still sexy on one level. It raised the suggestion that if a nice sorority girl was willing to do something transgressive like get a tattoo, she would, uh, do other things nice sorority girls weren’t supposed to do.

If my hazy pop culture memories hold, we were only a year or two out from the phrase “tramp stamp” becoming part of the national lexicon. Lower-back tattoos on women eventually became so common they prompted an epic “Saturday Night Live” skitin 2004 mocking them. And lest this degenerate into a discussion about sexism, there have been a number of distressingly overused male tattoo tropes. Right now, there’s probably a guy in a bar—it’s happy hour somewhere—whining that back when he first got it, NO ONE had a tattoo of barbed wire around his bicep.

But despite some encouraging cultural derision, tattoos still became more overt and common. As a result, any suggestive power tattoos might have had to indicate you’re a sexy badass is as outdated as the thought of Clintons in the White House. They have become so pedestrian, I simply don’t see a way to make tattoos great again.

Bodies In Motion

Now, certainly Americans of all shapes and sizes are fond of tattoos. But it’s also clear that the trend has dovetailed nicely with increased superficial obsession with our appearance. For instance, there seems to be a large overlap between athletes and fitness enthusiasts and people with ink.

I guess that’s one way of drawing attention to the fact you’ve got a rockin’ bod, but in another more important way, it’s kind of a shame. If you view the human form as beautiful, tattoos are a kind of corporeal vandalism. Much of the appeal of sports, for instance, is an almost subconscious appreciation of bodies in motion. Not just any body—bodies that have been chiseled to specific perfection to achieve strength, speed, or both. In that respect, the prevalence of tattoos means that watching the NBA these days is like staring at the Mona Lisa after it’s been tagged.

If you view the human form as beautiful, tattoos are a kind of corporeal vandalism.

It’s telling that in the sport most obsessed with perfecting the human form—bodybuilding— tattoos are often cautioned against. “Tattoos can be distracting for judges trying to see a builder’s physique,” cautions one article on the subject from Bodybuilding.com. “The tattoo may obscure the natural contours and shadows created by muscular development.” (Yes, it’s true that bodybuilders are also into things that make their physique unnatural and much unhealthier than getting a tattoo, but purely on aesthetic grounds they have a point.)

If the sheer number of tattoos are a sign we are unhealthily obsessed with our bodies, they’re also a reminder that our bodies are ephemeral. Ever see an old guy with lots of tattoos? Tattoos sink deeper into the skin over time and fade, to say nothing of what happens when your skin inevitably starts to sag or you incur sun damage from years of walking around shirtless to show off your ink. That awesome technicolor screaming eagle on your chest could end up looking not much different than a pre-school watercolor. Oh, and when the tattoo ink starts breaking up as you age, it has a nasty habit of traveling through your body and turning up in your lymph nodes. They’re not important, right?

Of course, if you just have small tattoo or two, these concerns might not amount to much. However, cultural mores on tattoos have shifted rapidly we haven’t really seen a sizable enough percentage of old people with extensive ink to make firm judgments about the regrettable appearance—or just plain regret—related to being all tatted up.

Personally, I suspect that if you want to make a killing, you should move to Boca, open up a tattoo removal clinic, and wait about ten years. You’ll be booked solid for the rest of your life.

But Your Tattoo Is Okay, Right?

Now I realize that inveighing against tattoos in twenty-first-century America is the Little Big Horn of the culture wars, not in the least because so many of you reading this have tattoos and are probably annoyed by this cranky string of get-off-my-lawn isms. I understand people get tattoos for deeply personal reasons. Not all of those reasons are bad or merit the judgment of others.

If you are a giant Samoan, Tongan, or Maori, please don’t hurt me for maligning your cultural heritage.

Every once in awhile, I see someone with a tattoo dedicated to memorializing someone special to them and admire the gesture. And obviously if you are Polynesian and have thousands of years of spiritual tradition behind your tattoos feel free to disregard all of this. (More specifically, if you are a giant Samoan, Tongan, or Maori—are there any other kind?—please don’t hurt me for maligning your cultural heritage.)

A few years back, in a fit of Extreme Parenting, my wife and I hired a nanny off Craigslist without bothering to get any references. This worked out far better than it should have; she turned out to be Mary Poppins reincarnated as an Arizona State sorority girl. The only time we had any doubts about her was when she somewhat reservedly mentioned she had a tattoo of the Waylon Jennings band logo.

We were briefly horrified about the possibility of having hired the Pamela Des Barres of Outlaw Country, but it turns out she was Jennings’ niece. Aside from family pride being an acceptable reason for the tattoo and Jennings being true legend, he makes a good cautionary tale. We encouraged her to tell our kids scary bedtime stories about the horrors of whiskey and cocaine.

A W.A.S.T.E. Of Money

But I still stand by my general assertion that Americans have too many tattoos, even if I understand the impulse to get one. In fact, I think my aversion to tattoos stems, in large part, from the fact I seriously considered getting one. In college, I went through an angsty PoMo literature phase and I thought it would be great to get a tattoo of the muted postal horn symbol from Thomas Pynchon’s inscrutable novel, “The Crying of Lot 49.”

What does it represent? Well, I’ve read the book a few times and… Oh, who knows what it means. The point is that it is cool and “postmodern,” and I thought it’d be a pretty awesome thing to have on my arm as a young man. I imagined I’d get asked about it by women, whereby I’d respond with erudite things like, “Well, Pynchon being one of the great literary interpreters of cold war America’s countercultural tendencies, the symbol represents a fictional conspiracy of…” In retrospect, that’s about as far into my prepared spiel I would have made it before the girl in the Catholic school uniform would have climbed down from the table and filed a restraining order.

In any event, I still spent a few weeks talking to friends about what a tattoo might involve and immediately hit a roadblock. It turns out that tattoos, even small ones, aren’t exactly cheap. I was a broke college student, and a tattoo would put a serious crimp in my plans to subsist on Taco Bell.

Anecdotally, I’ve heard stories of guys at alimony trials being chewed out by the judge for showing up with fresh ink when they claim they can’t pay. A friend of mine recently filled me in on the travails of a rather colorful mutual acquaintance. While the update wasn’t as exciting as previously learning he may or may not have been smuggling gems out of southeast Asia, I was blown away by the expense this fellow was currently taking on to make repeat visits to a renowned tattoo artist in Mexico City.

Your Favorite T-Shirt

Anyway, it was penury, not good judgment, that spared me from getting a tattoo. Not being able to afford one, I decided it would be cool to just have a T-shirt with the muted postal horn symbol on it. With Internet commerce having matured considerably, these days you can order a “Crying of Lot 49” hoodie in seconds. But back then, I would have to have one made by finding someone to silkscreen it, and, well, that would be a lot of effort for a guy who couldn’t be bothered to write term papers prior to the night before they were due.

I do, however, think my tattoo desire would have been satiated by getting a Pynchon T-shirt. Which is ironic, because the best explanation of tattoos I’ve ever heard was from someone on Facebook who put the problem of tattoos this way: “Imagine having a favorite T-shirt. Now imagine having to wear that shirt every day for the rest of your life.” At some point, it would cease to be your favorite T-shirt, right?

Along these lines, I refuse to believe even a sizable percentage of tattoos have been worthy decisions. For some select people, maybe tattoos are small part of their grand plan to live life to the fullest. But the vast majority of people should be encouraged to lead exciting and meaningful lives without needing to, in some cases literally, tattoo their personal vanity and insecurity right on their forehead. Fortunately, for now forehead tattoos still make you a bit of a pariah—after all, even the Air Force still has some standards.

Mark Hemingway is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard. Follow him on Twitter at @heminator

Pro-Abortion Group Going Undercover To ‘Expose’ Pregnancy Resource Centers

The 'Lady Parts Justice League' is asking pro-abortion activists to go undercover in pregnancy care centers, looking for material that will undermine them.

By Alison Howard Centofante

The rather crudely-named “Lady Parts Justice League” recently launched a new attack in the abortion wars, actively recruiting pro-abortion activists to go undercover into pregnancy care centers to look for material that will undermine those facilities.

They think it will be fun. Calling themselves “a coven of hilarious bada** feminists who use humor and pop culture to expose the haters fighting against reproductive rights,” LPJL is calling the campaign “ExposeFakeClinics.com.”

Here is the LPJL’s idea of “haters” who need to be sabotaged: pregnancy care centers that provide practical assistance to women in need—including free pregnancy tests and, in some cases, ultrasounds. The staff at these clinics offer their services free of charge, do not perform abortions, and—unlike, say, Planned Parenthood—receive little or no taxpayer support.

Targeting Centers That Actually Help Women

Because pregnancy centers don’t hold to LPJL’s pro-abortion views (it has compared pregnancy to a tooth cavity), it has condemned the centers as “fake clinics,” and has even taken the time to make maps showing their locations.

Trouble is, the map LPJL has tweeted out and used in a video doesn’t actually show pregnancy centers. It shows instead the locations of federally qualified health centers, a completely different group of entities whose staff provide even more comprehensive medical resources than the pregnancy centers. A review of the map will show that these federally qualified health centers—which outnumber Planned Parenthood facilities 20 to one—are easily accessible for rural and remote communities rarely serviced by Planned Parenthood.

For a group that supposedly advocates for women’s health, LPJL seems unconcerned with providing actual health services and shows a remarkable disregard for the facts. But perhaps that’s to be expected from a group that all but worships Planned Parenthood—itself a long-established master at misleading those who look to it for help.

Which Clinic Offers A Real Plan For Parenthood?

In truth, taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood has little interest in either planning or parenthood. The only “plan” their counselors seem to offer to the tens of thousands of expectant mothers who come into their facilities each year is a plan to avoid—or terminate—pregnancy. Planned Parenthood’s annual report reveals that a pregnant woman going into a Planned Parenthood facility has a significant chance of obtaining an abortion, with 95.8 percent of its pregnancy-related services being abortion. Adoption referrals only make up one percent of its pregnancy services. Abortions, after all, bring in hundreds of millions of dollars for the company; healthy births aren’t anywhere near as good for the bottom line.

All of which is fine by LPJL, whose “feminists” consider it “predatory” to provide information that will help a woman keep her child alive. That’s out of touch with reality. No matter your views, abortion is a serious decision that carries with it unique emotional and physical significance. As Hillary Clinton said, “We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.”

If abortion is just another medical procedure (like a cavity, as LPJL has said), pro-abortion advocates need to explain the presence and suggestion of an “abortion doula” during the abortion procedure. Planned Parenthood’s own website suggests getting an abortion doula to “provide unconditional love and support to patients… holding a hand during the procedure….” I can’t remember the last time I was offered a doula at the dentist. Abortion is serious and ought to be spoken of seriously.

That’s the serious attitude provided by the pregnancy care centers, who meet pregnant women where they are: confused, vulnerable, frustrated, and eager to find a way to deal with the hard realities of their situation. Pregnancy center staffers help these women gain a clear view on their health, on the medical and financial resources available to them, and on reasonable alternatives to abortion, like adoption.

‘This Is Planned Parenthood. We Do Abortions’

These, then, are the “fake clinics” LPJL wants so desperately to expose, while defending and promoting Planned Parenthood, whose staff, when asked what resources they offer pregnant women (ultrasounds, adoption resources, prenatal services), repeatedly reply, “We don’t offer those services.” Or, as one remarkably honest Planned Parenthood facility puts it: “This is Planned Parenthood. We do abortions.”

Perhaps, for a “coven” like LPJL, that is a plus. But for pregnant women looking for help, hope, and answers, exposure to the very real resources and support offered by pregnancy centers and federally qualified health centers is the best prospect they have for a better, happier future.

Alison Howard Centofante is director of alliance relations at Alliance Defending Freedom and is a Concerned Women for America fellow. Before joining ADF, Howard served as communications director for CWA. She has been named to the Republican National Committee’s list of “Rising Stars,” Red Alert Politics’ “30 under 30” list, and Christianity Today’s Reader’s Choice “33 under 33.” Follow her on Twitter: @alisonhoward1.

Levin Breaks Down Latest Reports On Mueller Grand Jury, FBI: 'This Is A Coup'

"This is a coup that should upset every American, Trump supporter or not."

On his radio program Thursday, Mark Levin addressed the latest reports that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is impaneling a grand jury for the Russia investigation and the FBI thinks they have a compelling obstruction case against President Trump. The investigation, said Levin, is essentially a "coup" against the president.

Levin began by explaining that the process involving Mueller as special counsel "has been abused" from the get-go.

"In this case, there was no underlying criminal matter at all," Levin said. "This was a counterintelligence investigation."

Levin reiterated that a counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal one, which would mean that a special counsel was not necessary in this circumstance.

He went on to highlight reports stating that the grand jury was issuing subpoenas regarding Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer in hopes of obtaining damaging information about Hillary Clinton. Levin pointed out that this means that even the subpoenas are being leaked.

"Let me tell you what's going on here: they want to drag Donald Jr. in front of a grand jury and everybody else who was in that meeting – all eight of them – and see if they can find any contradictions in their testimony," said Levin, "and then apart from that meeting and apart from anything that took place in that meeting – because nothing that took place was criminal – see if they can get somebody on a 'lie.' Perjury."

In other words, they're trying to slap Trump Jr. or anyone else in the meeting with a "process crime," a crime that was committed during the process of the investigation rather than the meeting that occurred.

Levin also highlighted a report about how chief FBI officials could be testifying against President Trump and that officials think they have a compelling case of obstruction against the president.

"We're leaking the investigators' views of a potential criminal case in public to try and destroy the presidency," Levin said. "To try and build political support for ... if the Democrats take the House to impeach the president."

After reading from a report stating that former FBI Director James Comey and Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other top FBI officials are going to testify, Levin stated: "This is a coup."

"This is a coup that should upset every American, Trump supporter or not," Levin said.

Levin later added that these reports indicate that "Comey's inner circle" from the FBI is responsible for these leaks to the media.

Trump: ‘Russia Story Is a Total Fabrication’
By Melanie Arter

President Donald Trump (Screenshot of C-SPAN video)

(CNSNews.com) - President Donald Trump told a rally in Huntington, W.Va., that the only reason why Democrats talk about “the totally made up Russia story” is because they lack vision. He said prosecutors should instead focus on finding Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails.

“The reason why Democrats only talk about the totally made up Russia story is because they have no message, no agenda, and no vision,” said the president. “They don’t talk about the all-time high stock market. They don’t talk about reforms to the VA or about manufacturing jobs we’re bringing back to America by the hundreds of thousands. They don’t talk about the Keystone Pipeline that I immediately approve or the Dakota Access Pipeline."

The president’s comments came shortly after news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller empaneled a grand jury in the Russia investigation.

“The Russia story is a total fabrication. It’s just an excuse for the greatest loss in the history of American politics. That’s all it is. It just makes them feel better when they have nothing else to talk about,” Trump said.

He said instead prosecutors should be looking into Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails, paid Russian speeches, and the uranium she sold to Russia.

“What the prosecutors should be looking at are HIllary Clinton’s 33,000 deleted emails, and they should be looking at the paid Russian speeches and the owned Russian companies, or let them look at the uranium she sold that is now in the hands of very angry Russians,” the president said.

Trump said he didn’t win because of Russia, he won because of voters like those who attended his rally.

“Most people know there were no Russians in our campaign. There never were. We didn’t win because of Russia. We won because of you,” Trump told the crowd.  “That I can tell you. We won because we totally outworked the other side. We won because of millions of patriotic Americans voted to take back their country.

“Have you seen any Russians in West Virginia or Ohio or Pennsylvania? Are there any Russians here tonight? Any Russians? They can’t beat us at the voting booths, so they’re trying to cheat you out of the future and the future that you want,” the president said.

Trump said Democrats are trying to cheat the voters out of the leadership they want with a “demeaning” fake story.

“They’re trying to cheat you out of the leadership you want with a fake story that is demeaning to all of us and most importantly demeaning to our country and demeaning to our Constitution. I just hope the final determination is a truly honest one, which is what the millions of people who gave us our big win in November deserve and what all Americans who want a better future want and deserve,” he said.

American Center for Law and Justice Lawyers Claim Comey and Lynch Lied About Investigation

As we reported yesterday, Loretta Lynch may be in some trouble over her interference in the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

The Justice Department released a redacted version of talking points it created about last year’s tarmac meeting between then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton, and claimed that the information could be withheld because of the government’s “deliberative process” privilege.

The conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain numerous documents related to the meeting, and eventually had to sue the Department of Justice to obtain the documents, which included the redacted talking points.

Getting the documents un-redacted would require action from President Trump – and could possibly expose Hillary Clinton in the process. He has no reason not to, especially in light of tweets he’s made about the aforementioned FBI investigation even after the election.

That was yesterday – now we have a bit more information on the new revelations, and they aren’t pretty for Lynch and former FBI head James Comey.

A legal team investigating the “surreptitious” meeting between then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on the Phoenix airport tarmac – just as Hillary Clinton was under investigation by the FBI over her improper email handling – says the FBI under James Comey lied about it.

“We have just obtained hundreds of pages in our ongoing investigation and federal lawsuit on former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton while the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI had an ongoing criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails,” says a new report from officials with the American Center for Law and Justice.

“The results are shocking.”

“First, the Comey FBI lied to us. Last July, we sent FOIA requests to both the Comey FBI and the Lynch DOJ asking for any documents related to the Clinton Lynch plane meeting. The FBI, under the then directorship of James Comey, quickly replied that ‘No records responsive to your request were located.’”

However, from records that now have become available, “It is clear that there were multiple records within the FBI responsive to our request and that discussions regarding the surreptitious meeting between then AG Lynch and the husband of the subject of an ongoing FBI criminal investigation reached the highest levels of the FBI,” the ACLJ reported.

As you probably remember, Lynch’s initial defense was that the two talked about grandchildren and family matters, but how they managed to do that for thirty minutes seemed suspect to everyone. As per yesterday’s report, we know that the Justice Department had planned “talking points” (that are redacted in the document release) to use in defense of the meeting.

Why create talking points for an “accidental” meeting where they discussed grandchildren that the public almost never heard about in the first place? Perhaps because there was something more they were discussing?

John McCain Threatened A Betrayal Against Trump That Has Some Whispering Treason

John McCain has built his career on betraying Republicans.

Just recently, he stabbed Trump and conservatives in the back by providing the decisive vote to kill efforts to repeal Obamacare.

But now he is threatening to undermine Trump with a move that some say is calling for a coup.

The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

He has the final call on military matters.

And for our country to function there can only be one Commander-in-Chief at a time.

But now John McCain is threatening a constitutional crisis by usurping the powers of the President.

Trump has rejected the generals plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan.

He has questioned why America is still at war 16 years later.

It’s a question many Americans are asking as well.

But John McCain wants war everywhere all the time.

Now he’s threatening to force Congress to impose an Afghanistan strategy on the President in a clear violation of Trump’s powers as Commander-in-Chief under Article Two of the Constitution.

CNN reports:

“Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain on Monday threatened to present President Donald Trump with his own Afghanistan strategy if the Trump administration won’t develop its own.

McCain issued a statement saying he would offer an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act in September that would provide a strategy for Afghanistan, the 16-year war that has been a divisive issue within the White House.

“More than six months after President Trump’s inauguration, there still is no strategy for success in Afghanistan,” the Arizona Republican said. “Eight years of a ‘don’t lose’ strategy has cost us lives and treasure in Afghanistan. Our troops deserve better. When the Senate takes up the National Defense Authorization Act in September, I will offer an amendment based on the advice of some our best military leaders that will provide a strategy for success in achieving America’s national interests in Afghanistan.”

It’s not John McCain’s place to set Afghanistan policy.

Congress has the right to vote on funding for a war effort or to declare war, but they have no right to dictate how a war is conducted.

Trump supporters are blasting this move as a coup against Trump.

The Presidents most powerful authority under the Constitution is as Commander-in-Chief.

And now John McCain is proposing legislation to steal it away.

It’s unconstitutional and it represents another example of the establishment refusing to accept the results of the election.

Trump won the election because he campaigned against nation building and reckless foreign wars.

But John McCain – as well as National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster – support increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan and working to undermine the President.

That’s because Trump has rejected their calls for more troops.

Breitbart reports:

“McMaster has particularly sparred with other members of the administration on an Afghanistan plan with an increase of 3,000 to 5,000 U.S. troops there. Defense Secretary James Mattis reportedly did not support the plan.”

Trump supporters are worrying these establishment aligned figures are trying to overturn the results of the election and impose their policies on America despite the fact that they were rejected by the American people.

If the voters wanted more foreign wars they could have picked Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or any other establishment Republican to be the next President.

But they chose Trump and his America First agenda.

Now the establishment – led by John McCain – is trying to stage a coup and nullify the election.

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/www_5.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: