Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
All Gave Some~Some GaveAll *****
THE LIBERTY DAILY
More Than 2,300 Suspected Child Sex Offenders Arrested in Nationwide Bust: ‘A Strike Back Against These Repugnant Crimes’
President Trump: There is No Longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea — ‘Sleep Well Tonight!’
VANISHED! Government Records Faced ‘Wholesale Destruction’ Under the Obama Regime
President Trump and Kim Jong Un Sign Historic Agreement for ‘Peace and Prosperity’: North Korea Agrees to ‘Complete Denuclearization’
VANISHED! Government Records Faced ‘Wholesale Destruction’ Under the Obama Regime
POLL: MOST AMERICANS FAVOR THE DEATH PENALTY
The Pew Research Center has released a poll showing that 54 percent of Americans favor the death penalty for people convicted of murder. That’s up from 49 percent two years ago. (As Kent Scheidegger has explained, this number understates opposition to abolishing the death penalty, but I’m focused here on the trend).
The death penalty has always had the support of a plurality of Americans. However, that support declined dramatically in the past 20 years. In 1996, 78 percent of Americans supported it compared to only 18 who opposed it. Today, the split is 54-39.
But the latest Pew poll shows support for the death penalty to be increasing. This is consistent with a recent Gallup poll in which 62 percent of Americans viewed capital punishment as “morally acceptable.” A year earlier, 58 percent felt that way.
Pew found that the uptick in support for death penalty was driven by the views of independents. Most Republicans support capital punishment; most Democrats oppose it, and this hasn’t changed. But among independents, support has risen from 44 to 52 percent in the last two years.
If one were to speculate as to the cause of this shift in sentiment, the logical starting point would be the increase in violent crime. There is certainly a correlation between the decrease in support and decrease in violent crime over the past twenty years. It’s reasonable to suspect that the increase in support has something considerable to do with the increase in violent crime.
Thus, Republicans should be all the more wary of embracing leniency in sentencing. Increasing crime and the opioid epidemic are likely to undercut any desire among Republican and independent voters to be more lenient towards criminals. “Law and order” will likely make a comeback as vote-driving issue. Republicans should want to be on their traditional hard line side of the issue.
SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty ImagesIn an interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, President Donald Trump took a swipe at former President Barack Obama, suggesting that he was able to secure a deal with a rogue nuclear nation without dropping pallets full of cash on Tehran tarmacs.
Many of the same media figures who've scoffed at Trump's attempt to ink a nuclear deal with North Korea are the same media figures who trumpeted President Obama's nuclear deal with the Mullahs of Iran, and Trump isn't willing to let the media forget about it. Both deals had their risks, clearly, and Trump seems to want fair treatment in that regard.
Stephanopoulos asks Trump whether, now that he's had experience negotiating for disarmament with a nuclear power, if he still believes that Obama's deal with Iran was misguided.
Trump: Oh, he does.
G: You’ve set the bar for nuclear agreements by criticizing the Iran nuclear deal, said it’s the worst deal ever made.
T: Terrible deal.
G: Does that mean that any deal with North Korea has to be tougher than the Iran deal?
T: I don’t think a deal could be softer. First of all, we’re not paying $150 billion, OK, we’re paying nothing from that standpoint other than, you will see what happens.
There's also another important distinction between the Iran deal and the North Korea deal: there aren't any long-term benchmarks to be met in the North Korean deal. Both countries decided what they'd be willing to part with, and neither country has yet taken steps to ensure those concessions end up happening (though North Korea has demilitarized to some degree, in the sense that one of their facilities has melted down).
NBA Finals Ratings Decline as Controversy Over Pro Sports Champs Visiting WH Continues
By Gavi Greenspan
Cleveland Cavaliers' star LeBron James (Screenshot)
The day after players from both teams competing in the NBA finals announced they would not attend a White House reception honoring them, if their team were to win the NBA championship, television viewership for the final game of the series fell to a four-year low.
On Friday, Cavaliers’ LeBron James and Golden State’s Stephen Curry declared their teams have “no interest” in visiting President Donald Trump at the White House to celebrate winning the NBA crown, NBA.com reports.
Viewership for each of the four games of this year’s NBA championship series declined, as the Golden State Warriors completed a four-game sweep of the Cleveland Cavaliers on Saturday.
Saturday’s game four ABC broadcast recorded an 11.2 rating, falling to the lowest level since 2014, Sports Watch Media reports:
“The 11.2 is the lowest for any NBA Finals game during the four-year run of Warriors-Cavs matchups (22 telecasts dating back to 2015). The previous mark was an 11.8 for Games 2 and 3 in 2016. The last finals game with a lower overnight was Game 4 of the 2014 Spurs-Heat finals (10.6).”
While ratings for each of this year’s four games failed to match last year’s level, only game four recorded a double-digit loss from its 2017 counterpart, dropping 11.2%.
The Warriors aren’t the only major pro sports championship team to miss an opportunity to be honored by Pres. Trump at the White House. Trump cancelled a reception for the NFL champion Philadelphia Eagles when it was revealed that a number of the Eagles players planned to boycott the event, CNSNews.com reported last week.
By the numbers: Americans set records for charitable contributions
Illustration: Rebecca Zisser/Axios
Giving to charitable causes exceeded $400 billion for the first time in the U.S., an increase from nearly $390 billion in 2016, according to a study from Giving USA.
Why it matters: The study, released Tuesday, credits surpassing the $400 billion mark to "a booming stock market and a strong economy." But the charitable organizations that benefit religion, education, health and humanities, among others, have not seen that money from low and middle class families.
The findings:
Giving USA grouped nine ways that money went to charitable works. Foundations saw the largest growth of 15.5%, and giving to international affairs was the only decline.
-
"Seven of the nine types of recipient organizations experienced growth of 5 percent or more," it finds.
-
"Corporate giving was boosted by $405 million in contributions for relief related to natural and manmade disasters."
-
"Donors and funders are becoming ever more sophisticated in their approaches to making gifts as they draw on the increasing availability of new data, new technology and new ideas," said Rachel Hutchisson, chair of The Giving Institute.
The impact: Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, told the AP that fundraisers in the U.S. are pleased with the recent increase, but are not certain about the future. Some middle class donors may not give if the new tax law does not allow a deduction for charitable donations, she added.
-
In 2016, $1.49 billion in mega gifts was made by individuals, and $400 million in mega-gifts was made by endowment.
-
In 2017, $4.1 billion was made in mega gifts by individuals, and $850 million in mega-gifts was made by endowment.
Yes, but: The report states that giving to individuals, not charities, declined more than 20% in 2017. The report estimates the decrease in giving to individuals, which is only 2% of total giving, is because it was an "unusually high increase in 2016."
Williams: Planned Parenthood Out of Touch, Only 29% Support Abortion-on-Demand
Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty ImagesIn a remarkable poll, Gallup revealed only 29 percent of Americans surveyed believe abortion should be legal under all circumstances, with more than two-thirds (68 percent) favoring legal restrictions on the practice.
In its June 11 survey, Gallup found that 50 percent of Americans say abortion should be legal only in certain circumstances while an additional 18 percent believe it should never be legal for any reason. A total of 68 percent reject abortion-on-demand, saying that abortion should be legally restricted.
Perhaps more significantly, a majority of Americans (53 percent) now say that abortion should be legal in few (35 percent) or no circumstances (18 percent).
There has also been an important shift in self-identification regarding abortion, Gallup found. In 1995, when Gallup first asked citizens whether they identified as “pro-choice” or “pro-life,” a substantial majority (56 percent) said they were “pro-choice,” while a mere 33 percent said they were “pro-life.”
Today the number of those who identify as “pro-choice” has dropped by 8 percentage points and in 2018 only 48 percent identify with that label. As many Americans identify as “pro-life” (48 percent) as they do “pro-choice” (48 percent).
Since the mid-1990s, those who self-identify as “pro-life” have jumped by 15 percent, from 33 percent to 48 percent, which marks an important sea change in public perception.
Today 48 percent of Americans also believe abortion to be morally wrong while only 43 percent say it is morally acceptable, a statistically significant difference of 5 points. Since it first began asking the question about the morality of abortion, at no time have a majority of Americans found it to be morally acceptable, Gallup revealed.
In a recent tirade, the executive vice president of Planned Parenthood, Dawn Laguens, said that pro-life efforts to place certain legal restrictions on abortion are “anti-woman” and “anti-autonomy.”
Laguens’ June 7 essay in Medium, titled “The Patriarchy is Wobbling” ignores an essential characteristic of the pro-life movement in America: most women back abortion restrictions.
As Jeanne Mancini noted in early 2017, “the overwhelming majority of women in this country want abortion restricted, and don’t want it funded by tax dollars. A majority also think it is morally wrong and that it causes more harm than good to women in the long run.”
Mancini was referring to a Marist poll that found that nationwide, more women than men (77 percent) support limiting abortion to – at most – the first trimester.
The survey also revealed that 61 percent of women think it is important, or an immediate priority, for the government to restrict abortion in this way.
When Planned Parenthood presumes to speak for American women in its fight to keep abortion-on-demand legal always and everywhere, it is actually speaking just for a small minority of women.
Most women disagree.
Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter
Proposal to split California into three states will be on November ballot
The six-state solution failed to catch on in California, but voters will now have an opportunity to decide whether the Golden State should be split three ways.
The “Cal 3” initiative sponsored by Silicon Valley billionaire Tim Draper qualified Tuesday for the November ballot, securing the necessary 365,880 valid signatures based on the state’s final random sample, according to Secretary of State Alex Padilla.
The ambitious longshot effort comes a few years after Mr. Draper failed to qualify his much-discussed “six Californians” initiative for the 2016 state ballot despite spending more than $5 million.
“This fall on Election Day, voters will get the chance to say that the status quo of ineffective, inefficient, and insular state government is taking Californians in the wrong direction,” said a post on the Cal 3 website.
Under the proposed initiative, the state would be split into three jurisdictions: Southern California, Northern California, and just plain California, which would run along the coastline from Los Angeles to Monterey.
If approved, the initiative would direct the governor to ask Congress for approval within 12 months to carve the state into three jurisdictions, after which the state legislature would be instructed to divide the state’s “assets and liabilities” three ways.
The three-state approach would give Californians a “fresh start” on issues like education, infrastructure and taxes, according to Mr. Draper.
“Cal 3 empowers Californians to direct the state legislature and U.S. Congress to create three new states, which will lead to better decision making and real solutions closer to home — like a dramatically more effective education system, more sensible taxes and more reliable roads,” said the website.
The proposal comes with Californians increasingly calling for the state to do something as frustration builds over the $1.3 trillion debt, mounting social problems, sharp political divisions between coastal and inland communities, and Sacramento’s ongoing feud with the Trump administration.
Another effort to upend California, the so-called CalExit secession measure, is still in the signature-gathering stage as Yes California organizers attempt to qualify the initiative for the November 2020 ballot.
The Cal 3 campaign has stressed that the two ballot drives are unrelated, noting that the three Californias effort “will not separate any part of California from the United States.”
Under Cal 3, each of the three states would have roughly 13 million residents, and each county would be included in its entirety in one of the three.
Unlike “Six Californias,” which would have placed rural regions at an enormous economic disadvantage by cutting them off from wealthy coastal communities, the three states envisioned under Mr. Draper’s latest proposal include a greater diversification of industries.
Northern California, which would include San Francisco, Sacramento and Silicon Valley, would be the richest with an annual household media income of $63,000, according to Cal 3, citing figures from the legislative analyst’s office.
Southern California, harboring San Diego, Orange County and the Central Valley, would be the poorest with an annual $45,000 median household income, with California falling in the middle at $53,000.
Mr. Draper, a venture capitalist based in Silicon Valley, is founder of DFJ Venture Capital and Draper University, a program for the would-be “entrepreneur or innovator.”
Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution allows states to divide into new states, but the last state to do so was Virginia, which spun off West Virginia in 1863 during the Civil War — albeit involuntarily, as the pro-Union western counties seceded from the state in order to leave the Confederacy.
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/2018/06/www_13.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment