Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Saturday, Mar. 3, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
February Ratings: Fox News and Sean Hannity on Top — CNN and Chris Cuomo in Freefall
by JOHN NOLTE
Paul Zimmerman/Getty
With an average of 3.3 million viewers, Fox News anchor Sean Hannity extends his status as the King of Cable News to five months, reports Forbes.
In second place is Fox’s Tucker Carlson, who averaged 3.144 million viewers.
Next up is the now-deposed Rachel Maddow, whose MSNBC show was number one in 2017. She is now in third place with 2.874 million average viewers.
Of every basic cable channel, including ESPN, USA, TNT, etc., Fox News is the most-watched and has been for 20 straight months.
Overall, Fox averaged a whopping 2.8 million viewers during prime time and only lost -3 percent of viewers when compared to February of last year.
CNN, on the other hand, is collapsing.
The far-left cable channel averaged only a measly 979,000 primetime viewers, a catastrophic drop of -16 percent when compared to last year. The anti-Trump network lost a whopping -19 percent of its total day viewers.
With its ongoing and well-documented fake news crisis, Democrats appear to be fleeing in droves from the basement-rated CNN, choosing instead to watch MSNBC. CNN’s entire foundation is based on the existential lie that it is an unbiased and objective news outlet. MSNBC is not only not as hysterically far left as CNN, it does not lie about its biases. And so, MSNBC captured nearly twice as many primetime viewers as CNN (1.805 million) and grew its audience by slightly better margins then CNN’s double-digit shrinkage.
Nevertheless, Fox News’s 2.8 million primetime viewers almost perfectly equals the combined viewership of CNN and MSNBC.
The news gets even worse for the disgraced CNN when you look at the individual shows. Not a single CNN program ranks in the top 20. Anderson Cooper finally pops up at #24.
And waaaaaay at the bottom is Chris Cuomo’s widely-ridiculed morning show New Day. Other than MSNBC’s and CNN’s super-early 5am programs, New Day is the least watched program of the three major cable news networks, coming in at a humiliating #42 with only 607,000 total viewers.
Even MSNBC’s Morning Joe wallops Fredo, with 1.061 million viewers.
Fox and Friend almost wallops them both combined with 1.6 million viewers.
Additionally, Anderson Cooper was the only CNN anchor able to barely squeak over a million average viewers (1.077 million). No one else at CNN could even do that.
CNN’s credibility death spiral is having a devastating effect on its ratings.
Gowdy: Carter Page Interview Was ‘Sad’
House Intelligence Committee member Trey Gowdy (R-SC) admitted that the House Intel Committee’s interview with Carter Page was “one of the most painful interviews I have ever been part of. It was actually sad.”Gowdy stated, “The Russians didn’t take him seriously. I don’t think the FBI took him seriously. I spent a long time interviewing him. If ever a witness needed to avail himself of his Sixth Amendment right to a lawyer, it was Carter Page. That was one of the most painful interviews I have ever been part of. It was actually sad. I think Democrats, if they were to be honest…they would tell you it was sad. He doesn’t know when to stop talking, and nobody takes him seriously. So, he’s not Jason Bourne. He’s not James Bond. If the FBI wanted to investigate him, fine, go do it. But why are you relying on opposition research by the DNC and not telling the court where you got it?”
Message to Harvard:
Stop Discriminating Against Christians
Harvard College just put the school's largest Christian student organization on "academic probation." Their crime?
Harvard College Faith and Action (HCFA) is accused of asking a Bible Study leader to resign her position after learning that she was in a same-sex relationship. In other words, Harvard has suspended a Christian organization because the group insisted its student leaders should conform to orthodox Christian standards for sexual conduct.
As an independent and autonomous student organization, HCFA has the right to select its own leadership and set standards for leaders within the organization.
Would Harvard force a Muslim student group to retain a student leader who decided to convert to Christianity?
Would Harvard force an LGBT+ group to retain a student leader who expressed views critical of same-sex relationships?
We know the answer. Of course not!
It should come as no suprise that a religious student organization would set standards for conduct and belief that accord with their mission and principles.
In no way should such standards for conduct be considered to violate the school's anti-discrimination policy; HCFA has not discriminated against anyone on the basis of status.
Here's what Harvard's administration just doesn't get: religion isn't just an internal mindset, it's about acting out one's faith in the world.
The real reason for HCFA's suspension is likely because they recently invited a well-respected speaker, Jackie Hill-Perry, to discuss her conversion to Christianity and how she left the homosexual lifestyle. LGBT activists have been howling, accusing HCFA of "hate," and demanding that the College shut them down.
It's hard not to conclude that Harvard's "probation" of HCFA is ideologically motivated punishment for expressing Christian beliefs, and especially for inviting Jackie Hill-Perry to speak on campus.
Harvard's anti-Christian bigotry is intolerant, non-inclusive, and non-welcoming of diverse opinion. By suspending HCFA, Harvard violates the very values they claim to uphold.
The Christian members of the Harvard community are already under a lot of pressure. Now's the time to step up and to stand alongside them!
Dick Morris: Majority of Parents Back Arming Teachers
By Dick Morris
President Donald Trump’s proposal to arm teachers as a way to stop school shootings wins overwhelming support from parents of school-age children in the latest Rasmussen poll.
By 73-21, parents back the arming of teachers.
The actual question wording was:
1* A proposal has been made to give bonuses to teachers who are specially trained to have guns in schools to protect themselves and others. Do you favor or oppose a proposal to have trained teachers with guns in the schools?
Interestingly, a separate sample of all adults found opposition to the arming of teachers to be the dominant view.
By 43-48, they opposed arming teachers.
Of course, in midterm elections, the issue is likely to be most salient and have the greatest pull among parents of school-age children.
With Trump proposing arming teachers, stiffening background checks and raising the minimum age for gun purchases to 21, he is triangulating — stealing one of the Democrats’ best issues.
But his failure to back bans on assault rifles would seem to give the Democrats an issue they can still use.
But the countervailing argument — about arming teachers — now seems to more than offset this issue.
Trump, once again, has gone where others fear to tread. He either has very good and very fast polling or wonderful instincts.
I bet on the latter.
Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as a political author, pollster and consultant. His most recent book, “Rogue Spooks,” was written with his wife, Eileen McGann.
President Donald Trump’s proposal to arm teachers as a way to stop school shootings wins overwhelming support from parents of school-age children in the latest Rasmussen poll.By 73-21, parents back the arming of teachers.
The actual question wording was:
1* A proposal has been made to give bonuses to teachers who are specially trained to have guns in schools to protect themselves and others. Do you favor or oppose a proposal to have trained teachers with guns in the schools?
Interestingly, a separate sample of all adults found opposition to the arming of teachers to be the dominant view.
By 43-48, they opposed arming teachers.
Of course, in midterm elections, the issue is likely to be most salient and have the greatest pull among parents of school-age children.
With Trump proposing arming teachers, stiffening background checks and raising the minimum age for gun purchases to 21, he is triangulating — stealing one of the Democrats’ best issues.
But his failure to back bans on assault rifles would seem to give the Democrats an issue they can still use.
But the countervailing argument — about arming teachers — now seems to more than offset this issue.
Trump, once again, has gone where others fear to tread. He either has very good and very fast polling or wonderful instincts.
I bet on the latter.
Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as a political author, pollster and consultant. His most recent book, “Rogue Spooks,” was written with his wife, Eileen McGann.
Judge's Instructions Raise New Questions in Michael Flynn Case
|
WASHINGTON -- Behind the front-page indictments issued by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, there have been quiet movements in the courts on another front.
These developments have led supporters of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to call on President Donald Trump to pardon Flynn, or on Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea for making "materially false statements and omissions" to the FBI in 2017.
The developments are:
--Rudolph Contreras, the federal judge who accepted Flynn's guilty plea on Dec. 1, took himself off or was taken off the case for undisclosed reasons.
--His replacement is Emmet Sullivan, a crusading federal jurist who in 2009 famously lambasted federal prosecutors who had won a conviction against U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, for repeatedly withholding exculpatory evidence from Stevens' legal team.
(Later, newly installed Attorney General Eric Holder asked that all charges against Stevens, who was convicted in October 2008, be dismissed. Stevens' conviction was overturned, but only after the scandal-soiled senator narrowly lost his bid for re-election.)
Ever since then, Sullivan has made it a practice to order prosecutors to share information favorable to a defendant with the defense team. As Flynn awaits his sentencing, Sullivan issued one such order in December. He did so again on Feb. 16, with the important instruction -- that if prosecutors aren't sure if favorable evidence is material, they should hand it over to the judge so that he can decide.
Another straw in the haystack: Relying on anonymous sources, the Washington Examiner's Byron York recently reported that former FBI Director James Comey told Capitol Hill lawmakers in March that FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he had lied to them about his December discussions with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. If withheld, that information might have kept Flynn from cutting a deal.
According to York, then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates "reportedly believed Flynn might have violated the Logan Act," a 218-year-old law that is supposed to keep private citizens from conducting diplomacy on their own. Yates sent two FBI agents to talk to Flynn a second time.
Without a lawyer present, Flynn spoke with the agents on Jan. 24, 2017.
Two days later, Yates warned the White House that Flynn could be in danger of blackmail because he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the content of his December conversations with Kislyak, which the intelligence community had tapped.
Trump fired Flynn for lying to Pence.
Trump also fired Yates for refusing to enforce his first travel ban. And he fired Comey in May.
Sullivan's instructions and past history have led sympathizers to wonder if federal prosecutors withheld important evidence from Flynn's legal team.
"Of course, the point is moot now because Flynn has admitted his guilt," former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote in National Review in December. "Still, I wonder whether Mueller's team informed Flynn and his counsel, prior to Flynn's guilty plea to lying to the FBI, that the interviewing agents believed he had not lied to the FBI."
These developments have led supporters of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to call on President Donald Trump to pardon Flynn, or on Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea for making "materially false statements and omissions" to the FBI in 2017.
The developments are:
--Rudolph Contreras, the federal judge who accepted Flynn's guilty plea on Dec. 1, took himself off or was taken off the case for undisclosed reasons.
--His replacement is Emmet Sullivan, a crusading federal jurist who in 2009 famously lambasted federal prosecutors who had won a conviction against U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, for repeatedly withholding exculpatory evidence from Stevens' legal team.
(Later, newly installed Attorney General Eric Holder asked that all charges against Stevens, who was convicted in October 2008, be dismissed. Stevens' conviction was overturned, but only after the scandal-soiled senator narrowly lost his bid for re-election.)
Ever since then, Sullivan has made it a practice to order prosecutors to share information favorable to a defendant with the defense team. As Flynn awaits his sentencing, Sullivan issued one such order in December. He did so again on Feb. 16, with the important instruction -- that if prosecutors aren't sure if favorable evidence is material, they should hand it over to the judge so that he can decide.
Another straw in the haystack: Relying on anonymous sources, the Washington Examiner's Byron York recently reported that former FBI Director James Comey told Capitol Hill lawmakers in March that FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he had lied to them about his December discussions with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. If withheld, that information might have kept Flynn from cutting a deal.
According to York, then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates "reportedly believed Flynn might have violated the Logan Act," a 218-year-old law that is supposed to keep private citizens from conducting diplomacy on their own. Yates sent two FBI agents to talk to Flynn a second time.
Without a lawyer present, Flynn spoke with the agents on Jan. 24, 2017.
Two days later, Yates warned the White House that Flynn could be in danger of blackmail because he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the content of his December conversations with Kislyak, which the intelligence community had tapped.
Trump fired Flynn for lying to Pence.
Trump also fired Yates for refusing to enforce his first travel ban. And he fired Comey in May.
Sullivan's instructions and past history have led sympathizers to wonder if federal prosecutors withheld important evidence from Flynn's legal team.
"Of course, the point is moot now because Flynn has admitted his guilt," former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote in National Review in December. "Still, I wonder whether Mueller's team informed Flynn and his counsel, prior to Flynn's guilty plea to lying to the FBI, that the interviewing agents believed he had not lied to the FBI."
Michael Ledeen, a Flynn friend who has written multiple books on national security, said, "I want the whole case thrown out. I do not believe for a minute that he lied to the FBI."
Tom Fitton of the conservative gadfly group Judicial Watch had the same reaction. Mueller's investigation, Fitton charged, is "out of control" -- and as far as Fitton is concerned, Flynn would not lie.
Ledeen thinks Flynn cut the deal with Mueller to protect his family, perhaps to shield his son from prosecution.
Here's the problem, countered Max Bergmann senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. In the plea deal, Flynn admitted he's a liar. "I think if you plead guilty to lying," that's a hard admission to walk back.
Bergmann added that in March, Flynn offered to talk to House and Senate investigators if they granted him immunity from prosecution. "That's not the action of someone who feels like they're innocent," he said.
(Trump would agree. During the 2016 campaign, when aides to Hillary Clinton invoked the Fifth Amendment, Trump told an Iowa rally, "If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?")
Then there's the matter of Flynn's failure to register as a foreign agent when he represented repressive Turkey during the 2016 campaign. Bergmann said he believes that Mueller went easy on Flynn by not pressing more serious charges against him. If Flynn takes back his guilty plea, Mueller would be free to throw a heavier book at Flynn.
Will Mueller produce a case that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, as some Democrats contend? Or will a federal judge produce a case for prosecutorial overreach, as some Republicans suggest? Stay tuned.
Tom Fitton of the conservative gadfly group Judicial Watch had the same reaction. Mueller's investigation, Fitton charged, is "out of control" -- and as far as Fitton is concerned, Flynn would not lie.
Ledeen thinks Flynn cut the deal with Mueller to protect his family, perhaps to shield his son from prosecution.
Here's the problem, countered Max Bergmann senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. In the plea deal, Flynn admitted he's a liar. "I think if you plead guilty to lying," that's a hard admission to walk back.
Bergmann added that in March, Flynn offered to talk to House and Senate investigators if they granted him immunity from prosecution. "That's not the action of someone who feels like they're innocent," he said.
(Trump would agree. During the 2016 campaign, when aides to Hillary Clinton invoked the Fifth Amendment, Trump told an Iowa rally, "If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?")
Then there's the matter of Flynn's failure to register as a foreign agent when he represented repressive Turkey during the 2016 campaign. Bergmann said he believes that Mueller went easy on Flynn by not pressing more serious charges against him. If Flynn takes back his guilty plea, Mueller would be free to throw a heavier book at Flynn.
Will Mueller produce a case that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, as some Democrats contend? Or will a federal judge produce a case for prosecutorial overreach, as some Republicans suggest? Stay tuned.
President Trump’s Two Brilliant Political Surprises
Originally published at Fox News.
President Trump has once again surprised the national establishment.
This week, he announced his re-election campaign earlier than any president in history.
Simultaneously, he announced Brad Parscale would be his campaign manager.
These two moves are a reminder of how intuitive and strategic Donald J. Trump is. These qualities are a big part of why he was elected to be our 45th president.
Why are this week’s announcements so important? Because they express intent and demonstrate immediate implementation.
First, President Trump is saying to any potential Republican challengers “I will crush you.” The amount of money Trump will raise, the scale of the organization that he will build, and the size of the pro-Trump base, will all combine to make the possibility of a viable Republican challenger an absurdity. Someone can run, but he or she will never survive the first round of primaries.
President Trump is also signaling to those who fantasize about a third-party candidate (and this number may grow as the Democrats’ civil war gets more vicious) that he will have the resources and the organizational base to totally dominate the general election.
Second, President Trump is building a new Republican Party, which is much broader than the party that existed when he announced his candidacy in 2015. Trump’s new, larger party is the one that carried Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin – and almost carried Minnesota. It was this larger party that turned Ohio from a competitive battlefield into a Republican landslide.
America’s rising prosperity will further broaden and deepen the Republican Party. Trump economics will be defined as the economics of more jobs, higher wages, lower taxes, more take-home pay, and the vision of a prosperous America as the new normal.
The complete Democratic rejection of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act – and their record of the Obama-era normal of low growth, wage stagnation, unemployment, and growing welfare rolls – will be a heavy burden.
There is one more big reason for Trump announcing his re-election now: The 2018 elections.
President Trump knows how big a disaster Speaker Nancy Pelosi would be. He has developed a good relationship with Speaker Paul Ryan, and he will go all out to help keep Republican control of the House.
President Trump also knows that a strong campaign for Republicans in 2018 will earn them six to ten Senate seats, while a weak strategy could result in no gain or only one or two new seats. President Trump knows that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has had a brutal time dealing with the 51-49 Republican majority in the Senate. Every victory remains a miracle. This is the year when the accident of geography puts a lot of Democrat seats in play. A Republican wave election would do the trick to ensure a long-lasting Republican majority.
This is where Brad Parscale really matters.
Parscale was the digital strategy genius of the 2016 campaign. He built the campaign’s huge Facebook system. He helped grow the enormous Twitter following. He was able to analyze, target, and track enormous amounts of data. Parscale’s targeted data system enabled the campaign to reach so many people that they routinely turned out thousands at Trump rallies with only a few days’ notice.
Bringing Parscale’s brilliance at implementation to bear in 2018 will make it a dramatically different year for Republicans. When combined with the enormous ground team Ronna McDaniel is creating at the Republican National Committee, 2018 has the potential to be a dramatically better year for Republicans than anyone in Washington currently expects.
This is why these were brilliant moves.
Your Friend,
Newt Gingrich
This week, he announced his re-election campaign earlier than any president in history.
Simultaneously, he announced Brad Parscale would be his campaign manager.
These two moves are a reminder of how intuitive and strategic Donald J. Trump is. These qualities are a big part of why he was elected to be our 45th president.
Why are this week’s announcements so important? Because they express intent and demonstrate immediate implementation.
First, President Trump is saying to any potential Republican challengers “I will crush you.” The amount of money Trump will raise, the scale of the organization that he will build, and the size of the pro-Trump base, will all combine to make the possibility of a viable Republican challenger an absurdity. Someone can run, but he or she will never survive the first round of primaries.
President Trump is also signaling to those who fantasize about a third-party candidate (and this number may grow as the Democrats’ civil war gets more vicious) that he will have the resources and the organizational base to totally dominate the general election.
Second, President Trump is building a new Republican Party, which is much broader than the party that existed when he announced his candidacy in 2015. Trump’s new, larger party is the one that carried Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin – and almost carried Minnesota. It was this larger party that turned Ohio from a competitive battlefield into a Republican landslide.
America’s rising prosperity will further broaden and deepen the Republican Party. Trump economics will be defined as the economics of more jobs, higher wages, lower taxes, more take-home pay, and the vision of a prosperous America as the new normal.
The complete Democratic rejection of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act – and their record of the Obama-era normal of low growth, wage stagnation, unemployment, and growing welfare rolls – will be a heavy burden.
There is one more big reason for Trump announcing his re-election now: The 2018 elections.
President Trump knows how big a disaster Speaker Nancy Pelosi would be. He has developed a good relationship with Speaker Paul Ryan, and he will go all out to help keep Republican control of the House.
President Trump also knows that a strong campaign for Republicans in 2018 will earn them six to ten Senate seats, while a weak strategy could result in no gain or only one or two new seats. President Trump knows that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has had a brutal time dealing with the 51-49 Republican majority in the Senate. Every victory remains a miracle. This is the year when the accident of geography puts a lot of Democrat seats in play. A Republican wave election would do the trick to ensure a long-lasting Republican majority.
This is where Brad Parscale really matters.
Parscale was the digital strategy genius of the 2016 campaign. He built the campaign’s huge Facebook system. He helped grow the enormous Twitter following. He was able to analyze, target, and track enormous amounts of data. Parscale’s targeted data system enabled the campaign to reach so many people that they routinely turned out thousands at Trump rallies with only a few days’ notice.
Bringing Parscale’s brilliance at implementation to bear in 2018 will make it a dramatically different year for Republicans. When combined with the enormous ground team Ronna McDaniel is creating at the Republican National Committee, 2018 has the potential to be a dramatically better year for Republicans than anyone in Washington currently expects.
This is why these were brilliant moves.
Your Friend,
Newt Gingrich
White House reportedly preparing to replace H.R. McMaster as national security adviser
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, speaks to reporters during the daily press briefing in the Brady press briefing room at the White House, in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2018. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) By Victor Morton - The Washington Times
The Trump administration will reportedly get rid of H.R. McMaster as national security adviser this month.
Citing “five people familiar with the discussions,” NBC News reported that the move is being orchestrated by Chief of Staff John Kelly and Defense Secretary James Mattis.
NBC News said a likely replacement for Mr. McMaster would be auto industry executive Stephen Biegun.
Whoever succeeds Mr. McMaster would be the third national security adviser in just 14 months and would join the White House that already had seen numerous shake-ups in that short period.
Although he currently works for Ford Motor Co., Mr. Biegun served on the National Security Council in the George W. Bush administration under national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
The White House late Thursday dismissed the report without rejecting it outright.”We frequently face rumor and innuendo about senior administration officials. There are no personnel announcements at this time,” said principal deputy press secretary Raj Shah.
• Dave Boyer contributed to this story.
Citing “five people familiar with the discussions,” NBC News reported that the move is being orchestrated by Chief of Staff John Kelly and Defense Secretary James Mattis.
NBC News said a likely replacement for Mr. McMaster would be auto industry executive Stephen Biegun.
Whoever succeeds Mr. McMaster would be the third national security adviser in just 14 months and would join the White House that already had seen numerous shake-ups in that short period.
Although he currently works for Ford Motor Co., Mr. Biegun served on the National Security Council in the George W. Bush administration under national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
The White House late Thursday dismissed the report without rejecting it outright.”We frequently face rumor and innuendo about senior administration officials. There are no personnel announcements at this time,” said principal deputy press secretary Raj Shah.
• Dave Boyer contributed to this story.
Le Pen Tweets Images To Expose Islamist Violence, Now Prosecutors Want Her In Jail
By Erin Coates
Preliminary charges have been filed against French far-right leader Marine Le Pen for tweeting images to expose Islamic State violence.
The charges were issued for “distribution of violent images” according to the prosecutor’s office in the Paris suburb of Nanterre, The Associated Press reported.
If Le Pen’s case goes to court and she’s convicted, she could face three years in prison and 75,000 euros, or $90,000, in fines.
The tweets in question were posted in December 2015 after the Islamic state terror group attacked Paris in November of that same year.
Le Pen posted images of executions by the extremist group, including the killing of American reporter James Foley, and accused the French government of not doing enough to protect the people of France, according to the AP.
The image of decapitated Foley was later taken down after public outcry and Le Pen insisted she didn’t know the identity of the man.
Le Pen didn’t comment on the charges publicly, that were made possible after the French parliament revoked her protection from prosecution.
Her immunity from prosecution as a deputy in France’s lower house was stripped by a cross-party committee in the National Assembly in November over the images, the British Broadcasting Company reported.
“I am being charged for having condemned the horrors of Daesh,” Le Pen told Agence France-Presse. “In other countries, this would have earned me a medal.”
This is just one of many legal cases that have targeted Le Pen or the National Front.
Last year, Le Pen and the party were given preliminary charges that they had used European Parliament aides for party activity using EU-financed salaries. She denied any wrongdoing.
The National Front party also received a blow after Le Pen lost the French presidential election to Emmanuel Macron in May 2017.
Although her “French-first, Islam-skeptic nationalism resonated widely in the wake of Donald Trump’s election and Britain’s vote to leave the European Union,” French voters still chose Macron, according to the AP.
Her father, former National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, published his memoir on the same day the preliminary charges were filed and said in it that he “pieties his daughter for her electoral loss,” the BBC reported.
On Wednesday, Jean-Marie Le Pen spoke against his daughter for his attempt to change the name of their party.
“It takes years, decades, to build a credible political name. Wanting to change it is … inexplicable,” he said.
The charges were issued for “distribution of violent images” according to the prosecutor’s office in the Paris suburb of Nanterre, The Associated Press reported.
If Le Pen’s case goes to court and she’s convicted, she could face three years in prison and 75,000 euros, or $90,000, in fines.
The tweets in question were posted in December 2015 after the Islamic state terror group attacked Paris in November of that same year.
Le Pen posted images of executions by the extremist group, including the killing of American reporter James Foley, and accused the French government of not doing enough to protect the people of France, according to the AP.
The image of decapitated Foley was later taken down after public outcry and Le Pen insisted she didn’t know the identity of the man.
Le Pen didn’t comment on the charges publicly, that were made possible after the French parliament revoked her protection from prosecution.
Her immunity from prosecution as a deputy in France’s lower house was stripped by a cross-party committee in the National Assembly in November over the images, the British Broadcasting Company reported.
“I am being charged for having condemned the horrors of Daesh,” Le Pen told Agence France-Presse. “In other countries, this would have earned me a medal.”
This is just one of many legal cases that have targeted Le Pen or the National Front.
Last year, Le Pen and the party were given preliminary charges that they had used European Parliament aides for party activity using EU-financed salaries. She denied any wrongdoing.
The National Front party also received a blow after Le Pen lost the French presidential election to Emmanuel Macron in May 2017.
Although her “French-first, Islam-skeptic nationalism resonated widely in the wake of Donald Trump’s election and Britain’s vote to leave the European Union,” French voters still chose Macron, according to the AP.
Her father, former National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, published his memoir on the same day the preliminary charges were filed and said in it that he “pieties his daughter for her electoral loss,” the BBC reported.
On Wednesday, Jean-Marie Le Pen spoke against his daughter for his attempt to change the name of their party.
“It takes years, decades, to build a credible political name. Wanting to change it is … inexplicable,” he said.
Caught: Gov’t Agency Lying About Sea Ice, Advancing Green Agenda
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has consistently perpetuated the narrative that Arctic sea ice has been melting at a catastrophic rate, even releasing a report in late 2017 claiming that Arctic ice melting is still a major problem.
As noted in a piece by Vox, the NOAA released its annual Arctic Report Card in December, analyzing the current state of polar ice caps — and it was not good.
“The Arctic is going through the most unprecedented transition in human history,” Jeremy Mathis, the NOAA’s Arctic research program director, said at a media conference.
He added: “This year’s observations confirm that the Arctic shows no signs of returning to the reliably frozen state it was in just a decade ago.”
As noted in a piece by Vox, the NOAA released its annual Arctic Report Card in December, analyzing the current state of polar ice caps — and it was not good.
“The Arctic is going through the most unprecedented transition in human history,” Jeremy Mathis, the NOAA’s Arctic research program director, said at a media conference.
He added: “This year’s observations confirm that the Arctic shows no signs of returning to the reliably frozen state it was in just a decade ago.”
Picture Credit: Paul Homewood
The massive decline at the end of the graph, according to NOAA scientist Emily Osborne, is “the largest magnitude decline in sea ice, and the greatest sustained rate in sea ice decline in that 1,500-year record.”
However, despite these doomsday style graphs and claims made by the NOAA, notable climate skeptic Paul Homegood investigated data concerning Arctic ice sheets and discovered something interesting — the NOAA is lying.
According to Homegood, the chart pictured above is actually depicting “summer sea ice minima.”
“As we know from DMI, sea ice extent has stabilized in summer, and has slightly increased since 2007,” Homegood wrote.
Homegood also revealed that research has shown Arctic sea ice growing in thickness over the last decade, as can be seen below in two graphs provided by the Danish Meteorological Institute.
However, despite these doomsday style graphs and claims made by the NOAA, notable climate skeptic Paul Homegood investigated data concerning Arctic ice sheets and discovered something interesting — the NOAA is lying.
According to Homegood, the chart pictured above is actually depicting “summer sea ice minima.”
“As we know from DMI, sea ice extent has stabilized in summer, and has slightly increased since 2007,” Homegood wrote.
Homegood also revealed that research has shown Arctic sea ice growing in thickness over the last decade, as can be seen below in two graphs provided by the Danish Meteorological Institute.
Photo Credit: Danish Meteorological Institute
Picture credit: Danish Meteorological Institute
The claim that the Arctic is experiencing warming at “twice the rate of the rest of the world” is nonsense, according to Homegood.
“In fact, Arctic temperatures have varied little in the last decade,” he stated, further noting that the claim of the Arctic warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world “is simply a reflection of the upward part of the cycle.”
“Changes in Arctic temperatures are invariably amplified, either warming faster or cooling faster,” Homegood continued.
And as can be seen in another graph below, temperatures haven’t varied much at all, and are no higher than temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s.
“In fact, Arctic temperatures have varied little in the last decade,” he stated, further noting that the claim of the Arctic warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world “is simply a reflection of the upward part of the cycle.”
“Changes in Arctic temperatures are invariably amplified, either warming faster or cooling faster,” Homegood continued.
And as can be seen in another graph below, temperatures haven’t varied much at all, and are no higher than temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s.
Picture claim: Climate4you
The NOAA’s annual report also touches on the Greenland ice sheet, which it also claims is in dire straights. However, as Homegood points out, data shows that nothing unusual is occurring with the ice sheet.
Picture credit: Danish Meteorological Institute
Homegood concluded his piece by calling out the NOAA for their deceitful practice of manipulating data to invoke fear in the hearts and minds of many.
“The Arctic Report Card comes from NOAA’s Arctic Program, which needs to continue pumping out scary propaganda to keep its funding coming in,” he wrote.
“The Arctic Report Card comes from NOAA’s Arctic Program, which needs to continue pumping out scary propaganda to keep its funding coming in,” he wrote.
Russians Bragged About 10 Spies Assigned to Clinton; Mueller, McCabe, and Rosenstein Helped Cover It Up
Written by C. Mitchell Shaw
The Uranium One scandal is the gift that keeps on giving: Each new revelation continues to show more and more just how deep the rabbit hole of Clinton corruption goes. An FBI informant has informed several congressional committees that during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state and leading up to her approval of the deal that handed over control of at least 20 percent of U.S. uranium reserves to Russia, Moscow assigned 10 spies in the United States to cozy up to Clinton to guarantee the deal. And when it came to the attention of the FBI, Clinton had some big names help keep it under wraps.
Coming in the midst of the Battle of the Memos — with the House Intelligence Committee releasing both a Republican memo detailing FISA abuses by the DOJ and FBI as part of those agencies’ spying on the Trump campaign and a Democratic memo attempting to dispute those claims — this revelation shines a new light on the question of just who was “Putin’s puppet.” Clinton claimed during her failed presidential campaign that Trump was beholden to Moscow and she received the gleeful help of the liberal mainstream media and the intelligence establishment in spreading that claim. It now seems clear — because of both the lack of anything resembling evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and the fact that the Russian spies assigned to Hillarly Clinton appear to have succeeded in their task — that it was Hillary Clinton and not Donald Trump who was beholden to Moscow.
FBI informant William Campbell provided a statement to the congressional committees investigating UraniumGate that Russian nuclear executives “bragged that the Clintons’ influence in the Obama Administration would ensure CIFUS [Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States] approval for [the] Uranium One deal,” according to both his lawyer and the written statement, which was obtained by The Hill. Campbell’s lawyer, Victoria Toensing, agrees with her client’s statement.
As secretary of state, Clinton sat on CIFUS and was heavily involved in approving the Urainum One deal. During that time, the Clinton Foundation profited immensely in the form of “pay-for-play” donations, many of them from those who stood to profit from the deal being approved.
In a case that resembles rats abandoning a sinking ship, long-time Clinton advisor and confidant Dick Morris admitted in a recent opinion piece he wrote for The Western Journal that in the buildup to the deal’s approval by CIFUS “nine investors in Uranium One gave the Clinton Foundation a combined total of $145 million.” Morris also wrote:
In the years before it came up for CIFUS approval, Russia deployed 10 spies in the United States with a single mission: To get close to Hillary Clinton to get her to approve the Uranium One deal.
Fortunately, the FBI uncovered the nest of spies one year before the deal came up for approval. (The Bureau acted to arrest the spies when it did because one of them had risen to a high position in a company owned by Hillary’s finance chairman.)
Then, to seal the deal, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin arranged for former president Bill Clinton to address the Renaissance Bank in Moscow, an institution closely connected to the Kremlin.
The New American has reported on the corruption, profiteering, and incestuous relationship between the Clinton State Department and Clinton Foundation in previous articles. Now, even a Clinton insider admits to Clinton’s actions in swelling the coffers of the Clinton Foundation while transferring at least 20 percent of U.S. uranium to Russia in a deal so crooked it would require a Clinton to pull it off. And Clinton, who is more than a little responsible for spawning investigations into Trump’s alleged dealings with Russia with her “Putin’s puppet” remarks during the campaign, now finds herself being outed by a former die-hard supporter. The opinion piece of Morris stops short of making the connection, but it is obvious: Hillary Clinton was “Putin’s puppet” and the American people should thank God that she is not behind the desk in the Oval Office where she would be in a better position to do Russia’s bidding.
If all of that weren’t bad enough, it’s like the cheesy late-night infomercial announcer says: Wait, there’s more.
Clinton was not alone in selling out America in the Uranium One deal that strengthened Russia while weakening the United States. Morris writes that the “nest of spies” uncovered by the FBI were protected in an effort to protect the deal and make sure the American people were in the dark about what was going on:
To try to keep word of the Uranium One deal under wraps and to bury the story about the Russian spies, FBI Director Robert Mueller arranged for the suspects to take plea bargains admitting to minor offenses and then spirited them out of the country quickly — in a prisoner exchange with Russia — before the media could interrogate them. The spies were arrested during the Labor Day weekend and sentenced over Christmas to minimize media coverage.
And Mueller was helped in his coverup by none other than Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe, who were the two attorneys who oversaw the investigation into the Uranium One deal and would certainly have been aware of both the spy ring and the corruption that was part and parcel of the deal’s approval by Clinton and others.
McCabe resigned just as his dealings in this and the FISA abuses detailed in the Republican House Intelligence Committee memo were coming to light. Rosenstein still holds his office, but considering this information, one can only wonder how long that will last.
So, as more information comes to light, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the people involved in claiming (and then trying to manufacture “proof” through illegal spying on American citizens) that the Trump campaign was guilty of collusion with Russia, are themselves guilty of that very collusion.
Toward the end of his opinion piece, Morris writes, “Rosenstein and McCabe need to be investigated to determine if their handling of the Uranium One case was designed to shield Hillary.” No doubt, but Clinton and Mueller need to occupy prominent places on that same list.
Donald Trump: ‘Respect 2nd Amendment’
by CHARLIE SPIERING
President Donald Trump commented on the dramatic gun control meeting with members of Congress on Thursday, urging them to “respect” the Second Amendment.
Despite tacit endorsement of many of the gun control proposals from Democrats in the meeting, Trump noted on Twitter that some of them were good and “some not so good” on Thursday morning.
The NRA reacted to the meeting by calling it “great TV” but “bad policy.”
“Instead of punishing law-abiding gun owners for the acts of a deranged lunatic our leaders should pass meaningful reforms that would actually prevent future tragedies,” said NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker.
On Twitter, Trump only endorsed the idea of background checks for purchasing firearms.
“Gun free zones are proven targets of killers,” Trump wrote. “After many years, a Bill should emerge. Respect 2nd Amendment!”
Many ideas, some good & some not so good, emerged from our bipartisan meeting on school safety yesterday at the White House. Background Checks a big part of conversation. Gun free zones are proven targets of killers. After many years, a Bill should emerge. Respect 2nd Amendment!
6:53 AM - Mar 1, 2018
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/2018/03/www_2.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment