- 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 :

Coming soon:

Our hanks to old friend Paul Parent.

Arrived…

WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.BLOGSPOT. COM.
Sat.Mar. 30, 2019
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****

Trump poll SHOCKER changes EVERYTHING (Nancy Pelosi panicked)

It’s happening — and it has House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her political allies panicking.

President Donald Trump has reached the exact point he’s needed: Historically speaking… there’s almost NO CHANCE he will lose reelection.

That’s right.

For all Pelosi and her allies blather about poll numbers… all the blah-blah-blah about approval ratings… it turns out he’s EXACTLY where he needs to be!

A new poll from The Hill finds 36 percent of Americans plan to “definitely” or “probably” vote for Trump.

That may sound like a low number. But that’s right in line with the number for all of his predecessors who’ve won reelection!

Two years into President Barack Obama’s administration, just 37 percent said they’d re elect him.

Two years into President Bill Clinton’s first term, that number was 38 percent.

And for President George W. Bush, 41 percent said they’d reelect him – a number that’s slightly higher because he was still enjoying the “rally” effect often seen in times of national crisis.

Here’s the most important number of all: 95 percent.

That’s the percentage of Trump voters who say they can think of a reason or reasons to vote for him again in 2020.

Yes, it’s as if he hasn’t lost ANY of his voters!

There’s also another piece of bad news for Democrats hidden in the polls.

It has to do with the key 10 percent.

Most surveys show that 90 percent of Republicans are happy with Trump. They’re voting for him… no matter what.

The other 10 percent is a small group – but certainly enough to swing an election.

However, the poll finds they’re not ready to swing. Ten percent of the voters considering but not committed to voting for Trump say absolutely NONE of the Democratic candidates excite them.

That means – just like in 2016 – they’ll come home to the party and vote for Trump again.

Another poll finds even more positive news for the president.

This one, from NBC News/SurveyMonkey, finds Americans are evenly divided not on WHO they will vote for, but another even more important measure: Who they think will win.

The poll finds 43 percent believe Trump will win, while 43 percent say his opponent will prevail.

That’s a tie, of course, but given Trump’s supposedly weak approval ratings it’s also extremely telling that voters still give him a 50/50 shot.

It’s as if they already KNOW he’s going to win.

And yet another number also finds good news: the ongoing tracking polls by Rasmussen Reports finds Trump’s overall approval rating now hovering right at the critical 50 percent mark.

It’s not just poll numbers moving in his direction.

The economy is still booming, which is always good news for a president facing voters – and, according to one of the Hill surveys, Americans continue to believe that immigration is a core issue… which is one of his key strengths.

In fact, nearly 1 in 5 voters in that poll said immigration alone is the main reason they’d consider voting to reelect Trump.

With special counsel Robert Mueller’s report in the rear-view mirror – concluding no collusion, just as Trump has said all along – those numbers will only improve moving ahead.

That puts Trump on pace to achieve the ultimate liberal nightmare in 2020: Not just reelection… but an easy victory, winning both the electoral and popular vote this time.

He could even help put Republicans back in charge of the House with a mandate to finally get the job done.

Walter W. Murray is a reporter for The Horn News. He is an outspoken conservative and a survival expert, and is the author of “America’s Final Warning.”

Rand Paul Offers Amendment To Reveal Obama's Role In Russia Investigation
Former presidents role could in the Mueller probe could soon be known By: Pippa Monroe |@NeonNettle

Paul’s amendment would alter a resolution which requests the attorney general to release special counsel Robert Mueller's full report.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered an amendment which would reveal former President Barack Obama's role in Trump Russia investigation and the debunked Steele dossier.

If approved, Paul’s amendment would alter a resolution which requests the attorney general to release special counsel Robert Mueller's full report. The resolution passed the House by a vote of 420-0 and is now before the Senate.

“What we need to discover, and we do not yet know, was President Obama involved? Was this done for partisan purposes? Was this done to try to elect Hillary Clinton?” Paul asked on the Senate floor.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said the House Intelligence Committee has evidence the investigation of the Trump campaign began earlier than July 2016.

Study: Obama's Common Core 'Worst Large-Scale Educational Failure in 40 Years'.

Have your say - Mueller submitted his report on alleged Russian collusion to Attorney General William Barr, concluding the 22-month investigation into Russia's potential interference in the Trump campaign.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said the House Intelligence Committee has enough evidence to establish that the investigation of the Trump campaign began earlier than July 2016.

If Nunes is correct, the bureau will be forced to produce evidence it used to launch the investigation.

Maxine Waters Admits Defeat Impeaching Trump is off the Table According to Epoch Times: Paul’s amendment also calls for the public release of all documents relating to the communications of several Obama administration officials, including the former president himself, former FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Susan Rice, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, former FBI attorney Lisa Page, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and former senior DOJ official Bruce Ohr.

Paul’s amendment, if enacted, would also call on Brennan and Clapper to testify before Congress.

Paul noted that Brennan and Clapper have both lied to the Senate. © press Mitch McConnell said Mueller’s report Mueller’s report on Russian collusion “conclusively” exonerates president Donald Trump, but not former p

“In addition to the Mueller report, what we need to know, was there malfeasance? Was there a misuse of government power? "Did President Obama’s administration get involved in the election to try and manipulate and infiltrate the Trump campaign to entrap them or try to spread incorrect information?” Paul asked.

“We need to know that.”

In addition to disproving the collusion allegations, Mueller’s report is the ultimate blow to the credibility of the Steele dossier.

The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid for the dossier and the FBI used it, without due verification, to secure a warrant to spy on former Trump-campaign volunteer Carter Page.

Former British spy Christopher Steele compiled the dossier by paying second- and third-hand sources with ties to the Kremlin.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Monday that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian collusion “conclusively” exonerates president Donald Trump, but not former president Barack Obama.

McConnell blamed the Obama administration for not dealing with alleged Russia election interference three years ago.

Trump Was Not Just Spied Upon But Entrapped
BY ROGER L. SIMON

It's bad enough, as has been evident for some time, that Donald Trump and his campaign were being spied upon by our own government, but it's highly likely they were also subject to literal entrapment--at least a serious attempt was made.

I don't mean the entrapment of promulgating the salacious Steele dossier both to the public and the FISA court as if it were the truth. That was more of a smear to justify a phony investigation. I mean something more subtle and LeCarré-like coming from the depths of our intelligence communities. It raises once more the question of the power of such agencies in a free society, a conundrum with no easy answers but of great significance to our lives.

For all his New York rough-and-tumble, Trump was an innocent abroad when he arrived in Washington. Way back in January 2017, he was warned by old-timer Chuck Schumer that "intel officials have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."

The Senate minority leader--Deep Stater par excellence--knew whereof he spoke. But Trump somehow survived the storm, although sometimes it seemed as if he wouldn't. Now, some of the obvious parties --John K. Brennan and James Clapper with their apparatchik miens -- have suddenly found themselves in the crosshairs, as the Washington Times notes:

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s finding that there was no Trump campaign conspiracy with Russia to steal the 2016 election has unleashed a tsunami of outrage toward Obama-era intelligence chiefs, particularly former CIA Director John O. Brennan and former FBI Director James B. Comey, who are accused of pushing the allegation during congressional hearings, in social media posts and in highly charged interviews on television over the past two years.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper also leveled up highly publicized comments that President Trump could even be an “asset” of Russian President Vladimir Putin, part of a slew of remarks that critics say went far beyond the usual partisan sniping that can accompany a change of administrations.

More's afoot here, however, considerably more because the entire American intelligence system and the unique power referred to by Schumer are also now in those same crosshairs, as they should be. But many of the men and women involved are less overtly Soviet in their style than Messrs. Brennan and Clapper and slip more easily under the radar.

Notable among these, and perhaps able to reveal much of the McGuffin to the mystery of where this all started and how, is Stefan Halper. Mr. Halper is "an American foreign policy scholar and Senior Fellow at the University of Cambridge where he is a Life Fellow at Magdalene College and directs the Department of Politics and International Studies." He is also a spook who worked for Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, no less, and was a principle American connection to the UK's MI-6.

Mr. Halper has (ahem) other connections:

A top FBI official admitted to Congressional investigators last year that the agency had contacts within the Trump campaign as part of operation "Crossfire Hurricane," which sounds a lot like FBI "informant" Stefan Halper - a former Oxford University professor who was paid over $1 million by the Obama Department of Defense between 2012 and 2018, with nearly half of it surrounding the 2016 US election.

Hmm.... The perspicacious Margot Cleveland had more to say the other day at The Federalist in "Who Launched An Investigation Into Trump's Campaign Before Crossfire Hurricane."

"Crossfire Hurricane," as most know, is the codename the wannabe hipsters at the FBI gave the Trump-Russia investigation. But more important is the word "before" in Ms. Cleveland's title.

The Post further noted that the academic, since identified as Stefan Halper, first met with Trump campaign advisor Carter Page “a few weeks before the opening of the investigation,” and then after Crossfire Hurricane’s July 31, 2016, start, he met again with Carter Page and “with Trump campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis,” offering the latter his “foreign-policy expertise” for the Trump team. Then in September, Halper “reached out to George Papadopoulos, an unpaid foreign-policy adviser for the campaign, inviting him to London to work on a research paper.”

Papadopoulos and Page are the two naifs of the most obvious sort (sorry, guys) we have all seen on television who spent the last couple of years having to defend themselves against absurd charges. Considering the timing, it's pretty obvious they were being set up (i. e. entrapped) on some level well back during the Obama administration.

Who ordered it is the obvious question, but I'm not going to leave it there. I suggest that an attempt was being made to implant Halper in the Trump campaign, one way or another, not just for spying purposes but actually to help create this collusion of the campaign with Russia--that is, to help manufacture it.

Putting it another way, someone or some group wanted to create -- or, more subtly, to encourage the creation -- of Trump-Russia collusion from the inside in order to destroy Trump before, or failing that, after he was elected.

How's that for a nefarious plot? Worthy of LeCarré or maybe even Graham Greene. But is it true? I wouldn't bet against it. Something close anyway.

By the way, if I am right, this won't be the first time for Halper. And unfortunately for Republicans, the shoe was then on the proverbial other foot. As Glenn Greenwald wrote last year:

Four decades ago, Halper was responsible for a long-forgotten spying scandal involving the 1980 election, in which the Reagan campaign – using CIA officials managed by Halper, reportedly under the direction of former CIA Director and then-Vice-Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush – got caught running a spying operation from inside the Carter administration. The plot involved CIA operatives passing classified information about Carter’s foreign policy to Reagan campaign officials in order to ensure the Reagan campaign knew of any foreign policy decisions that Carter was considering.

Republicans can console themselves that their malfeasance was more benign, relatively. This new one was outright sedition involving a foreign power. It is a blow to the heart of our democratic republic. We need Halper, under oath and unredacted. Whether that's possible is another question.

Roger L. Simon -- co-founder and CEO emeritus of PJ Media -- is an award-winning novelist and Academy Award-nominated screenwriter.

NBC political news editor calls reporter to BULLY him on behalf of the DNC!

I would say this is bizarre, but I really don’t think it’s going to surprise you to find out that the managing editor of NBC’s political news bullied a reported on behalf of the DNC.

The reporter, Yashar Ali, who writes for both NY Magazine and the Huffington Post, was completely shocked by it.

So shocked that he decided to make it public via his Twitter account.

Instead of posting each tweet, I decided just to post the text to aid readability.

– – – – –

1. Yesterday, I received a call from @DafnaLinzer who serves as managing editor of NBC/MSNBC politics. Dafna's conduct during the call was highly inappropriate and unethical. So what was the purpose of her call?

She called me to bully me on behalf of the DNC.

2. Dafna, who oversees the political coverage for NBC and MSNBC, was calling to bully me into delaying the publication of an innocuous scoop and at no point did she advocate for her network, it was only about the DNC.

Here's how this all started...

3. Yesterday morning I received a tip from a trusted source. The source told me the DNC would be announcing the dates of the first 2020 primary debates later that day. The source gave me the dates they would be announcing: June 26 and 27.

4. At first I thought it was just a fun tidbit that I could tweet out. But after I called several presidential campaign staffers I learn that all the Dem campaigns were desperate to learn what the dates were going to be. I decided to post the scoop as an item in my newsletter.

5. This wasn't a huge scoop but it was a decent one so I quickly called the DNC to fact-check the tip as I was running out of time: the dates would be announced on MSNBC in the 4:00 PM hour. It's important to note that almost of all of my communication with the DNC was off record

6. So I won't share most of what was said but can tell you it's pretty run-of-the mill stuff. I asked the DNC if my tip was accurate and they asked if they could call me back in 10 minutes. A few minutes later they called back and asked if I could delay posting my scoop

7. For another hour so they could go through their important notification calls to the state parties. I told them I couldn't wait as the news would leak and leave me without a story. That's all I can say about the call. Two minutes later I received a call from Dafna.

8. I've never spoken to Dafna by phone. A couple years ago she reached out to me to see if I wanted to have coffee and talk about working at NBC News but I declined as I was actively investigating NBC matters and thought it would be strange if I discussed a job.

9. So when I saw Dafna calling I assumed she would ask me to consider delaying my post so that MSNBC could announce it first. Given that this was an innocuous scoop and not some investigative story I wouldn't have lost sleep if I had delayed. But that's not why she was calling.

10. After exchanging pleasantries, Dafna told me that she received a call from the DNC and was told I had a story. Now it's not strange that the DNC called her, they were coordinating an announcement. What was strange was that she was calling me and taking a menacing tone

11. She asked if I could hold the story and I said I couldn't. She was agitated, "why not?" I said I'm not going to lose a scoop. Then she got angrier and said "Why not? It's not a big deal, let them make a few phone calls."

My jaw dropped.

12. I realized that @DafnaLinzer, the head of all political coverage for NBC News and MSNBC wasn't calling to advocate for her network, she was calling to advocate the DNC's position. She wanted me to wait so they could call state party leaders.

13. I thought to myself "this is how people think it works." It's not. But Dafna was doing it. She kept pressing me. Now I acknowledged, for stuff that isn't about serious investigative reporting, there is no problem holding something. But I knew once others got the call

14. I would lose a scoop. Dafna reminded me she was a nat sec reporter at WAPO for ten years and they would hold stuff all the time (note: so people wouldn't get killed). "Why can't you just wait, let them make their calls, then you'll be the first to put it into print," she said

15. I couldn't believe what she was saying. Again, it was fine for me to print the story an hour later, beat her own network by three hours, she just wanted me to let the DNC inform state party leaders. Why the hell did she care?

16. I kept telling Dafna no, that I wasn't waiting. And she kept getting more frustrated. She was exasperated...she didn't understand why I couldn't wait for the DNC to make their state notification calls.

17. I was so surprised me that she was talking this way with a total stranger. The head of the political division was trying to bully me at the behest of the DNC over a dumb scoop (even though they may not have asked her to)

18. 2/3 of the way into the conversation Dafna started a sentence with "this is off the record." She hadn't said it at the beginning of our conversation and most important at no point did I agree when she said "off record" to keep it off record.

19. I'm not one of those gotcha reporters, I think it's bad for sourcing relationships to make people like they constantly feel like they have to say "off record." But Dafna isn't a source and she was calling to intimidate me, so she doesn't get the benefit.

20. She said "off record" one more time later in the call and again I just let her keep talking, I did not agree to anything. I then told her I had to go talk to my editor and she got even more frustrated and said "No. I want to talk to you about this."

21. I said "no, I want to go talk to my editor." Then she sent me over the edge and said "What's your editors name, I want to talk to them." She was trying to intimidate me..on behalf of the DNC. I ended the call.

22. After the call with Dafna I published the stupid scoop. Then I did a gut check and over the next two hours I called 10 experienced prominent reporters and told them the story. They were all stunned by what Dafna did and encouraged me to share it publicly.

23. I'm not naive to the fact that this incident is going to be twisted by some with an agenda to discredit the media and say they collude with political parties. But I think its more important to expose bad behavior then keep it under wraps. What Dafna did was unethical

24. There are plenty of times reporters will introduce people in politics to other reporters or TV people. I have done it many times, that is advocating for more coverage, not less. Dafna was advocating for me to not do something on behalf of a political party.

25. What I can't figure out is (and no one else I spoke to could understand), why open yourself up to this for a stupid story? How was this worth it?

Ilhan Omar Straight Up Refuses To Condemn Stoning Gays to Death Under Sharia Law

Ashley Kimber

As I mentioned earlier, Ilhan Omar thinks she understands WHY there’s a crisis at our Southern Border.

It’s WHITE NATIONALISM.

As I said then, I take tremendous issue with this. Ilhan and I were about the same age when we moved to this nation. It’s funny what a GRATEFUL heart can do, isn’t it?

I came to this nation, got an education, and spend my life thanking my lucky stars for the opportunity to live in the best place on earth and make whatever I want of my life.

Ilhan came to this nation, got an education, became A CONGRESSWOMAN, and spends her time ripping on how much she hates this country.

Well, the people at Daily Wire also realized that for an immigrant who has been given EVERY OPPORTUNITY by this nation, she seems to have a lot to say.

Is Ilhan as quick to condemn nations where human rights are completely thrown out the window?

They aimed to find out:

Following Omar’s remarks, The Daily Wire reached out to her office via phone and email to get her thoughts on two recent news items.

The first story comes from Brunei, where Sultan of Brunei Hassanal Bolkiah has said that new Sharia laws that are going into effect are a form of “special guidance” from God, according to Sky News.

The nation is going to introduce death by stoning as a punishment for gay sex and “amputation for those guilty of theft under sharia law, with both penalties to also apply to children once implemented.”

The second story comes out of the Middle East, where the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas recently fired 20 rockets into Israel and destroyed the homes of innocent civilians.

The Daily Wire asked Omar if she could provide comment on either story and if she found either of these acts to be “abhorrent and inhumane.”

She straight up refused.
She has NOTHING to say about this.

The Daily Wire also asked Omar if she would say that these acts are due to radical Islam.

Omar and her office refused to respond to multiple requests for comment.

The Daily Wire again contacted Omar’s office on Friday via phone and email to give them another chance to respond and notified them that a non-response would be considered a “refusal to condemn” these acts. Omar’s office again did not respond to the inquiries.

Hmm.

So she has nothing to say, huh?

Interesting, Ilhan. Reeeeally interesting!

I thought you had NO PROBLEM calling “inhumane” situations out?

When Justice Is Corrupted at the Top, a Society Becomes Corrupted Downstream

So much unfinished business demanding to be dealt with promptly.
by DOV FISCHER

Ted Eytan/Creative Commons

First a meme — from our pledge of allegiance: With liberty and justice for all.

Now a second meme — from the 1950s “Superman” TV show: Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

Now the Bible: Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof — Righteousness Righteousness [alt. version: Justice Justice] [Shalt] Thou Pursue. Deut. 16:20.

And now a few solo words: Hillary. Yoga. Bleach. Comey. Lynch. Matter. Strzok. Page. Andy. Insurance. McCabe. Ohr. Steele. Fusion. Dossier. Yates. FISA. Flynn. Stone. Tarmac. Smollett. Kimfoxx. College. Admissions. Coxswain. CNN. MSNBC. Maddow. Behar. Lemon. Clapper. Brennan.

When a society’s justice system breaks down, the society collapses. When justice is corrupted, the society devolves into chaos. Justice is the foundation of the earth, and a nation’s population needs to know that, at some bottom-line fundamental level, the rules by which all are supposed to play are applied and enforced evenly, fairly. The image of the masked lady of justice holding the scales is evocative: justice must be blind. It may not favor the rich over the poor, the strong over the weak, the favored over the unfavored. When people truly believe that they cannot get justice within the law, chaos inevitably ensues as law-breaking becomes commonplace — because there is no justice. Even an American free-market system needs to revolve around not only just economic principles but also other fair principles that include but are not limited to freedom to communicate thoughts and ideas without fear of repercussions, freedom to worship, freedom to engage in the social enterprise under the rules of fair play, and equal justice under the law. When principles like those are perverted, the social construct breaks down.

This past week has offered both a bright moment in the sun and several dark clouds in the way our system of justice operates. By now it is beyond doubt that, to some extent, we have a “two-tier” system of justice. It is otherwise inexplicable that Hillary Clinton has not yet been tried on felony charges for spoliating evidence — the bleached 33,000 emails, the smashed computer. Beyond the underlying question as to what was in those emails, whether she perpetrated felonies by unlawfully sending classified information outside secure and permitted zones, it remains that even if those emails all were about wedding dresses and yoga it is unlawful in America to destroy evidence that is sought in a proper legal investigation. Martha Stewart learned that. Despite what is portrayed on television and in movies, the failure to produce properly discoverable evidence can be grounds for serious imprisonment.

As we have learned how the Comey FBI and the Obama-Lynch Department of Justice conspired to redefine the Clinton investigation as a mere “matter,” how they drafted the terms of her exoneration before the investigation even took off, how they arranged to grant immunity from prosecution to a swath of critical witnesses who could have been leveraged to reveal truths in exchange for such immunity, how they even allowed some of them to sit in and listen to the questioning of Hillary so that they would be able to synchronize their own storylines, we emerge disgusted. She got away with the missing billing records of the Rose Law Firm, Travelgate, the Cattle Futures, so many other lies and scandals. She seems to have gotten away with the corruption of leveraging the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle to get rich personally by allotting special favors as Secretary of State to people who paid for access. She and her husband may even have gotten away with compromising some of America’s uranium supply. This lifetime of exemption from the laws that the rest of us must follow does not breed jealousy — none of us would want to exchange our lives for that of Hillary Clinton. But it breeds dismay that, if she is exempt from the laws and enjoys a different level of justice, such profound unfairness gnaws at the core of our laws. Yes, to a degree she has paid a certain penalty for her decades of corruption. She is despised deeply and therefore was denied her dream of a lifetime — the Presidency. However, she has not paid the price that the justice system has imposed on others who removed secure and confidential emails and other governmental communications without authorization.

In like measure, we have been witness to the injustice and cruelty of the two-year Mueller “witch hunt.” The Russian Collusion Hoax caught a wide number of human fish in its net on “process crimes,” ensnared misstating one fact or another and thus imprisoned on perjury charges that never get filed against so many other far more despicable actors. Even Paul Manafort, who under normal circumstances deserves punishment for tax fraud and related crimes, ultimately also deserves the Presidential pardon or commutation awaiting him after the November 2020 elections because he was not caught “fair and square.” Rather than being pursued by a suspicious IRS that fairly wondered about his taxes, he was hounded by a team of prosecutors that went after the Trump Campaign manager who righted a tottering ship at a critical moment in the campaign, secured the delegates to win the nomination, coordinated a fabulous convention that avoided predicted chaos, and set Mr. Trump on the path to November victory. That is how Mr. Manafort’s defalcations were uncovered, and that is why he deserves a commutation, if not outright pardon.

The ubiquitous injustice cries out for so much more to be righted. Now that Mr. Trump’s patriotism has been investigated, it is time to investigate John Brennan’s loyalties. He voted for Gus Hall, the Communist Party candidate, to be President of the United States. Although Obama named him CIA head — itself an act worthy of a Special Counsel — what do we know of this man who calls others “treasonous”? Has he lied under oath? Has James Clapper? Has Jim Comey? Did Comey break the law by leaking confidential FBI information, notes obtained in his capacity as FBI chief, to the New York Times? Did Loretta Lynch break the law? How was the Steele Dossier composed? Funded? Will Steele face American justice? What exactly was told to the FISA court? Did Samantha Power or Sally Yates or Andrew McCabe or Bruce Ohr break the law? How was Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign involved? Was there an interplay with the Clinton Foundation? And is it conceivably possible that all this went on during the Obama Administration without Obama knowing about it? And if Obama knew: “what did he know, and when did he know it?” And what about his Vice President? Are there other dirty players whose names we do not yet know, who remain as Deep State moles within the FBI and CIA?

Equal justice under the law cries out for a powerful investigation equal to the two-year Mueller investigation. Yes, the Republican Senate can investigate, but we have seen the limitations of Congressional investigations: they mostly are for political show but do not result in punishing a Lois Lerner or an Eric Holder. Yes, Inspector General Michael Horowitz can investigate. But if “equal justice under the law” means anything in this context, nothing short of a two-year $25-40 million Special Counsel investigation — the kind that runs 675 days, entailing 19 lawyers, assisted by 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff, where 42 people are interrogated or are summoned before a grand jury, with 2,800 subpoenas issued, 500 search warrants executed, with 500 witnesses and 13 requests to foreign governments for information — nothing short of that would constitute equal justice under the law.

The Prophet Amos spoke poetically of “Justice [alt. version: Judgment] roll[ing] down like waters and righteousness as a mighty stream.” Amos 5:24. These are important times because social gravity also pulls the waters of injustice at the top-most echelons of government to roll downstream such that corruption flows into greater society like a mighty brook. We are a good people under law, and yet we see the corruption of the Hollywood-celebrity class and others among the fabulously wealthy who have learned from actual life experience that the liberal laws and taxes for which they advocate do not apply to them. They speak the liberal mantra of needing to raise our taxes to pay for leftist “social justice” programs and social-engineering schemes popular among the glitterati, but they and their corporations steer clear of their new taxes. They do not take the high-speed rails but fly in the private jets that pollute. They impose “affirmative action” quotas on college admissions, further demanding additional set-asides for children of those here illegally — but, with so many fewer seats available in college for the hard-working kids of hard-working taxpayers who do not fit into an intersectional pigeon-hole, these “progressive” elites are not disadvantaged because they then clandestinely pay bribes to professional college-admissions-coyotes who smuggle their Tide-pod-ingesting airheads into college.

Yes, some of these despicable cheaters finally have been unmasked. But the “jury is out” as to whether they will face justice — indeed, as to whether they even will face a jury. In a just world, every single one of those kids already would have been expelled from the colleges. “But the kids are innocent; they didn’t know.” They didn’t know? They posed for pictures in a scull or as a coxswain, and they did not know? They sat for scholastic exams and were given extra time, authorized by medical passes they presented for diseases and illnesses they did not have, and they did not know?

We await justice. As we await it for Jussie Smollett. Every person under our system of laws is innocent until proven guilty. Someone like Smollett is entitled to his day in court to clear his name. But not only is he entitled. Rather, the greater society, too, is entitled to his day in court. If he is guilty of doing what he reportedly did, he could have ignited race wars. The hoax was aimed at inducing greater society to deem Trump supporters uniformly as racist, even as Klansmen lynching people of color. It was not just a stupid April Fool’s Joke gone wrong. This was an evil so vile that, if true, the man belongs in prison for years. That would be equal justice under the law.

His sudden release seems so terribly evil and corrupt. If he had been spared prison as part of a plea deal entailing a fine of perhaps a quarter million dollars, perhaps a year or two of real community service, and perhaps five years of supervised release, so be it. Such a deal would parallel the unsatisfying plea deals that happen all too often. But a complete exoneration, lack of remorse, cleansing of his record, sealing of all case documents? This “Chicago way” reeks of corruption in a city whose name is synonymous with corruption, regardless of color, from Al Capone through the Daley machines and the 1960 vote count, to this day. Five Illinois governors in the past half century or so ended up in prison: William Stratton, Otto Kerner, Dan Walker, George Ryan, and Rod Blagojevich. When an Illinois Secretary of State died, they found $800,000 cash stuffed in shoe boxes. Even a state Attorney General, William Scott, ultimately went to prison for tax fraud.

When there is no equal justice under the law, a society degrades into a Sodom. By now, it is common knowledge that Obama rose within Chicago politics by associating with the likes of Tony Rezko, who arranged Obama’s property acquisition, even as his wife netted a suspiciously high-paying hospital job in tandem with his rise in state politics. His Illinois U.S. Senate election was marked by the unsealing of embarrassing divorce files, first exposing his Democrat primary opponent’s sordid but secret past, then exposing his Republican opponent’s sordid but secret past. The Chicago way. Now Kim Foxx, graduate of Southern Illinois University School of Law, ranked among the bottom ranked law schools by U.S. News, enters for her fifteen minutes.

There must be justice for Jussie Smollett, for Kim Foxx, and thus for our society. The federal Department of Justice can look into it; they have spent so many decades investigating corruption in Chicago that they do not even need a GPS app to find the addresses, and they probably have all the key phone numbers, including the prisons, in speed dial.

For the sake of our greater society, we need that Special Counsel to be named in Washington, we need those kids expelled from the colleges and their parents fitted for wardrobe and roles in “Orange Is the New Black,” and we need the Smollett-Foxx “matter” investigated in Chicago. And we need it in weeks, Mr. Attorney General, not months.

Ciao…..G’day…….
Helen & 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/2019/03/coming-soon-our-hanks-to-old-friend.html

Read also