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.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Friday, Mar. 23, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****

Media’s Talking Point About McCabe Losing Pension Was Completely Inaccurate
By Rebekah Baker

Following the firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe on Friday, reports began circulating that the timing of the firing meant McCabe lost his eligibility for a federal pension — a claim shown to be completely inaccurate.

“McCabe has been fired 26 hours before his formal retirement — a move that could cost him his federal pension,” wrote Vox.

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell also spread this notion through a tweet published Saturday. “One suggestion from a McCabe supporter: if a friendly member of Congress hired him for a week he could possibly qualify for pension benefits by extending his service the extra days.”

One suggestion from a McCabe supporter: if a friendly member of Congress hired him for a week he could possibly qualify for pension benefits by extending his service the extra days.

Several Democrat politicians replied to Mitchell’s tweet, expressing interest in hiring McCabe so he could receive the pension.

“Would be happy to consider this. The Sixth District of MA would benefit from the wisdom and talent of such an experienced public servant,” tweeted Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton.

Maryland Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin tweeted, “What a vicious and terrible thing to do to a man who devoted 21 years of service to this country. Trump is purging people who refuse to put the President’s politics ahead of the people’s interests.”

He then made an offer: “Andrew McCabe: I have the need to hire a Special Senior Staff Attorney to help me with my work on the House Judiciary Committee dealing with threats to the Constitution and the rule of law in America. You’re perfect for the job. DM me.”

Andrew McCabe: I have the need to hire a Special Senior Staff Attorney to help me with my work on the House Judiciary Committee dealing with threats to the Constitution and the rule of law in America. You're perfect for the job. DM me.

Several other Democrat politicians made similar offers:

Rep. Mark Pocan ✔@repmarkpocan

Andrew call me. I could use a good two-day report on the biggest crime families in Washington, D.C. https://twitter.com/mitchellreports/status/974831223817342977 …

As explained by Forbes contributor Elizabeth Bauer, these statements give “the impression of a veteran, elderly federal official being cheated out of his pension accruals due to a vindictive Trump administration.”

However, the notion that McCabe lost his entire pension is untrue.

As outlined in the Federal Employees Retirement System, federal employees are guaranteed pensions after five years of employment.

“McCabe is all of 49 years old, likely 50 by the time readers see this, and what he lost out on was … the ability to take his benefits at age 50, rather than somewhere between age 57 and age 62, and he lost his eligibility to a special top-up in benefit formula,” Bauer explained.

In other words, McCabe will still be eligible to receive his pension at full retirement age.

So, while he did suffer some financial losses due to the fact that he was fired before his 50th birthday, it is inaccurate and misleading to suggest that McCabe lost his pension entirely.

McCabe was fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions for having made “unauthorized disclosure to the news media” and for having “lacked candor − including under oath − on multiple occasions.”

“The FBI expects every employee to adhere to the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and accountability. I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately,” Sessions said in a statement.

McCabe disputed the basis for his firing.

“The idea that I was dishonest is just wrong. … This is part of an effort to discredit me as a witness,” he said in an interview after his firing.

“I am being singled out and treated this way because of the role I played, the actions I took, and the events I witnessed in the aftermath of the firing of James Comey.”

President Donald Trump celebrated the move.

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump

Andrew McCabe FIRED, a great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI - A great day for Democracy. Sanctimonious James Comey was his boss and made McCabe look like a choirboy. He knew all about the lies and corruption going on at the highest levels of the FBI!

The Nuclear Option: Limitless Investigation of Trump Was Always the Plan

1182

So this is the new standard for electing a president here in America, the greatest living experiment in self-governance.

A man can run the gauntlet against more than 20 professional politicians and come out victorious.

He can win more than 40 Republican primary contests and beat every professional political campaigner out there, earning the votes of more than 14 million Republicans.

He can then turn his attention to beating the most powerful, entrenched political machine America has seen in nearly a half-century. (That corrupt machine had just pulled off its most devious and dishonest scam ever — rigging a presidential primary to snatch the party’s preferred Socialist candidate away from Democrat voters.)

In the end, President Trump won the presidency fair and square, earning the votes of more than 60 million Americans and — crucially — winning the 30 states he needed to take the White House.

These are the long-agreed-upon standards for winning the White House. This is how self-governance works.

Through a combination of representative democracy and a balancing of state power against federal power, we the people pick our president.

And damn the innocent host! The more devastating the cancer is to the very body politic that gives it life, the better!

It is the truest form of injustice. Singular evil. Blind hatred.

So they changed the rules. We can pick our president. But then the powerful established bureaucracy must conduct a massive, sprawling, limitless investigation into any and all aspects of the president we pick.

The basis of this “investigation” is an increasingly debunked frame-up designed and drafted by the Kremlin and paid for by President Trump’s political opponent in the presidential election. And then spread to all four corners of the globe by the oldest creatures of the powerful establishment in Washington.

At the height of the presidential election, the administration of the outgoing president of the United States — Mr. Trump’s most powerful political enemy — handed over the controls of America’s spy apparatus to begin moving against Mr. Trump and his campaign.

They exposed people, spied on people and began setting the trap just in case the stupid people of America picked Mr. Trump to be their president. They lied, conspired and held secret meetings.

So special counsel Robert Mueller’s endless investigation in search of a crime should have been no surprise. It was cooked up long before Mr. Trump even won the election. Of course, these people were going to do this.

It is the new standard for “self-governance” in America. The people can elect any president they want. But then these people will do everything including assassinating their character to hound them from office.

Truly, these people cannot fathom how much innocent taxpayers despise them.

• Charles Hurt can be reached at churt@washingtontimes.com; follow him on Twitter via @charleshurt.

Maryland School Shooting Shows that Trump and NRA’s Solution Saves Lives...

by AWR HAWKINS 

161

Scott Olson/Getty Images

President Trump and the NRA have both voiced support for being sure good guys with guns are present in schools to fend off bad guys who enter the building to do harm.

On February 16, 2018—two days after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting—Breitbart News reported Trump spoke repeatedly in support of arming teachers during the presidential campaign. He first raised the topic after the October 1, 2015, attack on Umpqua Community College (UCC), an attack in which an armed man entered a gun-free campus and killed nine people. Trump responded to the attack by saying, “I’ll tell you, if you had a couple of the teachers or someone with guns in that room, you would have been a hell of a lot better off.”

Weeks later, during the October 28, 2015, presidential debate, Trump stressed that gun-free zones actually attract attackers who might avoid campus if they knew their would-be victims could shoot back. He said gun-free zones provide “target practice for sickos.”

Following this year’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School attack Trump called for “20 percent” of K-12 teachers to be armed. He stressed that first responders are “5 to 8 minutes away” when an attack occurs, but teachers are on scene to shoot sickos “immediately.”

The NRA has pushed this same solution to school shootings since the heinous attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School, where a gunman had over nine minutes of unarmed resistance to ply his bloody trade. Twenty-six innocents were killed at Sandy Hook and a week later NRA’s Wayne LaPierre observed, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

And NRA chief of staff Josh Powell made clear that the NRA’s focus is not limited to teachers being armed, but to a complete security approach. An approach that involves layers of armed protection we typically see at pro-athletic events, celebrity gatherings, and meetings for the political class. Powell asked, “At what point are we going to get serious enough about protecting our children and give the protections that all these other groups get?”

On March 20, an armed resource officer inside Great Mills High School responded to shots fired by engaging the gunman, thereby ending the attack very quickly. Fox News reportsthat the resource officer pursued and shot at the 17-year-old attacker, Austin Wyatt Rollins. The attacker responded by firing one round. Soon thereafter he was pronounced dead.

Investigators are working to determine whether the resource officer killed Rollins or if Rollins took his own life once cornered. Either way, the resource officer brought the attack to an end.

Two students were injured in the attack, one critically. But CBS News quotes Gov. Larry Hogan (R) praising the actions of the resource officer, observing that “the actions of the school resource officer may have saved others’ lives.”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

Dick Morris: Trump Is Doing It for Himself

By Dick Morris

How much difference can one man make, even if he is president? Donald Trump is a testament to the answer: An enormous amount!

Credit his tax cut and other policies, but the fact is that the economy turned around as soon as it became clear that Trump was elected.

Business people changed their investment plans and job-hiring policies the minute they saw who the new president was.

The power of Trump over the economy was partially due to trust in his private-sector background and instincts. But it was also due to the massive anti-business, anti-growth and anti-jobs agenda of his predecessor.

How could anyone fail to notice the difference?

And then, the promise of his inauguration was quickly vindicated by a host of deregulatory decisions.

He pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords. He deregulated the energy and coal sectors. He opened new areas for oil exploration and drilling. He reversed anti-business labor policies. And, 1 year into his term, he passed an enormous tax cut and an even more important tax reform.

In foreign policy, his personal impact was even more profound. It has taken a year, but Donald Trump has managed to right our priorities in foreign affairs.

He has bonded closer with Israel with his historic decision to let the Jewish state decide for itself on where its national capital is to be located.

We are working again with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies against Iran.

Sanctions on Russian President Vladimir Putin have tightened and Ukraine is getting effective military aid, stalemating Russian aggression. NATO members are increasing their defense spending by 5 percent each and the American military is being upgraded. We have left the Paris Climate Accords and are on the verge of tearing up the one-sided deal with Iran.

This will leave the Ayatollah with no real choice but compliance, otherwise the harsh sanctions that led him to negotiate in the first place will return — this time with Trump running them.

Sanctions on Russia are tighter. We are challenging China on trade. We have brought Venezuela to its knees. North Korea is in retreat. Finally, our sanctions are working. Credit our tough stance in forcing bold sanctions resolutions through the U.N.

And we have unveiled a new sanctions weapon: sanctions targeting individuals and businesses. If you defy the international consensus on human rights, you risk not being able to put your money in the bank … or take it out. You can’t send or receive wires. You are excommunicated from the global banking system, a punishment as dire as any Medieval pope could impose.

What a difference a man has made.

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.

WOW: Here’s How FBI Director Christopher Wray Truly Feels About McCabe’s Firing

FBI Director Christopher Wray had an interview with NBC news on Wednesday discussing the firing of former deputy director Andrew McCabe.

In the interview, Wray expressed content in the firing, defending the process used to fire McCabe just two days before his 50th birthday, when he was slated to officially earn his $1.8 million dollar pension.

The FBI’s Office of Personal Responsibility recommended the firing, meanwhile, Democrats have blasted the firing made by Jeff Sessions as purely political.

In the interview, Wray punched back at claims it was political.

“I’m committed to doing things objectively and independently and by the book,” Wray asserted. “I think that has to extend not just to our investigations, our intelligence analysis, but it also has to expand to personnel decisions and disciplinary decisions.”

Watch a portion of the interview below:

Wray was also pressed on the timing of the firing. He responded, “I want to be careful what I can say about the process.”

“But I will tell you that my commitment to making sure that our process is followed, that it relies on objective input, and that, most importantly, it is not based on political and partisan influence, is something I am utterly unyielding on.”

McCabe, on the other hand, has relentlessly pushed the narrative that his firing was politically motivated.

According to Politico:

McCabe, in a length statement issued after his firing, said his dismissal amounted to an effort by the administration of President Donald Trump to discredit him. McCabe said he was “being singled out and treated this way because of the role I played, the actions I took, and the events I witnessed in the aftermath of the firing of James Comey.”

Here’s how people on Twitter have reacted to McCabe’s firing:

2 questions matter: What did McCabe do & did it justify his firing? According to the FBI's office of prof responsibility McCabe allowed FBI agents to disclose sensitive info to the press then lied to Feds about it. If guilty, losing his pension should be the least of his worries.

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) March 20, 2018

Isn't It Interesting how the top Obama law enforcement officials #Comey & #Brennan automatically supported lying Andrew #McCabe then directly attack President #Trump. Let that sink in a minute.. Then you realize how corrupt the Obama justice department really were. It is scary!

— Kevin W (@kwilli1046) March 20, 2018

What a timeline!#Comey & #Brennan are trending because enough Patriots KNOW the #DeepState exists and we know who's behind the curtain.#Trump is leading America to full potential and bringing awareness of MSM Corruption to light.

USA finally chants #DeleteFacebook!#QAnon

— QAnon +++ (@MagniFieri) March 21, 2018

Shutterstock.com

David Lejeune

---

Dear Washington Post: You’re absolutely wrong in wanting to abort kids with Down Syndrome

Editor's note: We celebrate World Down Syndrome Day. LifeSiteNews is pleased to bring you an open letter from David G. Lejeune, President of Jerome Lejeune Foundation USA, to Washington Post editor Ruth Marcus.

March 21, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Dear Ruth Marcus, In your op-ed in The Washington Post, you claim that you would have terminated your pregnancies had the testing for each child come back positive for Down syndrome. While you are free to voice your personal opinion, even an ill-considered one, I am compelled to publically refute the statements you made regarding aborting children with Down syndrome. Lives are at stake. If your advice were accepted by others, the lives of innocent children would be eliminated and families would be deprived of loving, beautiful human beings who contribute immensely to human flourishing.

Here are five reasons why your views are dangerous:

1. Eugenics is always wrong

The policy you are advocating has its genesis in the dark world of eugenics, where children are selectively eliminated because something about them is considered to be undesirable. You believe that it is acceptable to terminate a pregnancy if you do not want a child, but you go a step further – you celebrate the right to selectively terminate a pregnancy when the particular child is not wanted.

Eugenics, by its very definition, is “the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations to improve the population’s genetic composition” (Merriam-Webster). Eugenics has a long history that goes hand-in-hand with racism, hatred, and disability discrimination.

We don't have to go back in history to understand the practical impacts of the policy you are advocating – the elimination of a particular child because something about them is considered to be undesirable. We need look only at China's "one child" policy to understand the implications. In China, families have been strictly limited to one child, and forced abortions occur by the millions, along with infanticide, to enforce it. In China, there is a traditional preference for boys, and in a one-child world female children are considered to be undesirable. As a consequence, it's estimated that 100 million female children have been aborted in China

As a feminist, how do you reconcile tacit support for the underlying principle of eugenics that has resulted in the death of so many female children?

Of course, people with genetic abnormalities or disabilities stand no chance of being accepted in a society that tolerates eugenics. Abortion for the sole reason of eliminating a particular child, one with Down syndrome, is no different than eliminating a child because she is female. It's simply modern eugenics, and it is wrong. Once you go down this path, where does it end?

I think you know that what I am saying is right, because you are forced to admit that, “There are creepy, eugenic aspects of the new technology that call for vigorous public debate.” But in an "ends justify the means" equivocation, you quickly pivot to affirm that the absolute right to abortion trumps any concern over elimination of human beings with certain characteristics. So you justify abortion of children with Down syndrome in the same way that China justifies abortion of children of the female gender. What's next? What other characteristics that people might consider to be undesirable should justify a particular child's elimination? Race? Prospective ID? Disability like blindness or deafness? The slippery slope you are on has no principled ending point. The issue of whether a child should be allowed to live even if he or she is not wanted due to minor characteristics should not even be a question. We all have a basic right to life.

2. There is no constitutional right in the U.S. to abort an unborn child with Down syndrome

You incorrectly premise your position on the idea that it is a woman's constitutional right to abort a child with Down syndrome. Yet, this foundation is erroneous! You state that “the Constitution mandates... that these excruciating choices be left to individual women.” In reference to laws in states like Ohio and Indiana that propose making it unlawful to terminate a pregnancy simply because a child has Down syndrome, you write: “These laws are unconstitutional, unenforceable – and wrong.”

You are mistaken. The U.S. Supreme Court has never recognized a right to abort an unborn child because of his or her genetic abnormality or disability. A brief filed by the Bioethics Defense Fund and Alliance Defending Freedom addressing the District Court’s opposition to the Indiana law states it clearly:

"The District Court implicitly and erroneously presumes—without any significant reflection, analysis, or citation of authority—that there exists a constitutional right to abort an unborn child because of his or her sex, genetic abnormality, or disability.

On the contrary, “it is important to make the distinction between a pregnant woman who chooses to terminate the pregnancy because she doesn’t want to be pregnant, versus a pregnant woman who wanted to be pregnant, but rejects a particular fetus...” Picking and choosing among particular children raises the specter of abortion as “a wedge into the ‘quality control’ of all humans...

The [Supreme] Court has never framed the constitutionally protected abortion decision as whether to bear or abort a particular child based on his or her sex, genetic abnormality, or disability."

3. You appeal to morality, but there is nothing moral about your position

Your article gives a nod to “difficult moral choices”, but then resolves the moral considerations on the basis of 'everyone does it.' For example, throughout your piece you state that you are “in good company” – that “[t]he evidence is clear that most women confronted with the same unhappy alternative would make the same decision.” Such a statement merely notes that a course of action is common, it certainly doesn’t make it right, or moral.

I believe this is at the heart of the abortion debate: Taking a life is wrong. Taking the life of an unborn child is wrong. Taking the life of an unborn child with Down syndrome is wrong. Advocating for the “right” to eliminate an unborn child is wrong – just as determining the value of life by characteristics like gender, health, wealth, or convenience is wrong.

4. The purpose of prenatal testing is not to decide whether to kill a baby

You state that many women who discover that they are carrying a child with Down Syndrome choose to abort their babies. You ask: “Isn’t that the point — or at least inherent in the point — of prenatal testing in the first place?”

No, that isn't the point of prenatal testing. The purpose of prenatal testing is to gain information and knowledge, so that you can develop wisdom in learning how to care for the child that will join your family.

The primary purpose of prenatal testing is to understand whether there are any health conditions present that could cause health problems as the child matures. This knowledge can prepare a woman to understand how such conditions may affect the baby’s physical and mental development, and give her the knowledge she needs to take appropriate steps to best care for the child.

Prenatal testing also gives mothers who do not feel they are up to the challenge of raising a child with Down Syndrome time to consider the life-affirming option of adoption. It is disappointing that nowhere in your piece was there a mention of this very important option. If you are truly pro-choice, please consider advocating for the choice of life through adoption, and not merely death through abortion.

5. Your statements devalue the lives of those living with Down syndrome

I am the president of the Jerome Lejeune Foundation USA. We exist to carry on the work of the late Dr. Jerome Lejeune who not only discovered the cause of Down syndrome but called his patients with Down syndrome “my brothers”. You state that we cannot compel “a woman to give birth to a child whose intellectual capacity will be impaired, whose life choices will be limited, whose health may be compromised.” You mention that Down syndrome affects the IQ, independent living, and financial security: “Down syndrome is life-altering for the entire family.”

With an emphasis on the difficulties that may exist when raising a child with Down syndrome, you make the assumption that a more difficult life is not worth living. Your statements, then, imply that in order for a child to be desired, he or she must be highly intelligent, have unlimited life choices and good health, and the ability to eventually live independently and become financially secure.

Is this really the most important list of characteristics? Is this the standard to which we should hold ourselves and our children? I posit that the ability to love, learn, and build relationships are just some of the more important qualities to value in our children. Moreover, it's my belief, backed up by the experiences of countless thousands of families, that those with Down syndrome add immense love and joy to a family, far surpassing whatever challenges they present. They are sweet, loving, beautiful children who want nothing more than to love us unconditionally. They are the embodiment of the universal truth written on the human heart by our Creator that every life has inherent value and is entitled to human dignity.

Conclusion

Ms. Marcus, today is World Down Syndrome Day as established by the United Nations, and I stand with millions of people across the globe to raise public awareness and support for individuals with Down syndrome. This year we emphasize “how people with Down syndrome can and do make meaningful contributions throughout their lives, whether in schools, workplaces, living in the community, public and political life, culture, media, recreation, leisure and sport.”

A life with Down syndrome is a life worth living, and a life worth defending. I stand with my brothers and sisters with Down syndrome and ask you to reconsider your beliefs and the dangerous effect your words may have on vulnerable children in the United States and beyond.

Sincerely,

David G. Lejeune, President of Jerome Lejeune Foundation USA

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_22.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: