- 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 :

Memo… We are leaving for New York to make a Christmas visit early Sunday morning, therefore there will be no blog entry for Monday, 12-24. See you Christmas Day...Ciao…Helen and Moe Lauzier...

WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.

BLOGOESPOT.COM
Sunday, Dec. 23, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****

Mission Accomplished: Trump Brings Troops Home from Syria

One of Commander-in-Chief Donald J. Trump’s first acts was to untie the hands of America’s generals and soldiers and destroy ISIS. It’s mission accomplished and the mainstream, fake news media hates the fact U.S. troops are returning home from Syria.

“We have won against ISIS. We have beaten them, and we have beaten them badly. We have taken back the land, and now it’s time for our troops to come back home,” President Trump reportedly said. “Our boys, our young women, our men, they’re all coming back. And they’re coming back now. We won. And that’s the way we want it. And that’s the way they want it.”

When President George W. Bush called for the invasion of Iraq, the left-leaning media railed against the move. When he followed his military advisors’ advice to implement “The Surge” to beat back terrorist insurgents, it was widely panned in the liberal media. But when Obama pushed an even larger surge and pulled U.S. armed forces from the region, the biased media called him a hero. No double standard here, nothing to see here folks.

While Obama’s politically popular withdrawal earned him a second term, it also spawned the most significant terror threat in our lifetime, ISIS. His legacy leaves hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children dead and displaced.

What did President Trump do that led to true victory? The military strategy is called “annihilation.” Americans may remember the long caravan of terrorists Obama allowed to withdraw, only to return in stronger force. President Trump, like an old Bronx tough guy, simple said, now you can’t leave. Coalition forces surrounded ISIS insurgents, bombed them into oblivion and killed upwards of 98 percent of the enemy in place. Everyday Americans may recall the politically incorrect “surrender or die” social media post that came out of the Pentagon under President Trump.

“If they surrender, we will safeguard them to their detainee facility cell, provide them chow, a cot and due process,” Senior Enlisted Adviser to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Command Sergeant Major John Wayne Troxell reportedly tweeted.

“HOWEVER, if they choose not to surrender, then we will kill them with extreme prejudice, whether that be through security force assistance, by dropping bombs on them, shooting them in the face, or beating them to death with our entrenching tools.”

The President Trump-led military terrorized the terrorists. The bulk of ISIS’ caliphate was decimated during his first year in office. It’s amazing what the most powerful military in the history of the world can accomplish once the shackles of political correctness are removed.

During 2018, U.S.-backed forces were ferreting out insurgents that sneaked away and were in hiding. When they formed a single stronghold, Pres. Trump dropped the Mother of All Bombs on it.

The mission was to retake the lands ISIS claimed and destroy its ability to wage war. The radical Islamic extremists were defanged in 2017. The ragtag bands holding small villages in Syria were never part of America’s mission.

“Five years ago, ISIS was a very powerful and dangerous force in the Middle East, and now the United States has defeated the territorial caliphate,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said. “We have started returning United States troops home as we transition to the next phase of this campaign.”

The few enemy combatants who are still above ground are hold up in Syria and President Bashar al-Assad is in the midst of a civil war on one front and battling ISIS on another. With Russia and Iran as Syria’s primary military allies, it has been a dangerous position for America to intervene.

Numerous reports show that American and Russian forces have been at odds. Russian mercenaries — the equivalent of American military contractors — have been killed by U.S. bombs. Recent reports indicate that the opposing sides have exchanged gunfire. To date, no American soldiers have been killed but it’s a tinderbox of hostilities. In terms of foreign policy, remaining as an unwelcome presence in Syria invites another world war.

President Trump is correct to claim victory and pivot into other methods to combat terrorism. Keep in mind that before 9/11, these Islamic extremists held virtually no ground. The military ground war is over. America won thanks to President Trump, but terror organizations continue to plot.

Here’s Why Trump Made The Right Decision On Troops In Syria
An in-depth look, as someone who has spent time on the ground in Iraq and Syria with U.S. troops, local tribal militias, and rebel forces since 2005.

By Oubai Shahbandar

President Trump has made a bold and immensely consequential decision in pulling U.S. troops out of Syria. His detractors on both the right and left will be many. But as someone who has spent time on the ground in Iraq and Syria both with U.S. troops, local tribal militias, and rebel forces since 2005, I can tell you that it was the right one to make.

Throughout this summer, i drove into the part of northern Syria cleared of the Islamic State (daesh) that does not have a U.S. military presence. Syrian northern cities of Azaz and Jarablus were the sites of two separate stages of the Syrian war. First rebels battled the Assad regime, then against daesh. Transnational terrorists haven’t had a foothold in those areas — jointly managed by Turkish armed forces and their newly created Syrian National Army — for years. It is a template that could help fill the vacuum left behind as the U.S. military leaves.

Life was bustling in these cities when I visited, though scars of the sieges they faced by the Assad regime and daesh were visible everywhere. The rolling landscape along the northern Syrian countryside could easily be mistaken for the gentle farmlands of the American Midwest. The kebab shops were open, motorcycle repair shops (the most popular way of getting about in these parts of the world) were bustling, and the two-lane road was packed with the traffic of trucks carrying goods into a swath of territory that is now governed by an interim government — an entity recognized by officials Ankara, but certainly not by that of the Assad regime in Damascus (nor Russia for that matter).

Nonetheless, reminders that the war was still raging in other parts of the country were everywhere. Newly built camps for internally displaced persons who were forced from their homes in other parts of Syria dotted the landscape as far as the eye could see.

This new reality in Syria — one where transnational terrorists do not have the luxury of a safe haven to plot attacks against the U.S. homeland and its allies — is very much possible without the need of permanent U.S. military presence. The withdrawal of U.S. forces need not lead to the doom and gloom scenario of a daesh resurgence that many Washington pundits are predicting.

Other countries like Turkey who are more invested and have longer term interests are footing the bill of stabilization and they are able to do it much more efficiently and effectively for a variety of reasons — to include cultural and historical connections to local communities and the land.

A few kilometers away from the parts of northern Syria I traveled through, stood an invisible dividing line that artificially separates the part of northern Syria controlled by Turkey and that by U.S. forces. To get a better understanding of the frustratingly forever-nature of the same battle being fought over and over again, consider that a decade prior to the ongoing U.S. military campaign against daesh in eastern Syria, U.S. special forces operators and Sunni Arab tribal fighters were busily targeting and rounding up the al-Qaeda in Iraq network in the remote Jazeera Desert in north western Iraq along the border with Syria — not far from where American service members are fighting today.

Despite most intelligence and military analysts’ conclusion at the time that al-Qaida in Iraq’s leadership and middle management was essentially decapitated, a sufficient small number managed to survive. Some did so by hiding out in Syria under the nominal watch of the Assad regime, others eventually managed to break out of Iraqi prisons due to gross incompetence and corruption by local authorities. And from there, the seedling of what grew to be the “Islamic state” was able to regenerate a few short years later.

So how can this current war-without-end be ever properly concluded? For starters, fresh thinking and a new approach in Syria is long overdue. The Pentagon-sponsored media tours of the Syrian cities that have been liberated from daesh and the local USAID funded projects that are meant to project a sense of progress, are in actuality more of a hollow chimera. Let’s face it, there would likely never have been a condition sufficient enough for Pentagon brass where they would have recommended withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The “metrics” for success are dutifully repeated by the public affairs officers — but the basic elements of the forever war remain in place: namely, the total dependence on the presence of U.S. forces.

In Syria, the U.S. military leaned almost entirely upon the Kurdish-dominated YPG forces, which at the behest of U.S. generals rebranded under a more neutral sounding moniker “the Syrian Democratic Forces.” Unfortunately, the U.S. military in Syria may be echoing past mistakes made by the French colonial forces. France once occupied Syria and heavily armed and favored the Alawite ethnic minority group as a means of maintaining control and security. That approach may have made tactical sense at the time, but it ultimately built divisions and set the stage for deadly internecine conflict.

Remember, a decade ago in Iraq, the U.S. helped empower the sectarian regime of Nuri al-Maliki, all the while dutifully briefing a steady line of reporters and think tank scholars that a new Iraqi military was being built that would eventually stand on its own. I would know, I helped craft some of the powerpoint slides as a junior defense analyst who deployed for a year in Iraq. The briefings looked great on paper and for the truncated weekly fly-in visit by pundits and scholars, but reality quickly caught up with the notional narrative of success.

An indirect approach to training and fielding asymmetric forces can and should be implemented in Syria that doesn’t require a perpetual U.S. footprint on the ground. Is it going to be perfect? Not by a long shot. But the massive failure of billions of U.S. government dollars spent to achieve the perfect model in Iraq should offer a sobering lesson in that regard. Again, take into account that fourteen Iraqi divisions trained and equipped by the U.S. military in a top-down model based on U.S. military doctrine all vanished overnight, when daesh launched its assault from its Syrian safe haven into Iraq in 2014.

In that context, the withdrawal of U.S. forces should not be seen as folly. The U.S. can help sustain gains made against daesh by supporting its NATO ally Turkey and local Sunni Arab forces to prevent daesh from re-emerging. After all, it was Turkey that has faced a number of daesh or daesh inspired attacks on its territory. It has more skin in the game.

Indeed, stenciled along the walls of the towns and villages I visited, we would see the slogan in Arabic and Turkish “brotherhood has no borders” — a reminder that a long-term stabilization solution much closer to home was available.

Additionally, a professional Syrian national army is currently being trained by Turkey. One that draws from the local community. I spent a good part of the summer driving into Syria to speak with them. Some, like the leader of the Mutassim brigade, were formerly part of a now defunct Pentagon program to arm and train local rebels to fight extremists. The Obama-era effort failed because it wasn’t launched in conjunction with local realities on the ground and did not incorporate the input and cooperation of the one country which shares a common social and historical bond with much of northern and eastern Syria — Turkey.

The U.S. can take an “overwatch” position without an open ended military commitment in Syria by empowering the Turks as they train and support Sunni Arab forces that will serve as a long term bulwark against the re-emergence of daesh. Doing so would also inoculate against al-Qaida’s transnational network, which once was heavily concentrated in northern Syria. All of the Sunni fighters I interviewed were firmly against al-Qaida’s agenda.

The YPG militias that are partnered with the U.S. cannot offer a long term solution to preventing the Assad regime — which has proven over and over again a willingness to release international terrorists when it suits its strategic objectives — from re-establishing itself in key terrain. Likewise, maintaining an indefinite presence of American soldiers in Syria in places as far flung as Manbij, Shadaddi, and Deirzzor makes as little sense as it did to deploy troops for a decade to Iraqi outposts in places like Baquba, Yusufia, and Ramadi.

This may not be a popular idea amongst the conventional thinking chain of command in the Pentagon or U.S. Central Command’s headquarters in Tampa, but one thing is for sure: In Syria it is time that U.S. policymakers and national security practitioners stop falling into the trap of believing their own talking points, and finally accept the sunk cost of past failed strategies.

The Washington establishment had an opportunity in Syria to break the vicious cycle of the “forever war” by taking a figurative step back and collectively asking, “What are we doing?” Trump took the unprecedented step of being a leader who was able and willing to ask that hard question and then — unlike the foreign policy chattering classes — firmly take action.

Oubai Shahbandar is a former Department of Defense Middle East analyst and is currently an international security fellow with New America.

Military Could Build Border Wall?
by: TTN Staff

A battle is brewing in Congress whether to allow border funding in the new spending bill. President Trump has announced there is a plan B if the Congress does not allow border funding.

According to The Daily Wire:

With his demand that Congress pony up $5 billion for "the wall" riding off into the sunset, President Trump on Wednesday repeated his pledge that the U.S. military will build the southern border barrier.

Trump's vow comes amid reports that he was forced to withdraw his demand for wall funding as lawmakers once again are gridlocked on a budget to keep the government up and running. With few cards to play, the president has turned to the military, a strategy he first laid out earlier this month.

In addition, Trump said Mexico will be paying for the new wall "indirectly," as he claims a new North America trade agreement with America's two neighbors will generate enough revenue for construction.

"Mexico is paying (indirectly) for the Wall through the new USMCA, the replacement for NAFTA!" Trump wrote on Twitter, referring to the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. "Far more money coming to the U.S. Because of the tremendous dangers at the Border, including large scale criminal and drug inflow, the United States Military will build the Wall!"

President Trump is currently in a battle with Congress but he has vowed that the wall will get built no matter the approach he has to take.

Juanita Broaddrick says she wants Bill Clinton in prison for the rest of his life
by Jerry McCormick

Maurice Li Photography / CC

It may be the holiday season, but Juanita Broaddrick is still out for Bill Clinton’s blood.

Broaddrick spoke out on Twitter last week to once again express her desire to bring Bill Clinton to justice and send him to jail for the rest of his life.

Juanita Broaddrick@atensnut

Al Capone was convicted on the lesser crime of tax evasion and died in prison from complications of Syphilis. Maybe the same fate awaits Bill Clinton....one can hope.

James Woods ✔@RealJamesWoods

One can only hope, but the Clintons are satanic in their avoidance of culpability for a life of crimes, so who knows? https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/1073323931136856064 …

9:31 AM - Dec 15, 2018

We Get the Point

Broaddrick’s tweet was slightly inaccurate: Capone did not die in prison.

While he was suffering from syphilis, he was released from prison in the late 1930s and died at his Florida home several years later.

But we get Broaddrick’s point.

Somehow, Bill Clinton must be brought to justice for alleged crimes he committed against women like Broaddrick, who has long claimed that Clinton raped her decades ago.

Telling Her Story

In her quest to bring Clinton to justice, Broaddrick recently released a book outlining horrific details of her story entitled You’d Better Put Some Ice On That.

The book’s title refers to Clinton’s alleged comments as he left Broaddrick behind in the hotel, horrified at what had just taken place.

According to Broaddrick, Clinton had bit her lip so hard he caused it to bleed.

Sadly, when she came forward to tell her story before Congress, she was obliterated by the Democrat machine protecting Bill Clinton.

Among those going after Broaddrick was none other than Hillary Clinton.

Dinesh D’Souza: Michelle Obama’s College Thesis Was ‘Illiterate and Incoherent’
By Rusty

Conservative author Dinesh D’Souza claims that Michelle Obama’s college thesis at Princeton University was “illiterate and incoherent.”

The critique comes as the former First Lady recently took aim at nearly every world leader and politician the Obama’s had ever met, asserting they aren’t all that bright. At least not as bright as she and her husband, of course.

During a stop on her book tour for the memoir “Becoming,” Obama offered a ‘secret’ to young women looking to make their way in the world:

“I have been at probably every powerful table that you can think of, I have worked at nonprofits, I have been at foundations, I have worked in corporations, served on corporate boards, I have been at G-summits, I have sat in at the U.N. They are not that smart.”

We shouldn’t be surprised that Michelle actually thinks that highly of herself. But D’Souza countered that by saying maybe it’s not everybody else that isn’t smart.

Michelle Obama’s college thesis

Is D’Souza onto something?

During Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, Princeton University placed a restriction on access to his wife’s senior thesis, though Politico was granted access earlier on.

The topic of the paper was “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community,” and, unsurprisingly, centered on racism caused by ‘conservative values’ at the university.

“I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong,” Obama wrote.

“Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second.”

This is, without a doubt, the same attitude the former First Lady carried with her towards her fellow Americans decades later, when her husband became the first black President. Even after leaving the White House, Michelle lamented the toughest thing about her time there was enduring the racism.

‘No known language’

D’Souza based his comments on an analysis by the late author Christopher Hitchens, who was highly critical of Mrs. Obama’s thesis.

“The only thing you can definitely tell from the attempt to read it, because I maintain it cannot actually be read, it’s a degradation of the act of reading,” Hitchens said, “is that she favors, or views with favor, black separatism, or as she calls it, separationism.”

“You should be able to be fluent, witty, self-deprecating, insightful, amusing, personal,” Hitchens maintained. “Not a bit of it. It’s a trudge. It’s a hateful, lugubrious, boring, resentment-filled screed written in some very bad form of sociologies.”

Obama counter punched Hitchens in her memoir, saying he tried to make her seem “so foreign that even my language couldn’t be recognized.”

The former First Lady meanwhile, despite expressing no desire to run in 2020, consistently polls high amongst Democrats, many of whom have never read her thesis and wouldn’t care if it was illiterate and incoherent.’

Susan Collins Reveals Powerful Text Kavanaugh Sent After She Cast Deciding Confirmation Vote

BY MALACHI BAILEY

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is surrounded by reporters following a closed-door meeting of Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill, September 26, 2018 in Washington, DC. Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault, has agreed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. (Drew

After making the bold decision to help confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Republican Sen. Susan Collins received a lot of threats, but she also received a powerful text from Kavanaugh.

Throughout September and early October, Kavanaugh’s only obstacle between him and the Supreme Court seemed to be a flimsy sexual assault accusation from a California professor, Christine Blasey Ford.

Ford claimed that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party in the early 80s, but didn’t come forward about it until she sent a letter to Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein in late July.

Feinstein rallied her Democratic colleagues to start a smear campaign against Kavanaugh on behalf of Ford, even after Ford’s allegations were thoroughly discredited.

One of the left’s tactics during the Kavanaugh debacle was to pressure moderate Republicans, especially Collins.

Because of the attention surrounding Collins’ vote, and her eventual vote in favor of Kavanaugh, she was subject to attacks and threats from the left.

The Hill ✔@thehill

Collins: My office has gotten some "pretty ugly voicemails, threats" over Kavanaugh http://hill.cm/9FSnwa4

9:25 PM - Sep 19, 2018

In one instance shortly after Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Collins received a suspicious letter that had to be investigated by the police.

However, not all of the messages Collins received were bad. In fact, Kavanaugh sent her an encouraging text after being confirmed.

In an exclusive Fox News interview Thursday, Collins was asked by Fox News host Martha MacCallum if she has heard from Kavanaugh since the confirmation.

“I have gotten one text message from him right after it in which he said that he would work hard to make me proud and the American people proud,” Collins said.

This reveals a lot about Kavanaugh’s character. He knew that Collins was under fire, so he reached out and offered a reassuring message.

Later in the segment, Collins said that she doesn’t regret her decision, even if she loses her seat in 2020.

“The easier vote, politically, clearly, would have been for me to vote no, but that would not have been the right vote,” Collins said. “And I have to live with myself and I want to be able to look in the mirror in the morning and know that I did what I felt was right, no matter what the consequences may be.”

Collins also mentioned the intimidation tactics used by the left.

“My job as a United States senator is to apply my best judgement and that’s what I did in this case, despite tremendous pressure, horrible tactics, abuse of my family, my staff, and myself. But I really won’t ever be intimidated. I have to do what I think is right,” Collins said.

While she might not be the strongest conservative out there, Collins should be applauded for boldly standing up to the left’s underhanded tactics.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich Vetoes Bill to Ban Abortions After Unborn Baby’s Heartbeat Begins
MICAIAH BILGER

Ohio Gov. John Kasich vetoed a controversial bill Friday that would prohibit abortions after an unborn baby’s heartbeat is detectable.

The Republican governor, who vetoed similar legislation in 2016, said he rejected the bill based on the unlikelihood of it succeeding in a court challenge.

The AP reports Kasich explained Friday that he believes the bill would be struck down as unconstitutional before it could save any lives. He also said the legal challenge would cost taxpayers money.

“As governor I have worked hard to strengthen Ohio’s protections for the sanctity of human life, and I have a deep respect for my fellow members of the pro-life community and their ongoing efforts in defense of unborn life,” he said in a statement. “However, the central provision of Sub. H.B. 258, that an abortion cannot be performed if a heartbeat has been detected in the unborn child, is contrary to the Supreme Court of the United States’ current rulings on abortion.

“As the losing party, the state of Ohio will be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to cover the legal fees for the pro-choice activists’ lawyers,” Kasich added.

The bill passed the state legislature earlier this month. House Bill 258 would ban most abortions in Ohio by prohibiting abortions after an unborn baby’s heartbeat is detectable. Research suggests a baby’s heartbeat may begin as early as 18 days after conception, but it typically is not detectable until around six weeks. The bill also would allow abortion practitioners to be charged with a felony for violations.

It is not clear if the state legislature has enough votes to override Kasich’s veto. Cleveland.com reports pro-life lawmakers would need at least two more votes in the state Senate to pass the bill without the governor’s support.

State Rep. Christina Hagan, a lead sponsor of the bill, previously said she wants the bill to pass now more than ever because of the likelihood of the U.S. Supreme Court upholding it, ABC News 22 reported earlier this month.

“Now is absolutely the time to pass the Heartbeat Bill,” she said, previously. “We need every minute and hour that we can get to send it to the right court makeup.”

Meanwhile, abortion activists blasted the bill as “dangerous.” In a statement earlier this month, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio CEO Iris E. Harvey claimed it would restrict a woman’s “right to make personal health care decisions before she even knows she’s pregnant.” She neglected to mention that that decision involves the taking of another human being’s life, the woman’s own unborn baby.

Harvey also called House Bill 258 “unconstitutional,” which suggests the likelihood of a legal challenge.

Kasich did sign a second pro-life bill Friday that prohibits brutal dismemberment abortions. In these common second-trimester abortion procedures, nearly fully formed unborn babies are torn limb from limb while their hearts are beating.

Heartbeat bills have been met with skepticism in the past, even by some pro-life groups, because of pro-abortion legal challenges. State taxpayers have been forced to pay pro-abortion groups’ legal fees after losing other abortion cases.

North Dakota and Arkansas passed heartbeat bills several years ago, but federal courts struck down both laws. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals said the following about their ruling on the six-week ban: “Because there is no genuine dispute that (North Dakota’s law) generally prohibits abortions before viability — as the Supreme Court has defined that concept — and because we are bound by Supreme Court precedent holding that states may not prohibit pre-viability abortions, we must affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs.”

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the cases in 2016.

There is more hope that the new conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court may consider an abortion ban, but it is difficult to say if it would for certain. Some legal scholars have speculated that the new conservative court would be more likely to consider cases that gradually chip away at Roe v. Wade – such as a dismemberment abortion ban – rather than reverse it completely.

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/2018/12/memo-we-are-leaving-for-new-york-to.html