Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Saturday, June 9, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
What the beautiful life is really like inside the Hermit Kingdom…Not for the peasants.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/06/09/photos-north-korea-diplomats-live-the-good-life-through-diplomacy/
Judicial Watch Uncovers Hidden Strzok-Page FBI Lover Emails in Clinton-Lynch Tarmac Documents that Show Obama AG Loretta Lynch Decided to Exonerate Hillary Clinton for Crimes BEFORE She was Even Interviewed by the FBI
NYT Reporter Ali Watkins Blamed ‘Trumpster Lawyers’ for Leaks; Turns Out It Was Her Boyfriend Deep State Leaker
Democrat IT Scandal Update: Soon After Imran Awan’s Wife Called Police on Him, Gunmen Shot at Her; This Palestinian Had Access to Emails of 1 in 5 House Democrats, was Making Unauthorized Access to Servers
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER SAYS HE HAS JUST WEEKS TO LIVE DUE TO RETURN OF CANCER
Justin Caruso | Senior Media Reporter
Fox News personality and legendary columnist Charles Krauthammer has just weeks to live due to the return of his cancer.“I have been uncharacteristically silent these past 10 months,” Krauthammer wrote in a letter read on air on Fox News Friday.
“I had thought that silence would soon be coming to an end, but I’m afraid I must tell you now that fate has decided on a different course for me. In August of last year, I underwent surgery to remove a cancerous tumor in my abdomen. That operation was thought to have been a success, but it caused a cascade of secondary complications — which I have been fighting in the hospital ever since. It was a long and hard fight with many setbacks, but I was steadily, if slowly, overcoming each obstacle along the way and gradually making my way back to health.
“However, recent tests have revealed that the cancer has returned. There was no sign of it as recently as a month ago, which means it is aggressive and spreading rapidly. My doctors tell me their best estimate is that I have only a few weeks left to live. This is the final verdict. My fight is over. I wish to thank my doctors and caregivers whose efforts have been magnificent, my dear friends, who have given my a lifetime of memories and whose support has sustained me through these difficult months, and all of my partners at The Washington Post, Fox News and Crown Publishing.”
“Lastly, I thank my colleagues, my readers, and my viewers, who have made my career possible and given consequence to my life’s work. I believe that the pursuit of truth and right ideas through honest debate and rigorous undertaking is a noble undertaking. I am grateful to have played a small role in the conversations that have helped guide this extraordinary nation’s destiny.”
“I leave this life with no regrets. It was a wonderful life — full and complete with the great loves and great endeavors that make it worth living. I am sad to leave, but I leave with the knowledge that I lived the life that I intended.”
Roseanne Barr Retweets Attack on Valerie Jarrett
By John Nolte
Roseanne Barr retweeted an attack on Valerie Jarrett Thursday, just a little over a week after Barr was fired by ABC for writing and publishing a racist attack on Jarrett, a former White House adviser to President Barack Obama.
Written by @BullMooseGhost, the tweet Barr re-tweeted is addressed her directly and accuses Jarrett of wanting “Israelis and Jews chased into the sea.”
“You didn’t cause any pain,” the tweet read. “Those people always hated you. Valerie Jarrett wants Israelis and Jews chased into the sea, and she’ll celebrate.”
I'm making restitution for the pain I have caused.
Ghost of Bull Moose@BullMooseGhostYou didn't cause any pain. Those people always hated you. Valerie Jarrett wants Israelis and Jews chased into the sea, and she'll celebrate.
Roseanne Barr ✔@therealroseanneI'm making restitution for the pain I have caused.
Barr’s sitcom, Roseanne, which was the number-one show on television and already renewed for an upcoming season, was canceled by ABC last week after Barr compared Jarrett, a black woman, to an “ape.”
ABC executives are reportedly in ongoing talks and negotiations with Roseanne producers to revive the rebooted show with a spinoff centered around the liberal character Darlene, played by actress Sara Gilbert.
Time’s Up, Democrats. Throw Bill Clinton under the Bus.
By KYLE SMITH
Former President Bill Clinton takes part in a campaign event for Philip Murphy, the Democratic Party nominee for Governor of New Jersey in Paramus, October 24, 2017. (Lucas Jackson/Reuters) Time to quit Bill Clinton, Democrats. Give him up. Chuck him under the wheels of the nearest Greyhound. Stop making him the guest of honor at your parties and fundraisers. Stop treating him as an amusing celebrity instead of a despicable human being on your talk shows, stop giving to his foundation, stop attending his speeches, stop being deferential. Denounce him publicly and without equivocation. Exile him.
You’ve exiled actors and newsreaders and comedians for doing less than he did. I picture them all commiserating somewhere together, on an Island of Misfit Boys — Matt Lauer and Garrison Keillor and Kevin Spacey and Charlie Rose and Al Franken and Louis C.K. Meanwhile the Big He is still everyone’s darling.
All this time, liberals and the media, you’ve been applying a lower standard of character to a former president than you apply to chat-show hosts and jesters.
Yet the party and its media arm continue to treat him ever so delicately.
After Clinton’s disastrous appearance on Today Monday morning — during which he (yet again) told random lies, tried to change the subject to unrelated matters (such as the increase in the number of female members of the Arkansas bar when he was governor), lashed out at his interviewer Craig Melvin, and sought sympathy for the massive legal bills he incurred by lying to the country for seven months — Stephen Colbert on Tuesday offered him a mulligan.
The Late Show ✔@colbertlateshowTONIGHT: Stephen offers @BillClinton the opportunity for a do-over regarding a question he was asked in an interview earlier this week. #LSSC #BillClinton
“I noticed you didn’t enjoy that entire interview. I want you to enjoy this one,” Colbert said to Clinton. In the most sycophantic manner imaginable, he asked:
Do you understand why some people thought that was a tone-deaf response to his questions about the #MeToo movement and how you might reflect on your behavior 20 years ago, and how that reflection may change based on what you’ve learned through the #MeToo movement?
As if Clinton or anyone else didn’t know until the last year that it is not okay to have state police bring a woman to your hotel room, then drop your pants and command her to “kiss it.” Or to grope a grieving woman in the White House. Or to commit rape. Or to take advantage of a 22-year-old intern.
Only Lewinsky — never Juanita Broaddrick — gets brought up around Clinton, and even then, only in deferential, euphemistic and non-antagonistic terms.
When Bill Clinton is in the room, the media gently acknowledge only this last matter (if any of them), and only because what happened between Clinton and Lewinsky is so utterly beyond dispute. But the Colberts and Todays of the world continue to shy away from even asking Clinton about the credible and detailed rape allegation made by Juanita Broaddrick — much less subject him to sustained questioning about it.
Given what we know about Bill Clinton, how likely is it that Broaddrick is lying? Why is she the one woman on earth whose rape allegation is simply dismissed out of hand by feminists? Why are feminists so lacking in curiosity about her charge that they express no interest whatsoever in even getting Clinton to answer questions about it? Only Lewinsky gets brought up around Clinton, and even then, only in deferential, euphemistic, and non-antagonistic terms.
The essence of the Democratic-party/Democratic-media approach to Bill Clinton has changed very little since 1998, when onetime Time correspondent Nina Burleigh indelibly said: “I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential knee pads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”
This was a nonsensical, if immensely clarifying, remark at the time, given that if Clinton had been removed from office after his impeachment, he simply would have been replaced by Al Gore, another abortion cheerleader.
Burleigh’s remark illuminated the moral peril of blindly supporting the chief of your tribe regardless of how reprehensible his behavior may be, and those who make excuses for the often vile acts and comments of President Trump should reflect on that. But now that Clinton is no longer in the position of “keeping abortion legal” (not to mention that we’ve had five Republican presidents since Roe v. Wade, and abortion remains much easier to obtain in the U.S. than in Europe), what possible reason can there be for continuing to treat him with soft murmurs of sympathy?
Take off the kneepads, media. Stand up straight and tall. Barack Obama proved that there is such a thing as a Democratic president who doesn’t abuse women in his personal life. If you don’t want to look absurd when attacking the failings of President Trump, apologize for making excuses for President Clinton. See him clearly as the sleaze he is and always has been. Redefine him for future generations as a loathsome, lying hack.
Warren Dodges on Whether Outside Money Influences Democrats More Than Republicans
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) refused to answer a question about whether Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans when it comes to the influence of money in politics during an interview on the Deconstructed Podcast on Friday.
Host Mehdi Hassan asked Warren if she would agree that the Democratic Party is just as guilty if not more guilty than Republican Party when it comes to being influenced by the money they have received from big corporations.
Hassan pointed to Sen. Robert Menendez’s (D-NJ) corruption trial and questionable donations that the Clintons had taken over the years as examples.
“Oh, come on. This is not about comparisons,” Warren said.
“But it is because you have to win over all these people to get them on board your bill. And I’m saying it’s not like your party’s going to be behind you,” Hassan said.
“But here’s what I think. It’s if people are behind us, that’s how we make change. This place is corrupt,” Warren said.
Ex-Ranger: ‘Communism Will Win’ Soldier Discharged from Army
Ex-Ranger: ‘Communism Will Win’ Soldier Discharged from Army
Spenser Rapone — the Army soldier who became notorious after a picture of him in his West Point uniform holding a “Communism Will Win” sign went viral — was discharged from the Army this month, according to social media postings.
Rory Fanning, a former Army Ranger and conscientious objector, tweeted on Tuesday that he was sitting down and interviewing Rapone for an event called: “Socialism 2018: A War Resister in the Ranks,” scheduled for July 5.
At Socialism 2018 I'll be sitting down with with Spenser Rapone, the US Army Ranger, Afghan-war combat vet, recent West Point graduate, and now war-resister, who sparked nation-wide fury after publicly supporting Colin Kaepernick and Socialism during his West Point graduation. pic.twitter.com/BIPzfEHmoP
— Rory Fanning (@RTFanning) June 5, 2018
A description of the event said:
Spenser Rapone is a former Army Ranger and Infantry Officer recently separated from the military for speaking out against its imperialist violence. He enlisted as an infantryman out of high school in 2010, and deployed to Afghanistan in 2011.
After returning from his combat tour, he applied and was accepted into the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY in 2012, graduating and receiving his commission in May 2016. Deciding he could no longer stomach the immorality of US imperialism, he spoke out against the reprehensible actions of the military in September 2017
He ultimately resigned his commission, and was separated from the Army in June 2018 with an Other Than Honorable Discharge.
Rapone first gained widespread attention in September after he tweeted the picture of himself at his 2016 West Point graduation holding the “Communism Will Win” sign under his cover, or hat, along with the hashtag #VeteransforKaepernick, in support of former San Francisco 49er quarterback Colin Kaepernick. Members of the military are prohibited from expressing political views while in uniform.
He also tweeted a photo of himself wearing a Che Guavara t-shirt under his uniform.
West Point and the Army subsequently launched an investigation, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a staunch anti-Communist, demanded answers from Army leadership. Rapone’s mentor at West Point, Professor Rasheed Hosein, was on administrative leave at the time of the controversy, as Breitbart News exclusively reported. A West Point spokesperson said the action was unrelated to Rapone.
Breitbart News inquired Tuesday with West Point about the status of its investigation into Rapone. The request was forwarded to the Army headquarters at the Pentagon, but a response has not yet been received.
Fanning, a book author and Afghanistan veteran, called Rapone a “now war-resister.”
“Our conversation will be called ‘Resisting Within the Ranks.’ Spenser is being discharged from the military with an Other Than Honorable discharge this June, in part, because [Marco] Rubio penned a panic-stricken letter to acting Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy demanding the branch nullify Rapone’s military commission after seeing this photo.”
Rapone retweeted Fanning’s tweet.
The event page for Socialism 2018 said the two would discuss “what does it mean to resist as an active duty soldier in the 21st century?”
“Social revolutions share a vibrant historical legacy with disaffected,” it said.
Poll: Seattle Residents Fed Up With Spending More On The Homeless With Little To Show For It
JOHN SEXTON
A private poll of 800 Seattle residents found they are increasingly unhappy with their City Council’s response to homelessness and no longer feeling generous about funding fresh attempts to solve the problem with new taxes. This private poll was conducted in March, before the passage of the head tax last month or the Mayor’s latest initiative to spend another $11 million this year on homelessness. From Crosscut:
When asked how serious of a problem homelessness is, 88 percent of respondents answered “extremely” or “very” serious, with only 1 percent answering “not too serious.” Similarly, 81 percent said the number of homeless encampments pose an “extremely” or “very” serious problem. This level of concern dwarfed any other issue in Seattle, including traffic, according to one person close to the polling…
83 percent were dissatisfied with how the Council has addressed homelessness, with a majority, 51 percent, responding “very dissatisfied.”
With that dissatisfaction may come consequences. A slim 29 percent believed city government needs more taxes to address homelessness, while 63 percent believe it already has enough and can solve the problem with more effective spending.
So not only are an overwhelming percentage of respondents dissatisfied, they also believe this is the top issue in the city. It’s quite a change from a previous poll, conducted in 2016, which found respondents were prepared to spend much more to address homelessness in the city:
In the 2016 poll, 64 percent of those surveyed said they believed the city needed “to spend a lot more money to reduce homelessness.” That’s a 35 percentage point difference from the more recent poll. In addition, only 40 percent of the 2016 respondents believed the city was not effectively using its resources, a mirror image of the more recent poll showing that more than 60 percent — 63 percent — now think the city has enough money.
Again, the poll taken in March of this year happened before the head tax on top companies in Seattle was passed; however, the head tax was already being discussed. So the dramatic shift could be the result of people hearing about the head tax proposal and deciding they’d had enough.
Opponents of the tax are now collecting signatures in an attempt to put the issue on the ballot this fall. Just yesterday, organizers predicted they would succeed:
“We’ve had an incredible outpouring of support across the city of Seattle … and we are very close to the finish line in terms of collecting the required signatures in order to be on the ballot this November,” said John Murray, spokesperson for the No Tax on Jobs Coalition…
“I think the jobs tax was the final straw,” Murray said. “You have seen tax after tax increase pushed by the city council … and you have a real problem on the streets of Seattle with public safety and sanitation. Also, a feeling among residents that this has to be solved because it is not right to have people living in these kinds of conditions.”
“Within that context you have a city council that has simply said ‘give us more money and we’ll take care of it,’” he said. “The problem is they have had a huge increase in homelessness spending over the past few years with little to no evidence of improvement. The people of the city are saying, ‘On the one hand you are telling us to give you more money. On the other, you clearly do not have an effective plan.’ And in the meantime, things are getting worse.”
Who would have predicted that high taxes and creeping socialism would create a resistance effort in Seattle of all places? We’ll find out this fall how many residents have finally had enough.
If Paying Stormy Daniels Was A Crime, The Clinton Campaign Committed It Too
By Adam Mill
Rod Rosenstein personally approved a highly questionable raid on President Trump’s private attorney, particularly given new context we have regarding the Clinton campaign.
Rod Rosenstein personally approved a highly questionable raid on President Trump’s private attorney, particularly given new context we have regarding the Clinton campaign.Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein repeatedly lectured on the importance of the “rule of law” in a recent speech to a dinner party in Philadelphia, but his actions in the Trump investigation suggest he may not be practicing what he preaches.
He borrowed from John MacArthur Maguire to describe the rule of law as a system of “wise restraints that make men free.” These restraints “preserve liberty because they are prescribed in advance, and they apply equally to everyone, without regard to rank or status,” he said.
Yet Rosenstein personally approved highly questionable raids on President Trump’s private attorney, Michael Cohen, particularly given context we recently learned about the Hillary Clinton campaign. Let’s review.
Our federal government, shockingly, raided Cohen’s office, home, and hotel room. The crime being investigated? We don’t know for sure, but it appears to have started with Cohen’s payment of hush money to Stormy Daniels, a prostitute who claims to have had an affair with Trump.
Here’s what we know based on what’s in the news, though I acknowledge these leaks may not be reliable. Part of Cohen’s job was to make sure Trump’s past affairs didn’t come to light, and he paid Cohen a monthly retainer. Daniels approached Cohen with an offer to “sell” exclusive rights to her “story” about the affair to Trump.
In other words, she would agree to keep it quiet until Trump chooses to exercise his right to exploit the story commercially with a film or a book (meaning never). Cohen used a personal home equity line of credit to raise the money to pay Daniels, and then transferred it to a corporation which passed it on to her and her attorney.
The payment was not reported to the Federal Election Commission, which apparently set off alarm bells for the feds once they learned about it. It’s easy to see why. Trump was battling with Hillary Clinton for the presidency when this emerged, so the government seems to consider the payment to Daniels as a possible “in kind” campaign donation that should have been reported to the FEC.
The theory seems to be that because Cohen used a private source of financing instead of campaign money, he must have been hiding the money from the FEC. The transaction was therefore “bank fraud” because a bank was involved. Some speculate this must not have been properly reported on his taxes.
Okay, now get ready for the mother of all “What about” questions. Remember all those women who came out around that same time (October of 2016) accusing candidate Trump of sexual harassment? Turns out that a lawyer sympathetic to candidate Clinton contacted Clinton donors for money with which to pay some of these women to accuse Trump right before the election.
The Hill reports: “The women’s accounts were chronicled in contemporaneous contractual documents, emails and text messages reviewed by The Hill, including an exchange of texts between one woman and Bloom that suggested political action committees supporting Hillary Clinton were contacted during the effort” (emphasis mine). The New York Times adds:
Ms. Allred’s daughter, the lawyer Lisa Bloom, seized on the political potency of sexual harassment charges against Mr. Trump not long after he clinched the Republican presidential nomination. She said she reached out to a pro-Clinton “super PAC” — though she declined to identify which one — for money to help her vet a sexual misconduct claim against Mr. Trump.
That case collapsed one week before Election Day, but as a result of the attention it generated, several donors reached out to Ms. Bloom ‘asking how they could help,’ she said. She told them that she was working with ‘a few other women’ who might ‘find the courage to speak out’ against Mr. Trump if the donors would provide funds for security, relocation and possibly a ‘safe house.’
During the third presidential debate, candidate Trump speculated that the Clinton campaign was “behind” why the women came forward to accuse him all at the same time right before the election. Believe it or not, on national television, Ms. Clinton didn’t deny that her campaign was behind the accusers during her rebuttal. While she would shake her head silently denying candidate Trump’s accusation that she hired agent provocateurs to cause violence in his rallies, she did not deny, verbally or nonverbally, coordinating with the victims of Trump’s alleged harassment.
What about Lisa Bloom? Where are the search warrants for her office and home? Why isn’t her attempt to coordinate payments to these accusers to speak out against Trump just as much of a dark campaign contribution as Cohen’s hush money? To quote another Bloom from the recent movie “Mollie’s Game”:
Molly Bloom: Am I breaking the law?
Louis Butterman: Not really.
Molly Bloom: We’re able to find out for sure, aren’t we? Laws are written down.
Aren’t these laws supposed to be written-down so one can know in advance whether one might be subject to criminal prosecution for violations of rules that we agree-upon in advance? Shouldn’t these rules apply equally regardless of whether your name is “Trump” or “Clinton?”
With Cohen and Bloom appearing to do the exact mirror image of the same thing in the same election with such dramatically different legal outcomes, one cannot help but wonder whether Rosenstein is indeed applying laws “equally to everyone, without regard to rank or status.”
Adam Mill works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. He frequently posts to millstreetgazette.blogspot.com. Adam graduated from the University of Kansas and has been admitted to practice in Kansas and Missouri.
Dick Morris: Eric Holder — Author of the Marc Rich Pardon — Condemns Trump Pardon of D’Souza
AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, mpi86/MediaPunch /IPIt goes beyond chutzpah, arrogance, and myopia. Former Attorney General Eric Holder has dared to condemn President Trump’s decision to pardon anti-Obama author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, saying he was not a “good candidate” for a pardon.
This is the same Holder who, signed off on Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich — a fugitive — after his wife, Denise, donated $450,000 too Clinton’s presidential library foundation and over $100,000 to Hillary’s Senate campaign. Rich was convicted of not paying $48 million in taxes and of illegally selling oil to Iran in violation of sanctions.
Former Democratic congressman and staunch Clinton defender Barney Frank (D-MA) said of the Rich pardon, “I was very angry about it. It was a real betrayal by Bill Clinton of all who had been strongly supportive of him to do something this unjustified. It was contemptuous.”
In addition, Holder OKed the pardons of:
-
Susan McDougal, Clinton’s business partner who served 16 months in prison for refusing to tell the truth about the president’s involvement in the Whitewater scandal.
-
Harvey Weinig, a lawyer who laundered $19 million for Colombia drug kingpins. Weinig was related to a White House staffer.
-
Sixteen convicted Puerto Rican terrorists affiliated with the FALN who were responsible for six deaths including law enforcement officers. Particularly loathsome was their bombing of Fraunces Tavern that killed four including Frank Connor, whose son Joseph Connor has recently published a wonderful and moving book, Shattered Lives about the impact of the bombing on his family.
-
Edgar and Donna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud, they retained Hillary’s bother Tony to lobby for their pardons, paying him $325,000.
-
Carlos Vignali, a major drug kingpin. Hugh Rodham, Hillary’s brother, got $400,000 from attorney Glenn Graswell to lobby for Vignali’s pardon.
By contrast, Dinesh Disouza was convicted of a non-violent, white collar crime of using straw donors to contribute $20,000 to a candidate for US Senate in New York State. He was sentenced to pay a $30,000 fine, five years probation, and eight months in a supervised “community confinement center.”
The key question that has loomed over the D’Souza case is whether or not he was specifically targeted for prosecution on this relatively minor campaign finance violation. Since the donations appeared under names other than D’Souza’s – the entire premise of the case – it is hard to see how the “crime” came to prosecutors’ attention in the first place. It would seem that the investigation would have had to be a very extensive one, encompassing are review, not only of the candidate’s campaign finance disclosure, but of D’Souza’s bank accounts as well.
Why would a $20,000 donation – when billions are spent on political campaigns each cycle – be worth such investigative time and resources?
The obvious answer is that he was targeted by President Obama and his political operatives in retaliation for his books and movies. In particular, D’Souza wrote The Roots of Obama’s Rage in 2010, tracing the president’s ideology back to his father’s anti-colonialism in Kenya. The best seller led D’Souza to produce the 2016 film: Obama’s America role in producing the 2016 film Hillary’s America, that became the second highest grossing political documentary and the sixth best selling documentary of all time. His strongly anti-Obama books may well have played a role in his prosecution.
D’Souza himself said the prosecution was a “vindictive political hit aimed at putting me out of business.”
Holder, for his part, played the key role in Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich. Justin Peters,writing in Slate, recounts that Holder was “instrumental” in the pardon process. “As deputy AG,” Peters writes:
Holder was in charge of advising he president on the merits of various petitions for pardon. Jack Quinn, a lawyer for Rich, approached Holder about clemency for his client. Quinn was a confidant of Al Gore, then a candidate for president; Holder had ambitions of being named attorney general in a Gore administration. A report from the House Committee on Government Reform on the Rich debacle later concluded that Holder must have decided that cooperating in the Rich matter could pay dividends later on.
Peters reports that the House Government Reform Committee later concluded that “Holder and Quinn did an end-around, bringing the pardon to Clinton directly and avoiding any chance that Justice colleagues might give negative input.”
That this man should criticize President Trump for pardoning D’Souza when no cash changed hands and no donations were involved is the ultimate act of hypocrisy, and if Holder could ever be ashamed of himself, now would be the time.
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_9.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment