FAIRY FOR CHILDREN

- Hallo friend FAIRY FOR CHILDREN, In the article you read this time with the title , we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article adventure, Article animation, Article fantasy, Article The latest, Article wit, we write can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title :
link :

Two Mean Cats

The Donald has better taste than Willy

 

WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGOESPOT.COM
Thursday, Dec. 13, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****

The true spirit of Christmas

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/11/photos-first-lady-melania-trump-embraces-children-at-toys-for-tots-drive/   

Elizabeth Warren’s latest political stunt BACKFIRES big time!

by Frank Holmes, reporter

Democrat insiders are privately admitting that Senator Elizabeth Warren may have torpedoed her own 2020 presidential campaign – with one stupid move triggered by her hatred of President Donald Trump.

Strategists, analysts, and even members of her own team say that Warren humiliated herself when she took a DNA test attempting to prove she really is part Cherokee.

And voters aren’t happy.

Trump had gotten under her skin by calling her “Pocahontas,” a riff based on her dubious claim that she has American Indian heritage. Warren touted that status—and may have used it to get hired and promoted — while a Harvard Law professor. She even contributed a recipe to a cook book of traditional food, called Pow Wow Chow.

She was all-in. But the jury was out.

So, the Massachusetts senator released a video of her DNA test, which revealed she is perhaps 1/2024 American Indian. That’s actually less than the average American.

To make matters worse the man who performed the test, Stanford University professor Carlos D. Bustamante, didn’t even compare her DNA to American Indians but used samples taken from natives of Mexico, Peru, and Colombia.

She meant for the test to slam dunk on Trump, but it blew up in her face — and may have doomed her chances to run against him in two years.

Even her inner circle is freaking out over her embarrassing charade.

The New York Times reports that “three people close to senior members of Ms. Warren’s team, who were granted anonymity to speak freely on the issue,” unleashed on Warren.

The three said the senator’s decision to take the DNA test was “depressing and unforgettable,” a “strategic failure” that left them “shocked” and “rattled.”

Jennifer Epps-Addison, who leads a liberal group close to Warren, said “she needs a reconciliation” with minorities after the test showed she isn’t one.

The Times added that Warren’s gaffe has already made Democrats shaky about working on her 2020 campaign… if there is one.

The ultra-liberal media in Warren’s hometown also turned on her.

Boston Herald reporter Kimberly Atkins said on “Meet the Press” that “Elizabeth Warren’s biggest problem is people are already getting tired of her” – and part of the reason is “the pushback that she got after that terrible DNA rollout.”

Meanwhile, the Boston Globe ran an editorial telling the senator not to throw her hat in the ring. “Warren missed her moment in 2016, and there’s reason to be skeptical of her prospective candidacy in 2020,” it said.

It’s not just Boston-area journalism and political leaders who say Warren should sit out the presidential stakes in 2020. There’s been a national backlash against the former frontrunner for having such ridiculously poor judgment — even in the liberal media.

CNN’s Chris Cillizza of CNN said that the DNA test alone “has forced her allies to consider more drastic methods to take the issue off the table.”

“Rather than get the issue off the table in advance of the start of the 2020 campaign, she had pushed her heritage (and the questions around it) into the national spotlight” and “made herself an incredibly ripe target for the President of the United States,” he said.

After the DNA video any donor, campaign manager, or voter would probably want to find another candidate, he said.

The stunt also strained her relations with actual, real American Indian leaders.

The Cherokee Nation’s secretary of state said, “Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven.”

“Senator Elizabeth Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage,” the Cherokee official, Chuck Hoskin Jr., added.

Simon Moya-Smith, a left-wing member of the Oglala Lakota Nation, also blasted Warren’s grandstanding.

When it rains, it pours. Now, average Democratic voters are deserting Warren in droves.

One in four voters said the DNA test made them think less of Warren, according to a Politico poll.

A more recent poll that asked Democrats to choose a 2020 presidential candidate had Warren coming in fifth, behind Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and losing Texas senator candidate Beto O’Rourke.

To add insult to injury, the poll was conducted by Harvard.

The presidential nomination in 2020, which she thought she had in her grasp, is slipping away.

Warren’s presidential prospects were already poised to take a hit if former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick also runs for president. Barack Obama’s advisors have already met with and begun grooming Patrick, the former president’s close friend.

But her DNA implosion was a self-inflicted wound… and maybe a fatal one.

— Frank Holmes is a reporter for The Horn News. He is a veteran journalist and an outspoken conservative that talks about the news that was in his weekly article, “On The Holmes Front.”

Strasbourg shooting: suspect on the run after two killed in terrorist attack

French police say at least 12 others injured by gunman who targeted Christmas market

Kim Willsher in Paris

French police were searching for a gunman who shot two people dead and injured at least 12 others in a terror attack on Strasbourg’s celebrated Christmas market on Tuesday evening.

After firing several volleys at passers-by in the busy city centre, the man was injured in an exchange of fire with patrolling soldiers. He then reportedly jumped in a taxi and disappeared.

Police immediately cut off major roads in and out of the city. French security services said they had identified him as a 29-year-old born in Strasbourg, who was known to police as a delinquent, but is also on the “Fiche S” list of potential security threats.

French media reported that gendarmes had attempted to arrest the man for a separate crime at his home in the Neudorf district of southeast Strasbourg earlier on Tuesday. The suspect was not home, but officers reportedly found explosive “grenades” in his apartment.

The French president, Emmanuel Macron, immediately held a crisis meeting at the interior ministry in Paris.

Shortly before 8pm local time, the man, armed with an automatic rifle, walked over one of Strasbourg’s many bridges around the Grand Île, the island where the Christmas market which attracts millions of visitors every year is located. Witnesses said the man fired a first volley of rounds and then walked down the street before opening fire again.

FacebookTwitterPinterest

Picture taken with a mobile phone shows rescuers treating an injured person in the streets of Strasbourg. Photograph: Francois D’astier/AFP/Getty Images

Local resident Yoann Bazard said he heard “two or three shots” and screams; when he went to his window he saw people running. “After that I closed the shutters. Then I heard more shots, closer this time.

“There were two or three episodes like that ... As it got close, it was really shocking. There were a lot of screams.”

Freelance journalist Camille Belsoeur said he was at a friend’s apartment in the city centre and at first mistook the gunfire for firecrackers. “We opened the window. I saw a soldier firing shots, about 12 to 15 shots,” he said.

He said other soldiers yelled for people to stay indoors and shouted “Go home! Go home!” to those outside.

One of the dead was said to be a Thai tourist who was shot in the head outside a restaurant. Staff and diners tried to save him but were unsuccessful.

Six of the injured were reported to be in a critical condition.

The anti-terrorist section of the Paris prosecutor’s office declared the incident to be an act of terrorism and announced an inquiry had been opened into “murder and attempted murder in relation to a criminal enterprise”.

The gunman reportedly shot at soldiers patrolling as part of the nationwide Operation Sentinelle, the French military operation introduced in the aftermath of terrorist attacks in and around Paris in January 2015, and was injured when they fired back.

Police asked residents in the centre of Strasbourg to stay at home bars and restaurants were ordered to close and not let customers leave.

The European Parliament, which is currently sitting in Strasbourg, was put on lockdown, and the parliament’s safety awareness division sent a message to MEPs advising those dining in the city centre to “please stay inside and don’t go out”.

FacebookTwitterPinterest

Rescuers at the scene of gun attack near Strasbourg Christmas Market. Photograph: Murielle Kasprzak/AFP/Getty Images

“[A] decision has been taken, as a precautionary measure, to close the European Parliament building in Strasbourg. We ask you to stay calm and safe within [European parliament] premises,” it read.

Several MEPs in city centre restaurants reported hearing gunfire. The Yorkshire and Humber MEP Richard Corbett tweeted that he was dining in the city “where shots (were) fired”. The restaurant was “not letting anyone in or out”, he added.

Theresa May said she was “shocked and saddened” by the “terrible” attack in Strasbourg. “My thoughts are with all of those affected and with the French people,” the British prime minister tweeted.

The local prefecture tweeted that people should avoid the area near the city’s police headquarters and that all access to the A35 motorway bisecting the city was blocked.

Police in Germany said they were strengthening controls at the Franco-German border near Strasbourg. The police force of Baden-Wurttemberg, a state in south-west Germany bordering Strasbourg, tweeted they were taking the extra measures at the border because of the shooting. The transnational tramway between France and Germany was suspended.

In the early hours of Wednesday, local prefect Roland Ries announced the Christmas Market would be closed Wednesday and all local cultural events cancelled.

France remains on high alert after suffering a wave of attacks commissioned or inspired by Islamic State militants in 2015 and 2016, which killed more than 200 people.

Strasbourg’s Christmas Market, which started in 1570, is one of France’s most popular seasonal events. The “Grande Ile” where the market is held is surrounded by water, on one side the main channel of the River Ill and the other by the Canal du Faux-Rempart, is only accessible by bridges.

Since the Paris terrorist attacks in 2015, the event has been held under high security. Access to the area is controlled and visitors bags are searched. Vehicles are banned from the area.

In 2016, a truck was deliberately driven into the Christmas market in Berlin killing 12 people and injuring 56 others. The perpetrator Anis Amri, a Tunisian who had failed to gain asylum in Germany, was killed four days later in a shootout with police near Milan in Italy.

The attack comes during a period of intense tension across France after four weeks of civil unrest by anti-government and anti-president Emmanuel Macron, protesters from the gilets jaunes movement.




If the French cave to Islamic influence, they can forget about equality and liberty

December 11, 2018 (Turning Point Project) – Last March, an Islamist terrorist stormed a supermarket in Trèbes, France, shot two people dead and took others hostage. In negotiations with police, the terrorist agreed to accept a police lieutenant's offer to swap places with the last hostage, a female cashier. The police officer, Arnaud Beltrame, was subsequently killed.

In honor of his heroic sacrifice, it was proposed that a place be named after Beltrame in the city of Marseille. But leftist officials vetoed the plan on the grounds that it might offend Marseille's large Muslim population who, they argued, "will take it as a provocation."

But why should Muslims be offended by the honoring of a policeman who was willing to risk his own life for the sake of another?

One possible reason is that many Muslims value the lives of Muslims above those of non-Muslims. This goes well beyond the normal human tendency to identify with people of the same race, religion, or ethnicity. Indeed, it's a matter of doctrine. According to the Koran, Allah created Muslims "the best of peoples" (3:110). How much better? One widely consulted sharia law manual stipulates that the value of a Jew or Christian is one-third the value of a Muslim (o4.9). Moreover, a Muslim who kills a non-Muslim is not subject to "retaliation," i.e. the death penalty (o1.2), although he may have to pay a fine.

Whatever the legal fine points, the overarching principle is that "the killing of a believer is more heinous in Allah's sight than doing away with all of this world" (o1.0).

Lieutenant Colonel Beltrame didn't kill the believer, but he did try to disarm him, and his failed attempt was the catalyst for his fellow officers to move in and kill the terrorist. From a Western point of view, it's a clear case of the good guys against the bad guy, with the good guys finally coming out on top.

But try to look at the incident from the point of view of a devout Muslim. That a Muslim was killed was bad enough, but to have a place named in honor of the man whose actions precipitated his death would be like rubbing salt in the wound. And, after all, what had Beltrame done that was so important? He had saved the life of a non-Muslim woman – that is, a creature whose value, according to sharia law, is even lower than that of a non-Muslim man (o4.9).

From the point of view of a sharia-adherent Muslim, there is the further question of who was the real hero. In the hour before the supermarket attack, Redouane Lakdim drove to a police barracks and tried to run down four police officers who were jogging near the barracks. Once inside the supermarket he declared that he was a soldier of the Islamic State, and that he was willing to die for Syria. In exchange for release of his hostages, he demanded the release of Salah Abdeslam, the primary suspect in the November 2015 Paris attack that left 130 dead and 368 injured.

In short, from an Islamist point of view, Lakdim was a martyr – a man who was willing to sacrifice his life in the service of Allah by committing jihad against unbelievers. Considering the extremely high regard in which martyrs are held in the Muslim world, even a Muslim of a more moderate disposition would likely have a certain respect for Lakdim. A more devout Muslim might very well pray to him as an intercessor. It's quite likely that in some Muslim homes in Marseille there are small shrines to Lakdim featuring his picture illuminated by candlelight.

The left-wing officials who vetoed the honoring of Beltrame's name would be the first to claim that all cultures share the same basic values, yet they were shrewd enough to realize that in some matters there is a deep gulf between cultures. There was, indeed, a good chance that many Muslims would be offended by any tribute paid to Beltrame.

It's not that Muslims don't believe in honoring heroes. They do share that value with other cultures. But there is a significant difference of opinion about who qualifies for hero status. For example, in the Palestinian Authority, numerous places – streets, squares, parks, and schools – are named after "martyrs" whose heroism consisted of killing innocent Israelis – very often women and children. Here's an excerpt from a June, 2017 news story which captures that mentality:

Last week the Jenin municipality named a square and put up the stone memorial in honor of 'martyr' Khaled Nazzal who planned the 1974 Maalot massacre in which Palestinian terrorists murdered 22 school children and 4 adults.

There is really no moral equivalence to this kind of behavior in recent Western history. For example, although American soldiers and officers have been guilty of committing atrocities during wartime, the U.S. government is not in the habit of honoring them for the atrocities. There are no memorials to the perpetrators of the My Lai massacre.

Of course, the primary incentive for jihad martyrdom is not cash payment, but a place in paradise alongside 72 virgins. That motivation undoubtedly played a large part in the actions of Redouane Lakdim. Ironically, Lieutenant Colonel Beltrame was also apparently motivated by his faith. He was a devout Catholic who had "experienced a genuine conversion" in 2008. According to Fr. Dominique Arz, national chaplain of the gendarmerie:

The fact is that he did not hide his faith, and that he radiated it, he bore witness to it. We can say that his act of self-offering is consistent with what he believed. He served his country to the end, and bore witness to his faith to the very end.

According to another priest who knew Beltrame well:

It seems to me that only his faith can explain the madness of his sacrifice which is today the admiration of all. He knew, as Jesus told us, that there is no greater love than to give one's life for one's friends.

Or for the life of a stranger.

On the one hand, you have a man who gives up his life so that a stranger might live because he believes all men and women are created in the image of God. On the other hand, you have a man who takes the lives of strangers so that he can enjoy eternity in the company of virgins specially reserved for him. It wouldn't matter if he had blown up a classroom of third-graders. As long as they were infidels (i.e. non-Muslims), he would still get his reward.

France has to choose between two futures: either the faith that Lakdim embraced or the faith that Lieutenant Colonel Beltrame bore witness to. The third alternative – a thoroughly secular state – has already been tried. Although that kind of society is not without its benefits, it has proved incapable of resisting the onward march of Islam. Moreover, secularized France seems to have cut itself off from the Christian source of the values it professes to cherish – liberty, equality, fraternity, and the dignity of each person.

Islam requires submission. And one of the things it requires submission to is the doctrine that all men are not created equal. If France capitulates to an Islamicized future, it can forget about liberty, equality, and fraternity.

This article originally appeared in the December 10, 2018 edition of Crisis. It is published here with permission from the Turning Point Project.




THE KAVANAUGH BETRAYAL!

JOSEPH FARAH  

I hate to say it, but I saw this one coming.

When President Trump selected Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, I knew it was at least a very risky pick.

But he won the hearts of conservatives because of the insanity of the opposition.

Now we know, for certain, that Brett Kavanaugh is a fraud. He should never have been President Trump’s first choice. He’s a weakling. He buckled to the extreme left to salvage his own reputation. I had a bad feeling about this guy – ever since his role in the Vincent Foster cover-up and his tutelage by former independent counsel Kenneth Starr.

How many times do we have to see this kind of betrayal by Republican nominees of Supreme Court justices – Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, John Roberts?

Let’s review the facts.

In 1981, it was young Justice Department lawyer Kenneth Starr who authored “a hurriedly prepared, error-filled memo,” according to Robert Novak and Rowland Evans, that convinced President Reagan to go through with the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to the high court – despite tremendous opposition from those who believed she was unfit and unworthy of Reagan’s support.

The memo gave O’Connor a clean bill of health on abortion by “using legal gymnastics to explain her Arizona legislative record,” wrote Evans and Novak. He wrote that she had “no recollection” of how she voted on a 1970 bill to legalize abortion when, in fact, she was a co-sponsor of the measure that was defeated 6-3 in committee.

Starr misrepresented that O’Connor was something of a friend and associate of Arizona pro-life leader Dr. Carolyn Gerster. In fact, Gerster told Evans and Novak: “I had an adversary position with Sandra O’Connor” and called her “one of the most powerful pro-abortionists in the [Arizona] Senate.”

So-called “conservatives” have continued to give Starr a pass on this monstrous disservice to Ronald Reagan and America.

He just did it again to Donald Trump with Kavanaugh. Unbelievable! But true.

Next, in the 1990s, conservatives blamed everyone but Ken Starr for the failed investigations of Bill Clinton.

Starr enabled Clinton. He enabled evil. And now we have one of his disciples doing the same thing Sandra Day O’Connor did. This time, he gave us Brett Kavanaugh.

Starr mentored Kavanaugh. The two of them covered up the truth in the Vincent Foster death – actually firing the prosecutor who raised too many obvious questions.

Then I began to figure it out.

Starr was not an independent investigator at all. He was the designated “fixer.” He was the cleaner. He was the handler. He was the guy who protected the powerful from themselves.

As I’ve said before, Starr was either the most incompetent prosecutor in the history of the country or complicit in the cover-up of those crimes. I lean toward the latter judgment.

In 2006, Starr was back in the news, again. This time, he was accused of sending fake letters from jurors asking California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for clemency for a convicted rapist-murderer headed for death row. Starr withdrew the letters, all but admitting they were fraudulent.

Starr, later the dean of the Pepperdine University Law School, said he was taking the allegations of forged documents “with utmost seriousness.” He tried to blame one of his investigators for the “mistake.”

The Starr historical legacy can best be summarized like this: He deceived President Reagan about O’Connor, let Clinton off the hook for monstrous crimes, used chicanery to prevent the execution of justice in California and paved the way for the career of fake “conservative” Brett Kavanaugh.




Trump Picks The Right Fight With Pelosi And Schumer

George Rasley, CHQ Editor

Yesterday, President Trump surprised White House reporters by calling them into the Oval Office conversation with Democrats that was originally designated as closed to the press. During the debate, both House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer protested that it was taking place on camera.

“Let’s debate in private,” said the Senate’s Democratic Minority Leader Senator Charles Schumer of New York after President Trump opened his meeting on border security to the media.

“We came in here in good faith and we’re entering into this kind of a discussion in the public view,” said a very unhappy soon-to-be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California. “I don’t think you should have a debate in front of the press,” she said.

“But it’s not bad, Nancy. It’s called transparency,” said a very happy President Donald J. Trump.

Yesterday’s meeting between President Trump, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was an awesome display of how Trump can win the battle for the Wall, simply by sticking to his guns.

Naturally, the establishment media would like to convince you and the rest of America that Trump is being unreasonable, but as anyone who has been watching TV coverage of the Central American migrant caravan and its attempts to force the border can attest, Trump’s demand for a border security wall is entirely reasonable – indeed it is the only reasonable first step toward real border security.

And careful listeners to yesterday’s Oval Office drama will recognize that Pelosi and Schumer weren’t there to strike a deal for effective border security – they were there to deliver a political coup de grace to Donald J. Trump by getting him to renege on his promise to build a wall on our southern border.

Indeed, Mrs. Pelosi, in a Freudian slip said as much. In rebuttal to Trump’s comment about transparency, Pelosi said “we want to have a debate about you,” not “we want to fund effective border security.”

Pelosi later said of the Wall, “That’s a political promise,” not border security.

Those of us who have been around conservative politics for a while remember the smirk on Democratic senator George Mitchell’s face when he conned George H. W. Bush into abandoning his “read my lips” promise to oppose new taxes.

Pelosi and Schumer went to the White House expecting to at least set the stage for, if not close the bag around Trump, in a similar con.

It didn’t work.

Instead, Trump hammered them over their weakness on border security and reminded Americans what kind of behind closed doors, smoke-filled room operators they are – it was not a pretty sight.

Republicans already passed spending measures for most of the Federal government but postponed a fight over funding for the Department of Homeland Security and other cabinet-level agencies. The new funding deadline is December 21.

As the meeting concluded President Trump again vowed that he would not sign any funding bill without substantial border security funding.

“If we don’t have border security, we’ll shut down the government,” Trump said, adding, “We have to have the wall.”

What’s more, as Breitbart’s Charlie Spiering reported, President Trump also reserved the right to have the military build the wall if Congress refused to fund it, possibly avoiding a partial government shutdown, but undoubtedly provoking another fight with Democrats.

If there was any doubt remaining, yesterday’s discussion between President Trump, and Democratic leaders Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Charles Schumer proved that the Democrats’ goal is not border security, it is to make Trump a one term President - if they can’t impeach him first.

However, the meeting also proved that President Trump took away the most important lesson from the recent funeral of the late President George H.W. Bush – failing to fight for your political promises is a guaranteed way to be a one term president. Trump has chosen the right fight to have with the Democrats, and the right time to have it.

We urge all CHQ readers and friends to contact the White House through this link [29] to tell the President you support building a wall on our southern border and urge him to stick to his demand for the money to build the wall, even if it means a partial government “shutdown.”




In this morning’s mail…

A lawyer boarded an airplane in New Orleans with a box of frozen crabs and asked a blonde flight attendant take care of them for him.

She took the box and promised to put it in the crew's refrigerator.  He advised her that he was holding her personally responsible for them staying frozen, mentioning in an arrogant manner that he was a lawyer, and threatened what would happen to her if she let them thaw out.

Shortly before landing in New York, she used the intercom to announce to the entire cabin, "Would the lawyer who gave me the crabs in New Orleans, please raise your hand.”

Not one hand went up ... so she took them home and ate them. There are two lessons here:

    Lawyers aren't as smart as they think they are.

    Blondes aren't as dumb as most folks think.

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/two-mean-cats-donald-has-better-taste.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: