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 :

Fences, fences, fences…
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/14/photos-from-vatican-walls-to-obamas-fence-20-barriers-around-the-world/

 

G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier

Who wants barriers???

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/14/abc-wapo-poll-support-for-border-wall-soars-among-swing-voters/

WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGOESPOT.COM
Wed., Jan. 16, 2019
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****

 

Former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova and FNC's Tucker Carlson discuss "SPYGATE," the president's allegation that the Obama administration infiltrated and spied on his 2016 campaign.

DiGenova said that President Obama knew all about it (since at least January 5, 2017) and former FBI director James Comey, former CIA director John Brennan, and former director of national intelligence Jim Clapper are "a group of psychotics who can't stop lying" to cover it up.

"So, how could the president of the United States, who oversaw the FBI at the time, Barack Obama, not have known about it?" host Tucker Carlson asked.

"He did know about it because you remember that memorandum that Susan Rice wrote on inauguration day, memorializing the meeting on January 5th," DiGenova responded.

"On January 5th, the president, Biden, Yates, Rice, they were discussing exactly what we're finding out now and they were trying to figure out a way to explain it because they knew since Hillary didn't win, now it was going to come out and they needed a story," he added.

DiGenova also called Comey, James Clapper, and John Brennan psychotics who "can't stop lying."

"What you are hearing from Clapper and Comey is gaslighting," he said. "This is Charles Boyer talking to Ingrid Bergman trying to make her think all the things that she sees in front of her are not real. They are lying in the most unbelievably brazen and insidious way."

"Comey and Clapper and Brennan are a group of psychotics who now - they can't stop lying," DiGenova said.

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: Joe diGenova is a former US attorney for the District of Columbia. He joins us now.

So, the ironies in this, Jim Comey beginning a tweet with facts matter are self-evident. But to the specifics, this spying, this use of confidential human sources is tightly regulated. Did a judge sign off on this?

JOE DIGENOVA: No, a judge did not sign off on this, and a judge usually doesn't sign off on it. This was not the traditional use fo a source, this was a spy on the campaign of the opposing party of the incumbent president, who at the time was Barack Obama.

What you are hearing from Clapper and Comey is gaslighting. This is Charles Boyer talking to Ingrid Bergman trying to make her think all the things that she sees in front of her are not real.

This is, they are lying in a most unbelievable brazen and insidious way. If they were not spying on the Trump campaign, why didn't they just tell the Trump people the Russians are coming after you, be careful. Because that's not what they were doing. They were spying on the Trump campaign, trying to frame people, set them up. That is what the use of Mr. Stefan Halper was to plant evidence os it would blow back so they could use it in FISA warrants.

Comey and Clapper and Brennan are a group of psychotics who now can't stop lying.

CARLSON: What I'm interested, among many things, is in the response from the left, the self-appointed civil libertarians who have been telling us for generations about protecting the rights of the individual against the state.

I asked a member of this House Intel Committee Eric Swalwell of California the other night who signed off on this? And he suggested that a judge knew about and approved this spying on the campaign. You are saying that's not true?

DIGENOVA: No, the FISA surveillance was signed off by a judge, but not this intrusion into the campaign. This was done without judicial approval.

CARLSON: So why wouldn't we want to know more about how and why this happened? There's no precedent for this that we know of, why is this not a big deal in the eyes of liberals?

DIGENOVA: Because liberals are no longer liberals, they are progressive. They have given up on liberal ideas... where everybody is an enemy who isn't on your side. They hate Trump so much that they were willing to besmirch the Constitution to achieve a goal, which was his ultimate defeat at the ballot box, and if that didn't work to have him removed from office.

CARLSON: I feel like I'm going crazy here because I'm reading these stories day after day that are denying what they are reporting.

DIGENOVA: Right.

CARLSON: Here is one just pulled out of a hat. Some guy called Justin Miller at "Daily Beast" just put this piece up. He refers to it, and I'm quoting, "The false claim that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign."

DIGENOVA: An informant is a spy. A confidential informant who weasels into any organization for good or ill is a spy. That is the classic definition of a spy. Indeed, James Clapper, while fumbling through his television appearances has actually conceded that it was spying, but in his words, it was good spying.

TUCKER CARLSON: So how could Barack Obama, who was president of the U.S. at the time, not have known about it?

DIGENOVA: He did know about it, because you remember that memorandum that Susan Rice wrote on inauguration day immortalizing the meeting on January 5? On January 5 [2017], the president [Obama], [V.P.] Biden, [acting A.G. Sally] Yates, [national security advisor Susan] Rice, they were discussing exactly what we're finding out now and they were trying to figure out a way to explain it because they knew since Hillary didn't win, now it was going to come out and they needed a story.

Obama knew all about this and the notion that he didn't is ludicrous.

CARLSON: It's shocking to me that nobody sees this as a terrifying precedent going forward that one administration suspicious of its political opponents would use our most powerful law enforcement agency to gather information on them.

Do we really want that to be the precedent?

DIGENOVA: We do not. And what's tragic about it is, in the course of doing that, they have destroyed the FBI. It will take a generation for the FBI to return to the respect of the American people that it deserves.

James Comey, who says he loves the FBI, has actually slit its throat.

CARLSON: It sure seems that way. But you know, Joe, facts matter, says Jim Comey.

DIGENOVA: They do.

CARLSON: A liar. Thank you. It's great to see you.

Laura Loomer Sets Up Tent City for Illegal Aliens on Nancy Pelosi’s Property With Images of Americans Killed by Illegals

Walls Don’t Work? Then Why Did Dems Build GIANT Wall to Protect Their 2016 National Convention?

The idea that walls “don’t work” is fundamentally erroneous, and nothing more than a political talking point.

By  Warner Todd Huston

Nearly to a person, Democrats today are blabbering that “walls don’t work” to prevent President Donald Trump from getting a “win” on the budget. But, if “walls don’t work,” why did the Democrats build a giant wall to keep protesters away from their 2016 national convention?

Apparently, the walls the Democrats built around the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia in 2016 was the sort of border security that they could sign onto.

Of course, the Democrats were really trying to keep out undesirables. And by that they meant Bernie Sanders supporters.

As the Daily Caller reported:

Many of the protesters who gathered outside of the barrier were supporters of Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Some Democrats, like Brady Brassfield, told WJLA they felt “cheated” after seeing the extensive security constructed by the DNC.

“They don’t want to hear what we want to say or see what we have out here, really,” Brassfield said.

No doubt, Mr. Brassfield.

The Democrats also did not want to hear what Bernie Sanders had to say in 2016, either. It was all about the coronation of Hillary Clinton, so contrary views were not wanted.

Indeed, the Democrats went nuts on security for their 2016 convention. The Party actually erected about four miles of fencing in concentric stages to keep the riff-raff out of their august presence.

In July of 2016, for instance, The Observer wrote:

Much has been made of the gigantic four-mile wall that the security people have built to shield DNC attendees from the robust protests taking place throughout Philadelphia. Even People magazine noted that high-profile supporters of Bernie Sanders cannot get anywhere near the delegates they’re hoping to influence and several have been arrested trying to scale the 8-foot fence that rings not just the stadium proper, but a giant area outside the stadium.

According to the US Secret Service, it was a nearly unprecedented effort to shield convention-goers from the riffraff. Special Agent James Henry told NBC10.com that it would include “no-scale fencing to enclose the Wells Fargo Center and Xfinity Live!”

What may look like a boring story about securing an area during a naturally contentious event is of course irresistible because of the irony of the Democrats, who have made sport of Donald Trump’s focus on building a wall on America’s southern border, being protected by a wall surrounding their convention.

I would say hypocrisy, as opposed to irony.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.




CRUSHED: Theresa May’s Brexit Deal Defeated by Record-Breaking Margin in Parliament

AP Photo/Frank Augstein

Members of Parliament have thrown out Theresa May’s contentious Withdrawal Agreement with the European Union in the long-awaited “meaningful vote” on the deal.

The Prime Minister’s Brexit deal was crushed by a historic margin of 202 in favour to 432 against, paving the way for a vote of no-confidence in the Government by the Opposition, which Mrs May told MPs she would make time for on Wednesday, January 16th.

The first vote of the night was cast on an amendment to the Withdrawal Agreement by John Baron MP, which proposed inserting a right for Britain to leave the deal’s controversial “backstop” without needing to seek the EU’s permission — but this was also crushed, by 600 votes to 24.

Ross Kempsell ✔@rosskempsell

A No Deal Brexit has now become the legal default on March 29th, under the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal Act) — but the Prime Minister has said she is still intent on securing a deal of some sort, should her government win the impending confidence vote — and the Remainder-dominated Commons is expected to do its utmost to thwart a No Deal, in any case.

The European Union does not seem best pleased with the outcome to tonight’s vote, with Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, tweeting: “I take note with regret of the outcome of the vote in the [House of Commons] this evening. I urge the #UK to clarify its intentions as soon as possible. Time is almost up.”

President of the European Council Donald Tusk, meanwhile, appears to remain wedded to the deal, noting: “We will continue the EU’s process of ratification of the agreement reached with the UK government. This agreement is and remains the best and only way to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the UK from the EU.”

However, the chances of the deal making it through the British legislature without serious revisions now seem vanishingly small.

More to follow…

Follow Jack Montgomery on Twitter: @JackBMontgomery

Follow Breitbart London on Facebook: Breitbart London

Most Young Adults Disagree With Democrats on Abortion
SOCIETYCOMMENTARY

Tony Perkins / @tperkins

Protesters call for a vote on the NIFLA v. Becerra case outside of the Supreme Court on June 25, 2018. The case involves pro-life pregnancy centers and the requirement by California law to provide information on abortion. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images)

The Democrats’ national platform doesn’t just lack common decency when it comes to unborn life—it lacks common ground. For the last three years, the party of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has been fighting to do away with consensus limits on abortion—and based on the latest polling, that isn’t exactly endearing them to voters.

In 2016, the Democratic National Committee decided to take Democrats where no party had gone before. Clinton’s radical call to repeal the Hyde Amendment, the only thing standing between taxpayers and government-funded abortion, wasn’t just unpopular with Democratic leaders like Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois, but Americans, too. She went on to lose the election, and a lot of pundits—including The Washington Post’s—think her extreme social views were a big reason why.

The DNC didn’t listen to Americans then, but if it cares about the millennial vote, it may want to listen now. Most people—the media included—assume the under-34 crowd is in the left’s back pocket. But a new survey from Students for Life of America shows what a mistake that assumption has been.

On abortion, the DNC is turning out to be its own worst enemy. Not only are millennials one of the larger voting blocs in America, they’re also one of the most cautious when it comes to taking human life. In a poll that should scare the daylights out of the Democratic Party, only 7 percent of the 18-34 crowd agree with the DNC’s national platform on abortion—which is no legal limits and funded by taxpayer dollars.

Another 7 in 10 support restrictions on abortion, with 42 percent opposing abortion “broadly.” That’ll come as a shock to the Democrats’ system, which is betting most of its credibility on a surprisingly pro-life age group.

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life, thinks this poll ought to be a wake-up call to any liberal taking the millennial vote for granted. Obviously, she said, “labels like pro-life, pro-choice, access, health, or women’s rights often camouflage the true realities of the policies that today crisscross the country.” Just because some young people call themselves “pro-choice” doesn’t mean they’re anti-regulation.

That’s especially bad news for liberals, who’ve spent the better part of a decade fighting commonsense restrictions on abortion. Now, caught in an incredibly shrinking tent, Democrats might be forced to reconsider their opposition to things like parental notification or the pain-capable abortion ban. Of course, that much has been clear for a while.

According to the Marist poll, people of every age think abortion does more harm than good. “Seventy-four percent of Americans—including 54 percent who identify as ‘pro-choice’—are in favor of ‘significant restrictions’ on abortion.” And that crosses every racial, gender, and political line.

Young people also had a surprisingly unfavorable view of Planned Parenthood. “By about a 3 to 1 margin (48 percent to 17 percent), millennials said they preferred that their tax monies went to Federally Qualified Health Centers rather than the abortion giant, Planned Parenthood.”

Democrats are losing their grip on this demographic—and soon. If there is a future for the party, one thing’s for sure: they’d better rethink their abortion platform.

Originally published by Family Research Council’s Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

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/2019/01/fences-fences-fences-httpswww.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: