- 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 :

At least 2,000 homes went up in flames within a day as the raging Camp Fire roared through town at the rate of one football field per second. Elk Grove Police Department was driving through the ruins of the town, looking for survivors when they came upon a sight right out of the National Anthem: a flag pole with the Stars and Stripes still intact.

WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY
.BLOGSPOT.COM Thursday, November 15, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****

Georgette Keller shared a post.

Adopt Me Like Page

November 13 at 7:06 PM ·

SUCH SADNESS IN HER BEAUTIFUL EYES. …

Hi, my name is Lindsy.

I was found as a stray and taken to the shelter. My family called the shelter looking for me, I waited and waited, but they never came 😢

I have been in the Babylon Animal Shelter over 2 years now. Seems no matter how hard I try, no one ever asks about me.💔

I am a low maintenance girl, know my basic commands, and am even great at catching treats in the air. I would make a perfect furever friend for someone! I enjoy leisurely walks and would love cuddling on the couch to watch TV with you.

While I get along with many dogs a meet and greet is required to make sure it would be the perfect fit.

Will you open your heart and give me a chance? I understand if maybe you might not be ready for another furbaby in your life; please help by sharing my story and my page: https://m.facebook.com/adoptLindsy/

Lindsy #16-239. Arrived 5/23/2016 at 5-6 years BABYLON ANIMAL SHELTER

51 Lamar Street

West Babylon, New York

(631) 643-9270

Monica Lewinsky Contemplated Suicide

Former White House intern reveals in new interviews that after her affair with Bill Clinton, she 'felt so much guilt' and 'was terrified'

By MomZette

The former White House intern who is today known, rightly or wrongly, as the one who had the affair with former President Bill Clinton back in the 1990s reveals in an upcoming six-part A&E special that at one time she contemplated taking her own life — to dodge the pain and terror she was feeling after the affair became known.

“In order to cooperate and to avoid charges, I would have to make phone calls — monitored phone calls, which they would listen into and they would record — and I might have to wear a wire and actually go see people in person,” recalled Lewinsky, who in now 45, in one of the interviews she did for the series.

“The ground completely crumbled in that moment,” she said.

“I felt so much guilt, and I was terrified.”

“They imagined that I would have flipped really easily,” Lewinsky continued.

“They had no plan in place for what would happen if I said no. There was a point for me somewhere in the first several hours where I would be hysterically crying and then I would just shut down. In the shutdown period, I remember looking out the window and thinking the only way to fix this was to kill myself, was to jump out the window.”

Lewinsky has laid bare her soul with far more like that in hours and hours of interviews about her affair with Clinton for the A&E docu-series, “The Clinton Affair.”

The six-part series will air beginning on Sunday, November 18.

Aside from her perilous mental state as she described above, she also says that if she were to see Hillary Clinton today in person, “I know that I would summon up whatever force I needed to again acknowledge to her — sincerely — how very sorry I am.”

Many people feel quite differently — with many believing that the Clintons, both of them, should apologize directly to Lewinsky for all the pain and suffering they have put her through over the years.

Lewinsky wrote a long explainer for Vanity Fair about the interviews she did for the A&E series — and detailed her frustration with Clinton after the affair and also the way he was treated by the media, as The Daily Caller also noted.

The media almost never asked him about it, especially as he became a globetrotter after his presidency and gave numerous speeches and took on other work.

As she wrote in her Vanity Fair piece, “After occupying distant orbits for two decades, we finally reached the perigee. For the first time in more than 15 years, Bill Clinton was being asked directly about what transpired.”

“If you want to know what power looks like, watch a man safely, even smugly, do interviews for decades, without ever worrying whether he will be asked the questions he doesn’t want to answer. But in June of this year, during an interview on NBC, Craig Melvin asked Bill Clinton those questions. Was I owed a direct apology from him? Bill’s indignant answer: ‘No.’”

Lewinsky added, “He contended that he had apologized publicly in 1998. I did, as well.”

“My first public words after the scandal — uttered in an interview with Barbara Walters on March 3, 1999,” she went on to say, “were an apology directly to Chelsea and Mrs. Clinton. And if I were to see Hillary Clinton in person today, I know that I would summon up whatever force I needed to again acknowledge to her — sincerely — how very sorry I am.”

But that’s not something Bill Clinton has ever said.

The Vanity Fair essay is fascinating for what Lewinsky says — and doesn’t say.

“In order to move forward in the life I have, I must take risks — both professional and emotional. (It’s a combustible combination.) An important part of moving forward is excavating, often painfully, what has gone before,” she wrote.

“When politicians are asked uncomfortable questions, they often duck and dodge by saying, ‘That’s old news. It’s in the past.’ Yes. That’s exactly where we need to start to heal — with the past. But it’s not easy.”

The TV series begins airing this Sunday night on A&E.

Climate Scam Update: ‘Highly-Cited Global Warming’ Report Showing Ocean Warming Rendered Worthless After Real Scientists Point Out Flaw In Ocean-Warming Survey: ‘We Really Muffed The Error Margins’ [You Can Guess Which Way the ‘Error’ Fudged the Numbers]

Schumer: ‘We Are Going to Fight… to Let Everybody Vote – Everybody’
Written by Infowars

The Democrat majority legislative priorities in the House will fight to “let everybody vote – everybody,” declared Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)Schumer outlined House Democrat’s legislative priorities during a press conference on Wednesday, saying they would fight for “real reforms” to allow “everybody” to vote, and to not allow that to happen would be “despicable”.

“We’re going to fight for real reforms, to loosen the grip of special interests in Washington – and to let everybody vote. Everybody – not stand in the way of people voting, which is a despicable, despicable thing for people to do. It’s against the wellspring of our democracy,” Schumer said.

“We hope our colleagues in the House will have success in passing bills like this. We will be relentless here in the Senate in pressuring Senator McConnell and Republicans in the Senate to put them on the floor or pay the consequences.”

“The American people voted for Democrats last week on the strength of our ideas. Senate Democrats are committed to make those ideas a reality in this upcoming Congress.”

Several Democrat campaigns have already invited non-citizens to vote during the midterm elections.

“A complaint says the Texas Democratic Party asked noncitizens to register to vote, sending applications with citizenship box pre checked,” Abbott tweeted in October. “This is being investigated. If true, there will be serious consequences.”

A complaint says the Texas Democratic Party asked noncitizens to register to vote, sending applications with citizenship box pre-checked. This is being investigated. If true there will be serious consequences. #txlege #tcot #PJNET https://t.co/dgSPT8f77G

— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) October 18, 2018

Additionally, Project Veritas released undercover video showing Texas Democrat election officials admitting that “tons” of non-citizens voted by simply showing a driver’s license.

And the lawyers of Florida Democrat candidates Andrew Gillum and Bill Nelson objected to a court’s ruling that non-citizen votes would be excluded from the election process last week

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires individuals registering to vote in federal elections affirm that they are U.S. citizens. Failure to do so is a crime punishable under five federal statutes.

Meet The ‘Bipartisan’ Billionaire Couple Quietly Funding Planned Parenthood
After they gained notoriety for backing far-left advocacy organizations, it appears the Arnolds tried to scrub their giving from the internet.
By Justin Danhof

Why would a billionaire couple who funds the abortion industry be ashamed of it? It’s not an easy question to answer. After all, liberals frequently spend enormous resources and political capital to promote abortion and attack anyone who supports the right to life. However, one particular billionaire couple seems to be trying to hide their support for abortion.

They are Laura and John Arnold, the husband and wife in charge of the Houston-based Laura and John Arnold Foundation. The Arnold Foundation has given away more than $1 billion since 2011 to fund a wide array of leftist initiatives. One area to which the Arnolds have been particularly keen to give is the abortion industrial complex.

Thanks to great research compiled by 2ndVote, we know that the Arnold Foundation has donated to the following groups: Planned Parenthood Action Fund (between $5 and $10 million), Planned Parenthood Federation Of America Inc. (between $5 and $10 million), Center For Reproductive Rights (between $1 and $5 million), Guttmacher Institute, Inc. (between $1 and $5 million), Planned Parenthood Texas Votes ($100,000 and $500,000), and the National Network Of Abortion Funds ($50,000 and $100,000).

Now, the Arnolds aren’t hiding their foundation’s giving to the abortion mill. However, after they started to gain notoriety for backing liberal politicians and far-left advocacy organizations, an interesting thing happened. It appears that the Arnolds attempted to scrub their personal giving from the internet. But, like an elephant, the internet never forgets.

A little bit of research on the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine reveals a now defunct website, lauraandjohnarnold.com, where the Arnolds listed their foundation’s giving as well as their personal contributions. There we find that Planned Parenthood Action Fund is one of the top recipients of the Arnolds’ personal largesse. The Arnolds gave Planned Parenthood’s political army somewhere between $5 and $10 million between 2015 and 2017.

Leftists often moralize about the constitutional “right” to terminate a baby’s life, so why would the Arnolds attempt to erase their personal giving from public view? One answer may lie in the Arnolds’ attempt to style themselves as bipartisan. Work produced by other liberal billionaires such as George Soros, Tom Steyer, and Michael Bloomberg is instantly tainted by partisanship. The Arnolds are perhaps working diligently to avoid the same fate.

The Arnolds want nothing more than to be seen as middle-of-the-road philanthropists. As I recently explained in Investor’s Business Daily:

To hear the Arnolds tell it, they are equal opportunity donors funding initiatives across the ideological spectrum. In what appears to be one of his favorite tweets about himself, [John] Arnold wrote this in March:

‘I’ve now been called the next Koch brother by the far left press and the next George Soros by the far right. I’m an equal opportunity special interest pot stirrer.’

Of that first sentence, no doubt the latter is true. However, the former is not.

This may provide one clue as to why the Arnolds hoped to erase their personal giving history. While it’s true that their foundation gives to some conservative groups (albeit largely to work on bipartisan issues), their personal giving skews far to the left. In other words, their personal giving speaks truth to the lie that the Arnolds are “equal opportunity special interest pot stirrers.”

If they were truly bipartisan, their personal giving would reflect that. It simply doesn’t, so they are trying to hide it. But the cat’s out of the bag.

Let’s also not forget some very real facts about the racial elements of the Planned Parenthood story, so we can all be clear on what kind of organization is the nation’s largest abortion provider.

Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, who leaked her true intentions when she wrote, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” To this day, Planned Parenthood is criticized for putting its offices in urban centers with high African-American populations. This is potentially one of the reasons that “black babies are aborted in America three times more often than white babies, and Hispanic preborns are killed 1½ times more often than whites.”

These racial divides have gotten so out of hand that today more black babies are aborted in New York City than those born alive, The Wall Street Journal reported: “According to a city Health Department report released in May [2018], between 2012 and 2016 black mothers terminated 136,426 pregnancies and gave birth to 118,127 babies. By contrast, births far surpassed abortions among whites, Asians, and Hispanics.”

Progressive talking heads go ballistic whenever conservatives suggest that taxpayers should stop subsidizing Planned Parenthood. But with billionaires such as John and Laura Arnold filling the coffers, it’s fair to ask why the rest of us should be forced to underwrite the abortion industrial complex.

Justin Danhof is the General Counsel for the National Center for Public Policy Research, as well as Director of the Center’s Free Enterprise Project.

Blame Inept Bureaucrats And Environmentalists For California Wildfires, Not Global Warming

The fact that wildfires are no more frequent or severe during recent decades is remarkable considering anthropogenic changes that should make wildfires more prevalent.
By James Taylor

Global warming activists are shamefully exploiting the tragic and deadly California wildfires by pushing a false narrative that global warming is causing more frequent and severe wildfires. President Donald Trump stood up against this propaganda by pointing out that environmental activists’ agendas and local government ineptitude are more to blame for the wildfires than global warming.

California Gov. Jerry Brown, the environmental left, and the establishment media are vilifying Trump for this response. The objective facts, however, clearly support the president.

Cliff Mass, a University of Washington climate scientist, studies wildfires and has focused specifically on those in California. Citing official state of California data, Mass points out in his Weather and Climate blog that, “the numbers of California wildfires over the past 30 years has declined––dropping roughly in half.” It is difficult to credibly assert that global warming is responsible for California wildfires when wildfires are currently much rarer than they were three decades ago.

Wildfires Aren’t Trending Upward at All

Mass further notes the total area burned has grown “slightly” during recent decades compared to the late twentieth century, with the trend too small to be significant. Moreover, the acreage burned “was as large or larger at the beginning of the 20th century as now.” At the beginning of the twentieth century, temperatures were lower than they are today, and there were no coal-fired power plants or SUVs.

“The bottom line of the real fire data produced by the State of California and in the peer-reviewed literature is clear: there has been no upward trend in the number of wildfires in California during the past decades,” Mass wrote. “In fact, the frequency of fires has declined. And in most of the state, there has not been an increasing trend in area burned during the past several decades.”

“The story can’t be simply that warming is increasing the numbers of wildfires in California because the number of fires is declining. And area burned has not been increasing either,” Mass added.

Mass observes that the cause of the Southern California wildfire is not certain. Regardless, objective, long-term data show no increase in the number or acres burned by California wildfires in recent decades, and it is especially difficult to credibly blame global warming when national wildfire data strongly agree with the California data.

National Interagency Fire Center data document there has been no increase in recent years in the number of U.S. wildfires. The total number of acres burned has been somewhat higher than normal the past few years, but the number was lower than normal during the middle of this decade. In total, there has been no increasing trend.

Wildfires Are Not More Frequent And Severe

The fact that wildfires are no more frequent or severe during recent decades is remarkable considering anthropogenic changes that should make wildfires more prevalent. Mass observes that wildfires are a natural historical part of the ecology of California. There is an increasing human population; humans are starting most of the fires; forest mismanagement has allowed tree- and debris-choked landscapes; plus, people have brought invasive and highly flammable non-native species like cheatgrass into California that accelerate fires.

Much of this information was summarized this September when Brown hosted his Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco. Brown’s summit presented no scientific discussion, data, or evidence showing any link between global warming and wildfires. At the same time and at the same location, the Heartland Institute hosted and live-streamed a climate science rebuttal in which scientists summarized the evidence strongly contradicting the notion that global warming is causing more frequent and severe California wildfires. Brown would be well-served to watch the video and educate himself on what the science says.

So, if global warming is not to blame for the current California fires, what is? Mass observes that the likely cause of the Northern California wildfire (known as the “Camp Fire”) was strong winds causing a Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) power line to fail in the Feather River Canyon. At the site of the failed power line, high winds were forecast in advance.

“PG&E, even with very [high] winds forecast, decided not to de-energize their line––probably a big mistake,” notes Mass. “Our ability to forecast these wind events has become very, very good…The threat was clear. It is unfortunate that power lines appear[ed] to start the Camp Fire and that the lines were not de-energized before fire was initiated,” Mass wrote.

But there is more to the story than PG&E failing to de-energize a power line when very high winds were forecast. State and local government officials failed to provide aggressive warnings and responses when the fire began.

“Importantly, the winds were again highly predictable, poor warning were given to the communities,” Mass wrote. “And just as disturbing, local officials did not use the Amber Alert system to warn people of the exploding Camp Fire,” he added. People died when they were caught unaware and were unable to flee the fire. An Amber Alert from local officials could have saved lives.

This week, Trump issued an expedited approval of a major disaster declaration, unlocking federal resources and funding to aid California. He expressed sympathy with the victims and admiration for firefighters and first responders. Just as importantly, by threatening to withhold future grants if California officials do not come up with better land management practices, he served notice that he will not tolerate California government failing the people again.

James Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy and vice president for external relations at The Heartland Institute.

Photo Daria Devyatkina / Flickr

‘Alarming’ Study Claiming Global Warming Heating Up Oceans Based on Math Error

'We really muffed the error margins.'
BY: Elizabeth Harrington

A highly circulated study claiming oceans are warming at a much higher rate due to global warming contains "key errors," forcing researchers to issue a correction.

The study published by the journal Nature on Oct. 31 by researchers at Princeton University and UC San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography claimed the oceans were warming at a rate 60 percent higher than previously thought.

However, a mathematical error discovered by independent climate scientist Nic Lewis after he perused the study's first page has led the journal to retract its key finding. The study has a much larger margin of error, making their findings of a 60 percent increase in ocean warming less precise, and actually between 10 percent and 70 percent.

The lead researcher now says its findings are practically meaningless, with a margin of error "too big now to really weigh in" on ocean temperatures.

When first published, the study led to "alarming" warnings in mainstream media outlets, claiming the "world has seriously underestimated the amount of heat soaked up by our oceans over the past 25 years."

CNN initially reported the planet is "‘more sensitive' than thought" based on the study and would lead to "more dire" predictions than the U.N.'s latest, which gave Earth only 12 more years.

CNN has since reported "errors were made" but is still defending the study claiming its scientific errors "do not invalidate the study's methodology."

The Washington Post is now reporting the scientists made "key errors."

"A major study claimed the oceans were warming much faster than previously thought," the paper reported. "But researchers now say they can't necessarily make that claim."

"Unfortunately, we made mistakes here," said Ralph Keeling, a Scripps researcher and coauthor of the study, adding the mathematical error means a "much larger margin of error in the findings."

Keeling told the San Diego Union Tribune he was grateful to Lewis for pointing out the mistake and said the new calculations change the probability of an increase in ocean temperatures to between 10 percent and 70 percent.

"Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that's going on in the ocean," Keeling said. "We really muffed the error margins."

Following the study's publication, Lewis wrote a blog post questioning its findings and reached out to lead author Laure Resplandy, a Princeton assistant professor, but never received a response.

"Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations," Lewis said.

Lewis discovered an error in the equation used to estimate a trend in ocean temperature. A correction led to an "ocean heat uptake estimate … well below the estimate in the paper."

"The findings of the Resplandy et al paper were peer reviewed and published in the world's premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media," Lewis said. "Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results."

"Of course, it is also very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the paper's findings now correct the record too," Lewis added. "But perhaps that is too much to hope for."

This entry was posted in Issues and tagged Climate Change, Global Warming. Bookmark the permalink.

Elizabeth Harrington Email Elizabeth | Full Bio | RSS

Elizabeth Harrington is a senior writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Elizabeth graduated from Temple University in 2010. Prior to joining the Free Beacon, she worked as a staff writer for CNSNews.com. Her email address is elizabeth@freebeacon.com. Her Twitter handle is @LizWFB.

Federal Judge Orders Hillary To Submit to Interrogation. Disaster for 2020 Ambitions
BY MALACHI BAILEY

Evan El-Amin / Shutterstock Hillary Clinton (Evan El-Amin / Shutterstock)

A federal court has ruled that Hillary Clinton must answer questions under oath about the private email server she used while serving as secretary of state during President Barack Obama’s first four years in office.

The ruling, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, stems from a lawsuit from Judicial Watch, the conservative watchdog group, according to the Washington Examiner.

“Court rules late today Hillary Clinton must answer more email questions — including key q’s about the setting up of her email system,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton tweeted after the ruling.

Judicial Watch

✔@JudicialWatch

BREAKING: Judicial Watch announced today that, following JW's court battle, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that Hillary Clinton must answer – under oath – two additional questions on her controversial email system within 30 days. (1/6)http://jwatch.us/CPUF1e

4,213

Tom Fitton ✔@TomFitton

Breaking: Court rules late today Hillary Clinton must answer more email questions -- including key q's about the setting up of her email system. Court denied our request to unseal vid depositions of Clinton aides. Great work by Michael Bekesha! https://ift.tt/2K1tpGS …

The hearing and ruling is the latest development in the group’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, which seeks to clarify why former deputy chief of staff to Clinton, Huma Abedin, was authorized to work simultaneously for both the State Department and “outside employment,” according to a statement from Judicial Watch.

Now, Clinton has 30 days to answer two key questions about her email system that she previously refused to answer. They were from a list of 25 questions Judicial Watch submitted:

The questions were:

1) “Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.”

and

24) During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.

In other words, the twin scandals of Clinton’s time as secretary of state — her use of a private email server and the disgraceful terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, and the Obama administration’s politics-driven response to it — are back in the public eye.

And that’s right where Democrats, and particularly Hillary Clinton, don’t want them to be.

Don’t expect the mainstream media to describe it this way, but this ruling throws a wrench in the middle of Clinton’s potential run for president in 2020. In fact, it’s probably a disaster.

After rumors began circulating that Clinton might start another run for president, she began making comments related to the Florida election recount, which suggests her willingness to stay in politics.

However, Clinton is still haunted by the email debacle she tried to leave behind.

After President Donald Trump was elected, Clinton laid low for a bit and tried to pretend as though her email scandal didn’t happen.

But conservatives haven’t let Clinton forget about her “extremely careless” handling of emails.

Voters held Clinton accountable in 2016, and voters will hold Clinton accountable again if she runs in 2020.

G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier