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
Monday, May. 28, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****

Douglas MacArthur Fairwell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tuagi9kZe8

Only two life forces have offered to die for you - the American military and Jesus Christ.

Five Scandals

Originally published at Fox News

The current Mueller-DOJ-Russia mess is almost impossible to understand because it is made up of five parallel scandals.

For months, as I wrote my new book, Trump’s America, I tried to better understand news as it emerged from the Justice Department – and I still am. There are so many moving parts, personalities, and dates that it is difficult to track. However, as a trained historian, I began creating an orderly outline for people, dates, and events.

I realized that the scandal is so big, so complex, and involves so many people with power that codifying it really required me to draw from my experience writing novels. There are so many egos and there is so much manipulative behavior, dishonesty (and dishonesty about the dishonesty) that it is very difficult to explain it as a straightforward history. It could be more easily explained as a narrative of ambition, illegality, and criminal plotting.

Finally, it hit me that the real problem is that there are five parallel and often interlocked scandals going on in concert:

1. The Clintons have been breaking the law and getting away with it at least since Hillary made nearly $100,000 from a $1,000 investment in cattle futures in 1978-1979. For 40 years the Clintons have acted as though there were no laws which applied to them. They have surrounded themselves with lawyers and simply muscled their way through every scandal. The scale of Clinton illegal activity is so large and so widespread that no one has been able to fully describe it – although Peter Schweizer made a pretty good start with his book Clinton Cash.

2. The extraordinary deep state defense of Hillary, combined with the systematic avoidance of exposing and dealing with her illegal behaviors while protecting her staff members when they support and participate in her illegality, is beyond anything we have seen in American history.

3. The calculated effort to undermine and discredit then-candidate and now-President Donald Trump is actually a continuation of a deep anti-Republican bias in the Justice Department. This DOJ tradition is well catalogued in Sidney Powell’s stunning book, Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice. If you have any illusions about the DOJ’s objectivity, keep in mind that employees of this department gave 97 percent of their 2016 campaign donations to Hillary – while the department was supposedly investigating her for illegally using a private email server to send and receive classified information as secretary of state. With each passing week, we are learning more about the extraordinary abuses of power designed to undermine President Trump and punish his supporters (a direct contrast to the treatment of Clinton and her staff). The aggressive abuse of power has led both Alan Dershowitzand former Clinton advisor Mark Penn to warn that limitless police power is a danger to all of us.

4. The scandal of the deep state resistance to accountability and transparency has also been astounding. As a career deep state member, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has consistently resisted inquiries by Congress. Documents requested by the Senate Judiciary Committee were heavily redacted for supposed national security reasons – which turned out to have nothing to do with national security (including the fact that the FBI had spent $70,000 on a conference table). Meanwhile, more than a million documents were withheld from the House Judiciary Committee for so long that the committee had to issue a subpoena. The reason for this deep state resistance is simple. Transparency is going to get a lot of people in trouble – and it goes to the very top. When Lisa Page wrote Peter Strzok in September 2016, “POTUS wants to know everything,” there is good reason to believe President Obama was the one she was referring to as ‘POTUS.’ If President Obama wanted to know everything, given the way his White House worked, it is very likely his senior advisor Valerie Jarrett knew everything. The more we learn, the bigger the scandal web gets.

5. Panic is breaking out among senior people who engaged in illegal activities because they thought President Hillary Clinton would protect them. Suddenly, they find themselves in danger of criminal charges. That is why people like former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan grow increasingly hysterical in their TV appearances.

1. I did my best to succinctly capture this moment in American history in Trump’s America, but each one of these five scandals is worthy of its own detailed book. Taken together, they are a mound of illegalities, abuses, dishonesty, and manipulation – on a scale that has never before occurred in America.

I suspect when all these scandals are unraveled, a political and cultural reckoning in Washington will follow.

Your Friend,

Newt Gingrich

North and South Korean leaders meet again in emergency meeting to save summit

Photo via Video Screenshot

Earlier last week, President Trump called off the U.S-North Korean summit.

However, in what appears to be an effort to save the summit, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in had a private meeting on Saturday.

Not So Fast

When Trump canceled the summit, several pundits noted the cleverness of his letter to Kim.

While the President openly chastised Kim for his most recent tone, he was also quite complimentary to him in other areas.

He more or less dared Kim not to fall victim to being manipulated by the Chinese and to do what he knows is right.

Kim apparently got the message, because he and Moon met to discuss saving the summit.

Moon has said he will release a statement on Sunday revealing the full details of the meeting.

When word of the meeting between Kim and Moon leaked out, President Trump seemed hopeful the summit could still be saved…

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump

We are having very productive talks with North Korea about reinstating the Summit which, if it does happen, will likely remain in Singapore on the same date, June 12th., and, if necessary, will be extended beyond that date.

8:37 PM - May 25, 2018

Finding the Right Path

Kim seems very conflicted over what he needs to do.

Quite honestly, his recent behavior is more typical of a manipulative child than a world leader.

Kim had started down the right path back in April.

After all but daring Trump to go to war and finding out Trump was not going to back down, Kim did what was right for his people and met with Moon to discuss the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

After that meeting, it was agreed upon that South Korea would host the summit and serve as the mediator for Trump and Kim.

Several days later, though, Chinese President Xi met with Kim, and his tone noticeably changed in regard to the United States.

That tone is what led Trump to cancel the summit.

Now, after Trump’s letter, Kim seems to have changed his tune again.

For the good of the world, we can only hope his path stays true this time.

Dick Morris: Voters Moving Right While Democrats Move Left

AP Photo/John Bazemore

Over the past five months, President Trump’s ratings, according to the realclearpolitics.com moving average, have flipped from 38-58 to 44-52 — a growth of six points in approval and a drop of six points in disapproval.

It would be easy — and wrong — to dismiss this change as the mere fluctuation of polling or margin of error. No way. Considering the enormous polarization of opinion Trump has engendered — and the intensity with which those who disapprove hate him — it is remarkable that six percent have come over from a negative to a positive view of the man. They had a very long distance to travel.

But six percent have jumped the wide synapse and now like Donald Trump — a conclusion they would have found unthinkable five months ago. And the polls that break down approval and disapproval to indicate the depth of the sentiment — (i.e. strong approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, and strong disapprove) — report that most of the six percent have gone from strong disapproval to strong approval, bypassing the “somewhat” ratings in between. A great many have gone from hate all the way to love.

This change is not a blip. It represents a change in world view, a conversion of sorts.

It is akin to the kind of sea change that followed Ronald Reagan’s and Margaret Thatcher’s early years when their policies so obviously worked better than those of their liberal predecessors.  

This kind of change has a way of lasting. Of sticking. Particularly as the economy improves and the prospects for peace with Korea materialize (we hope), it is likely that this pro-Trump trend will continue.

Pollster par excellence John McLaughlin says:

Since last November President Trump has gained a net of 9 points in his job approval. President Trump is a grinder. In spite of the partisan opposition and media bias President Trump stays focused on succeeding. He just grinds upward and the voters recognize it. The economy is growing. America is stronger and President Trump’s substantive results are reflected in the polls. Expect President Trump to keep grinding upwards.

And this trend also means that the opposition — the Democratic Party is “grinding” downward. In the immediate future, as moderates leave its ranks and join with Trump’s forces, the Democratic primaries that decide who will be their candidates will shrink in size and become increasingly the captive of ethnic minorities and extreme ideologies. Those who could leave the Democratic Party are leaving it and those who remain are the true believers and core ethnic voters.

So it is natural, as the primaries so far this year are suggesting, that moderates can find no place in the Democratic Party and the candidates they support are doomed to defeat at the hands of the extremes.

This polarity is the same sort of change in public attitudes that occasioned the marginalization of the Democratic Party after Carter’s defeat or that of the Labour Party in Britain after Thatcher’s election. The Democrats lost the two following elections in landslides (Mondale and Dukakis were the candidates) as did their Labour counterparts in the UK who lost three contests (their candidates were Foot and Kinnock, who lost twice) before sanity — in the form of Clinton and Blair — returned.

This week’s Democratic primary results reinforce that notion:

• In Texas, Democrats nominated Lupe Valdez as their candidate for governor. She is openly lesbian. She defeated a Democratic centrist, Andrew White, the son of former Governor (and my former client) Mark White who promised to “continue” his Dad’s moderate legacy. CNN, commented that “the party’s base… has shown little interest in centrists.”
• Idaho Democrats nominated 38 year-old Paulette Jordan, a native American who beat the white 72 year-old choice of the Democratic establishment.
• African-American Stacey Abrams won the Democratic primary for Governor on Tuesday, defeating a moderate who argued that the way to win was to move to the middle. Adrianne Shropshire, executive director of BlackPAC emphasized that Abrams won “this election because she reached out and engaged communities of color, particularly black voters, on the issues that they care about.”
• In Arizona, openly bi-sexual Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema is the Democratic candidate for the open Senate seat.

These primary results amply illustrate the propensity of today’s Democrats to nominate unelectable candidates. Before sanity comes back to the Democrats, they will have to wade through a decade of lost elections.



Who killed Bobby Kennedy? His son RFK Jr. doesn't believe it was Sirhan Sirhan.
Tom Jackman, The Washington Post

Photo: Bloomberg Photo By Anthony Behar

LOS ANGELES - Just before Christmas, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pulled up to the massive Richard J. Donovan Correctional Center, a California state prison complex in the desert outside San Diego that holds nearly 4,000 inmates. Kennedy was there to visit Sirhan B. Sirhan, the man convicted of killing his father, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, nearly 50 years ago.

While his wife, actress Cheryl Hines, waited in the car, Robert Kennedy Jr. met with Sirhan for three hours, he revealed to The Washington Post last week. It was the culmination of months of research by Kennedy into the assassination, including speaking with witnesses and reading the autopsy and police reports.

"I got to a place where I had to see Sirhan," Kennedy said. He would not discuss the specifics of their conversation. But when it was over, Kennedy had joined those who believe there was a second gunman, and that it was not Sirhan who killed his father.

"I went there because I was curious and disturbed by what I had seen in the evidence," said Kennedy, an environmental lawyer and the third oldest of his father's 11 children. "I was disturbed that the wrong person might have been convicted of killing my father. My father was the chief law enforcement officer in this country. I think it would have disturbed him if somebody was put in jail for a crime they didn't commit."

Kennedy, 64, said he doesn't know if his involvement in the case will change anything. But he now supports the call for a re-investigation of the assassination led by Paul Schrade, who also was shot in the head as he walked behind Kennedy in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles but survived.

Kennedy was just 14 when he lost his father. Even now, people tell him how much Bobby Kennedy meant to them.

RFK's death - five years after his brother, President John F. Kennedy, was gunned down in Dallas and two months after civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. was killed in Memphis - devastated a country already beset by chaos.

In 1968, the Vietnam War raged, American cities had erupted in riots after MLK's assassination and tensions between war protesters and supporters were growing uglier. Robert Kennedy's newly launched presidential bid had raised hopes that the New York Democrat and former attorney general could somehow unite a divided nation. The gunshots fired that June night changed all that.

Though Sirhan admitted at his trial in 1969 that he shot Kennedy, he claimed from the start that he had no memory of doing so. And midway through Sirhan's trial, prosecutors provided his lawyers with an autopsy report that launched five decades of controversy: Kennedy was shot four times at point-blank range from behind, including the fatal shot behind his ear. But Sirhan, a 24-year-old Palestinian immigrant, was standing in front of him.

Was there a second gunman? The debate rages to this day.

ALSO: Why Trump delayed release of secret JFK files

But the legal system has not entertained doubts. A jury convicted Sirhan of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death in 1969, which was commuted to a life term in 1972. Sirhan's appeals have been rejected at every level, as recently as 2016, even with the courts considering new evidence that has emerged over the years that as many as 13 shots were fired - Sirhan's gun held only eight bullets - and that Sirhan may have been subjected to coercive hypnosis, a real life "Manchurian candidate."

His case is closed. His lawyers are now launching a longshot bid to have the Inter-American Court of Human Rights hold an evidentiary hearing, while Schrade is hoping for a group such as the Innocence Project to take on the case. A spokesman for the Innocence Project said they do not discuss cases at the consideration stage.

In the final court rejection of Sirhan's appeals, U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Wistrich ruled, "Even if the second shooter's bullet was the one that killed Senator Kennedy, [Sirhan] would be liable [for murder] as an aider and abettor." And if Sirhan was unaware of the second shooter, Wistrich wrote that the scenario of a second gunman who shot Kennedy "at close range with the same type of gun and ammunition as [Sirhan] was using, but managed to escape the crowded room without notice of almost any of the roomful of witnesses, lacks any evidentiary support."

- - -

On June 5, 1968, Kennedy had just won the California Democratic presidential primary and delivered a victory speech to a delirious crowd.

At 12:15 a.m., the 42-year-old candidate and Schrade left the celebration, walking through the hotel pantry en route to a news conference. Schrade was a regional director of the United Auto Workers who had helped Kennedy round up labor support, and Kennedy had singled him out for thanks in his victory speech moments earlier.

Schrade, now 93, still recalls the scene in the pantry vividly.

"He immediately started shaking hands" with kitchen workers, Schrade said of Kennedy. "The TV lights went on. I got hit. I didn't know I was hit. I was shaking violently, and I fell. Then Bob fell. I saw flashes and heard crackling. The crackling actually was all the other bullets being fired."

Witnesses reported that Kennedy said, "Is everybody OK? Is Paul all right?"

Kennedy was still conscious as his wife, Ethel, pregnant with their 11th child, rushed to his side. He lived for another day and died at 1:44 a.m. June 6, 1968.

Schrade was shot above the forehead but the bullet bounced off his skull. Four other people, including ABC news producer William Weisel, were also wounded. All survived.

Sirhan was captured immediately; he had a .22-caliber revolver in his hand. Karl Uecker, an Ambassador Hotel maitre d' who was escorting Kennedy through the pantry, testified that he grabbed Sirhan's wrist and pinned it down after two shots and that Sirhan continued to fire wildly while being held down, never getting close to Kennedy. An Ambassador waiter and a Kennedy aide also said they tackled Sirhan after two or three shots.

Several other witnesses also said he was not close enough to place the gun against Kennedy's back, where famed Los Angeles coroner Thomas Noguchi found powder burns on the senator's jacket and on his hair, indicating shots fired at close contact. These witnesses provided more proof for those who insist a second gunman was involved.

Both the Los Angeles District Attorney's office and the Los Angeles Police Department declined interviews on what they consider a closed case.

Schrade believes Sirhan shot him and the others who were wounded but that he did not kill Kennedy. Since 1974, Schrade has led the crusade to try to persuade authorities - the police, prosecutors, the feds, anyone - to reinvestigate the case and identify the second gunman.

"Yes, he did shoot me. Yes, he shot four other people and aimed at Kennedy," Schrade, said in an interview at his Laurel Canyon home. "The important thing is he did not shoot Robert Kennedy. Why didn't they go after the second gunman? They knew about him right away. They didn't want to know who it was. They wanted a quickie."

- - -

At trial, defense lawyer Grant Cooper made the decision not to contest the charge that Sirhan fired the fatal shot and instead tried to persuade the jury not to impose the death penalty by arguing Sirhan had "diminished capacity" and didn't know what he was doing. It is a standard tactic by attorneys in death penalty cases, but Cooper, who died in 1990, was widely criticized for not investigating the case before conceding guilt.

Sirhan is now 74 and approaching 50 years behind bars. After California's courts abolished the death penalty in 1972, he was first made eligible for parole in 1986 but has been rejected repeatedly.

In 2016, Schrade spoke on Sirhan's behalf at his parole hearing and apologized for not coming forward sooner to advocate for Sirhan's release and exoneration.

California inmates are not permitted to give media interviews, and Sirhan did not respond to a letter from The Post. But his brother, Munir Sirhan, said Sirhan still holds out hope of being released and that his defense team probably hurt his case more than helped it.

There's plenty of damning evidence against Sirhan. He confessed to the killing at trial, though he claims this was done on his attorney's instruction. He took hours of target practice with his pistol earlier in the day, and he took the gun into the Ambassador that night. He had been seen at a Kennedy speech at the Ambassador two days earlier. He had a newspaper clipping critical of Kennedy in his pocket and had written "RFK must die" in notebooks at home, though he said he didn't remember doing that. And he waited in the pantry for about 30 minutes, according to witnesses who said he asked if Kennedy would be coming through there.

But questions about the case arose almost immediately in Los Angeles, resulting in hearings and reinvestigations as early as 1971 by the district attorney, the police chief, the county board of supervisors and the county superior court. Many of them focused on the ballistics of the case, starting with Noguchi's finding that Kennedy had been shot from behind, which Sirhan's lawyer didn't raise in his defense.

In addition, lead crime scene investigator DeWayne Wolfer testified at trial that a bullet taken from Kennedy's body and bullets from two of the wounded victims all matched Sirhan's gun.

But other experts who examined the three bullets said they had markings from different guns and different bullet manufacturers. An internal police document concluded that "Kennedy and Weisel bullets not fired from same gun," (Weisel was the wounded ABC news producer) and "Kennedy bullet not fired from Sirhan's revolver."

This prompted a Los Angeles judge in 1975 to convene a panel of seven forensic experts, who examined the three bullets and refired Sirhan's gun. The panel said no match could be made between the three bullets, which appeared to be fired from the same gun, and Sirhan's revolver. They found Wolfer had done a sloppy job with the ballistics evidence and urged further investigation.

In addition, witnesses said bullet holes were found in the door frames of the Ambassador pantry, and photos showed investigators examining the holes in the hours after the shooting. Between the three bullets that hit Kennedy and the bullets that hit the five wounded victims, Wolfer had accounted for all eight of Sirhan's shots. Bullets in the doors would indicate a second gun. Wolfer later said the holes and the metal inside were not bullets, and the door frames were destroyed after trial.

Though Los Angeles authorities had promised transparency in the case, the police and prosecutors refused to release their files until 1988, producing a flood of new evidence for researchers.

Among the material was an audiotape, first unearthed by CNN journalist Brad Johnson, which had been inadvertently made by Polish journalist Stanislaw Pruszynski in the Ambassador ballroom, and turned over to police in 1969.

Pruszynski's microphone had been on the podium where Kennedy spoke, and TV footage shows him detaching it and moving toward the pantry as the shooting happens.

In 2005, audio engineer Philip Van Praag said the tape revealed that about 13 shots had been fired. He said he used technology similar to the ShotSpotter technology used by police to alert them to gunshots, and which differentiates gunshots from firecrackers or other loud bangs.

Van Praag said recently that different guns create different resonances and that he was able to establish that two guns were fired, that they fired in different directions, and that some of the shot "impulses" were so close together they couldn't have been fired by the same gun. He said he could not say "precisely" 13 shots but certainly more than the eight contained by Sirhan's gun.

"There were too many bullets," Robert Kennedy Jr. said. "You can't fire 13 shots out of an eight-shot gun."

British author Mel Ayton wrote "The Forgotten Terrorist," which posits that Sirhan killed Kennedy because he supported sending military firepower to Israel - the Sirhans were Christian Palestinians forced from their Jerusalem home by Israel in 1948. He said Van Praag had misinterpreted the Pruszynski tape and that other experts who examined it show only eight "spikes," one for each gunshot. Ayton also cited numerous eyewitnesses who said they heard at most eight shots.

Ayton and investigative reporter Dan Moldea, who also wrote a book about the assassination, argue that Sirhan's gun could have reached Kennedy's back. No witnesses saw the actual shots fired in the chaos of the pantry, and Moldea noted that Kennedy almost certainly turned and tried to protect himself after the first shot, which some said was preceded by Sirhan yelling, "Kennedy, you son of a bitch!"

"What were Kennedy's last words?" Moldea asked during an interview. "'How's Paul?' How would Kennedy know Paul had been injured if he had not been turned around. He turned around when Sirhan rushes towards him, yelling 'you son of a bitch Kennedy.' Kennedy's not going to just stand there. He turns his back defensively."

Moldea theorized that Schrade fell forward into Kennedy, pinning him against a table and pushing him into the muzzle of Sirhan's gun, enabling him to fire four contact shots into Kennedy. One shot went through his jacket without hitting Kennedy, one went into his back and stopped below his neck, one went through his armpit and one went into his brain.

But Robert F. Kennedy Jr. doesn't find those theories persuasive. "It's not only that nobody saw that," Kennedy said. "The people that were closest to [Sirhan], the people that disarmed him all said he never got near my father."

Schrade used an expletive to describe Moldea's explanation and said he fell backward when he was shot above his forehead.

Both Ayton and Moldea assisted the California attorney general's office in contesting Sirhan's final appeal, and the government's legal briefs cited the investigative work of both men.

Moldea had initially been a believer in the second-gunman theory, but after interviewing numerous police officers, witnesses and Sirhan, he concluded in his 1995 book, "The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy," that Sirhan acted alone. He cited as additional proof a comment Sirhan reportedly made to a defense investigator about Kennedy turning his head before Sirhan shot him, a comment Sirhan strongly denied making.

More recently, Sirhan's lawyers have explored whether he was hypnotized to begin shooting his gun when given a certain cue, even hiring a renowned expert in hypnosis from Harvard to meet with Sirhan.

Judge Wistrich was completely dismissive of any suggestion of hypnosis. Schrade said the various theories of conspiracy and hypnotic programming are of little interest to him.

"I'm interested in finding out how the prosecutor convicted Sirhan with no evidence, knowing there was a second gunman," Schrade said.

It was Schrade who persuaded Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to examine the evidence. "Once Schrade showed me the autopsy report," Kennedy said, "then I didn't feel like it was something I could just dismiss. Which is what I wanted to do."

Kennedy called Sirhan's trial "really a penalty hearing. It wasn't a real trial. At a full trial, they would have litigated his guilt or innocence. I think it's unfortunate that the case never went to a full trial because that would have compelled the press and prosecutors to focus on the glaring discrepancies in the narrative that Sirhan fired the shots that killed my father."

- - -

Kennedy is not afraid to express controversial views. Last year, he and actor Robert DeNiro held a press conference to argue that certain vaccines containing mercury are unsafe for some children. He said he is not opposed to all vaccines, but wants to make them safer.

Three of his sisters - former Maryland lieutenant governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, human rights activist Kerry Kennedy and filmmaker Rory Kennedy - declined to discuss the assassination or the case against Sirhan. Kennedy understands why.

"I think that, for most of my family members," he said, "this is an issue that is still too painful to even talk about."

It's painful for him, too. Kennedy was asleep in his dorm at Georgetown Preparatory School in Bethesda, Maryland, on June 5, 1968, when a priest woke him and told there was a car waiting outside to take him to the family home, Hickory Hill, in McLean, Virginia. The priest didn't say why.

In his new memoir, "American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family," Kennedy said his mother's secretary was waiting for him. "Jinx Hack told me my father had been shot, but I was still thinking he'd be okay. He was, after all, indestructible."

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., his older sister Kathleen and brother Joe flew to Los Angeles on Vice President Hubert Humphrey's plane, Air Force Two.

At Good Samaritan Hospital, Kennedy wrote, his father's head was bandaged and his face was bruised. A priest had already delivered last rites. His mother was there.

"I sat down across the bed from her and took hold of his big wrestler's hand," he wrote. "I prayed and said goodbye to him, listening to the pumps that kept him breathing. Each of us children took turns sitting with him and praying opposite my mom.

"My dad died at 1:44 a.m., a few minutes after doctors removed his life support. My brother Joe came into the ward where all the children were lying down and told us, 'He's gone.' "

Benghazi Hero SILENCES David Hogg After His Latest Anti-Gun Tweet

Kris Paronto, a hero in saving over 20 lives during the September 11, 2012 attack on Americans in Benghazi, Libya, took David Hogg to school on guns and culture Sunday morning.

Democratic Party poster boy and left-wing anti-gun activist David Hogg tweeted “Remember a time when there wasn’t a school shooting every week? I don’t because I wasn’t alive.”

Paronto then put Hogg on blast, “I remember, it was before your generation started shooting up the schools David, even though we still had guns.”

He added, “Thank you for confirming..again…that it’s not the gun, it’s person, and in particular you & your peers millennial culture.”

I remember, it was before your generation started shooting up the schools David, even though we still had guns. Thank you for confirming..again…that it’s not the gun, it’s person, and in particular you & your peers millennial culture. @davidhogg111 #whenhoggsaysstupidshit #2Apic.twitter.com/NPf8Qsoqtt

— Kris Paronto (@KrisParonto) May 27, 2018

If anybody has the right to talk about guns, it’s Kris Paronto.

Paronto was the one who fearlessly faced gun fire head on and saved lives under extreme circumstances.

As noted by Kris Paronto’s website:

Mr. Paronto was part of the CIA annex security team that responded to the terrorist attack on the US Special Mission in Benghazi, Libya, September 11th, 2012, helping to save over 20 lives while fighting off terrorists from the CIA Annex for over 13 hours. Mr. Paronto’s story is told in the book “13 Hours” written by Mitchell Zuckoff and his five surviving annex security team members.

With all due respect, I don’t remember David Hogg running through the halls to save lives. He has, however, laid down in grocery stores to “save lives.”

On Friday, David Hogg and some of his classmates staged a “die-in” at a local Publix grocery store.

Hogg and his fellow activist classmates laid on the floor of the Publix to protest against Publix for donating to Florida Republican gubernatorial candidate Adam Putnam, a supporter of the NRA.

Publix then caved to the demands of Hogg and cut off all political donations.

Troves of Americans responded with disgust and disappointment in Publix for caving to the left-wing intimidation tactics.

Find a new place to shop for a while other than @Publix

— Dan Bongino (@dbongino) May 26, 2018

We are all sickened by what happened at Stoneman-Douglas High School in #Parkland, FL, but @Publix don't be held hostage and blackmailed by publicity stunts and misdirected disruptive activism. #PublixDieIn

— Todd Schnitt (@toddschnitt) May 26, 2018

I can’t understand why Publix would cave to such misguided and unfair complaints. The protests against Publix are ridiculous — who the heck wants people laying down in a supermarket? Shopping won’t be a pleasure if left-wing agitators get their way. I’ll always stand up for #2A!

— Ron DeSantis (@RepDeSantis) May 25, 2018



Rudy Giuliani: Mueller's Russia investigation is 'rigged,' no longer legitimate
By David Sherfinski - The Washington Times

In this May 5, 2018, file photo, Rudy Giuliani, an attorney for President Donald Trump, speaks in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik  

Rudolph Giuliani, one of President Trump’s lawyers, said Sunday he no longer thinks special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian ties to the president’s 2016 campaign is legitimate, calling it a “rigged” investigation.

“Not anymore, I don’t,” Mr. Giuliani said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “I did when I came in.

He cited recent allegations that the FBI may have planted a secret informant in Mr. Trump’s campaign, as well as recent comments from Judge T.S. Ellis III expressing skepticism about ties between the financial dealings of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and potential coordination with the Russian government.

He also said Mr. Trump does still want to sit for an interview with Mr. Mueller.

“He is adamant in wanting to do it, but we’re more convinced as we see it that this is a rigged investigation,” Mr. Giuliani said.

FBI and Justice Department officials briefed members of Congress last week about Stefan Halper, who reportedly set up meetings with members of Mr. Trump’s campaign in 2016 while appearing to be working as an informant for the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential campaign.

White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and White House lawyer Emmet Flood briefly attended the start of the briefings, but apparently left after making introductory remarks.

Mr. Giuliani defended their presence, saying the president has a right to be kept informed about the situation.

“I think the White House has every right to know. The president has every right to know as commander-in-chief,” he said.

But Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he told Mr. Flood at one of the meetings that he had no business being there.

Mr. Schiff said the meeting was always meant to provide Mr. Trump’s legal team with information about an investigation that potentially implicates the president.

“That is completely improper,” Mr. Schiff said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Mr. Schiff also said there is “no evidence” to support the theory that the FBI planted a “spy” in Mr. Trump’s campaign.

“This is part of the propaganda machine: let’s spread a completely fallacious story, and then let’s say that it needs to be investigated and give it a life of its own,” he said.



WASHINGTON SECRETS

Top prospect Trump was wooed

by Red Sox, Phillies

by Paul Bedard

Businessman Donald Trump throws out the first pitch before the New York Yankees faced the Houston Astros, Friday, March 12, 2004, at Legends Field in Tampa, Fla.

In the new “The Presidents and the Pastime,”noted sports author Curt Smith writes that both the Philadelphia Phillies and Boston Red Sox tried to grab Trump before going to college. Each time he said no, or as Smith wrote, “He chose ‘real money’ over baseball money.”

Turns out that Trump was the epitome of a baller in the old sense of the word — a scrappy fighter who honed his skill. “Trump resembled Pete Rose via Dustin Pedroia by way of Enos Slaughter — the most never-say-die kid in town,” Smith wrote in a chapter shared with the Washington Examiner.

His book, to be released next week by publisher University of Nebraska, charts the connections between presidents and baseball and noted that Trump hasn’t followed tradition by throwing out an Opening Day first pitch.

Smith didn’t say why. But he perceptively suggested a possibility: As baseball has fallen in popularity, why would Trump waste his time on the pitcher's mound?

“At a time like this, the Donald could affect a rough blue-collar charm appealing to the people who elected him, largely tired of and embittered by being ignored by institutions, especially government. Yet the last irony of his no-first-year first pitch is that it affirmed a similar angst already epidemic among those who follow another institution, baseball, their voices judged unworthy of being heard as the pastime itself has ebbed,” he wrote.

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/2018/05/www_28.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: