Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.BLOGSPOT. COM.
Mon., Sept. 1, 2019
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
Promises kept... Trump Abruptly Cuts Direct Aid to 3 Central American Countries
President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., Friday, March 29, 2019. (Manuel Balce Ceneta / AP)
By AP Reports
The latest on Trump administration moves on immigration through U.S. border with Mexico (all times local):
__
10 a.m.
The Trump administration says it is cutting direct U.S. aid to three Central American countries.
The State Department said in a statement that it will suspend 2017 and 2018 payments to El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.
The Trump administration gave no immediate explanation for the move.
Trump has made slowing immigration from those countries through Mexico a bedrock issue of his presidency.
The announcement comes as Trump threatens to shut down the U.S. border with Mexico overall over immigration.
____
6 a.m.
Trump says he is likely to shut down America’s southern border next week unless Mexican authorities immediately halt all illegal immigration. Such a severe move could hit the economies of both countries, but the president emphasized, “I am not kidding around.”
Trump says that “could mean all trade” with Mexico. Trump has been promising for more than two years to build a long, impenetrable wall along the border to stop illegal immigration, though Congress has been reluctant to provide the money he needs.
In the meantime, he has repeatedly threatened to close the border.
But this time, with a new surge of migrants heading north, he gave a definite timetable.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Andrew McCarthy: How long has Mueller known there was no Trump-Russia collusion?
Former assistant U.S. attorney and Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy says special counsel Mueller never had a collusion case to begin with.
By Andrew McCarthy | Fox NewsComments
Almost from the start, Democrats and their media echo chamber have moved the goal posts on collusion. The original allegation – the political narrative that the Clinton campaign, through Obama administration alchemy, honed into a counterintelligence investigation – was that that the Trump campaign was complicit in Russia’s “cyberespionage” attacks on the 2016 election.But there was no evidence that candidate Trump and his surrogates had anything to do with the Kremlin’s hacking and propaganda schemes. And no supporting logic. The Russians are very good at espionage. They neither needed nor wanted American help, their operations predated Trump’s entry into the campaign, and some of those operations were anti-Trump.
Nevertheless, in short order, that endlessly elastic word, collusion, was being stretched to the breaking point – covering every conceivable type of association between Trump associates and Russia.
ANDREW MCCARTHY: WE NEED FULL DISCLOSURE OF MUELLER REPORT AND MATERIAL ABOUT HIS INVESTIGATION
Some of these were unseemly, such as the Trump Tower meeting, an apparently unsuccessful effort to obtain campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton. More of them were routine, such as incoming national-security adviser Michael Flynn’s communications with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the post-election transition. But none of these collusion episodes were criminal. The only “collusion” prosecutors care about is conspiracy; a criminal agreement to violate a federal penal statute – such as the laws against hacking.
There was never any such evidence. There was just unverified, sensational, hearsay nonsense – the Steele dossier generated by the Clinton campaign.
Now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has concluded that there was no criminal collusion, the question arises: When during their exhaustive 22-month investigation did prosecutors realize they had no case?
I put it at no later than the end of 2017. I suspect it was in the early autumn.
By the time Mueller was appointed on May 17, 2017, the FBI had been trying unsuccessfully for nearly a year to corroborate the dossier’s allegations. Top bureau officials have conceded to congressional investigators that they were never able to do so – notwithstanding that, by the time of Mueller’s appointment, the Justice Department and FBI had relied on the dossier three times, in what they labeled “VERIFIED” applications, to obtain warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
And make no mistake about what this means. In each and every application, after describing the hacking operations carried out by Russian operatives, the Justice Department asserted:
The FBI believes that the Russian Government’s efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election were being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with [Donald Trump’s] campaign.
Now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has concluded that there was no criminal collusion, the question arises: When during their exhaustive 22-month investigation did prosecutors realize they had no case?
Yes, the Justice Department continued to make that allegation to the secret federal court for months after Trump was sworn in as president.
Notably, in June 2017, about a month after Mueller took over the investigation, while he was still getting his bearings, the Justice Department and the FBI went on to obtain a fourth FISA warrant. Yet again, they used the same unverified information. Yet again, they withheld from the court the fact that this information was generated by the Clinton campaign; that the Clinton campaign was peddling it to the media at the same time the FBI was providing it to the court; and that Christopher Steele, the informant on whom they were so heavily relying, had misled the bureau about his media contacts.
You know what’s most telling about this fourth FISA warrant? The fact that it was never renewed. The 90-day authorization lapsed in September 2017. When it did, Mueller did not seek to extend it with a new warrant.
Think about that for a moment. President Trump fired FBI Director Comey on May 9, 2017. Eight days later, on May 17, Mueller was named special counsel. This appointment effectively wrested control of the Trump-Russia counterintelligence investigation from acting FBI director Andrew McCabe, transferring it to the special counsel.
By August 2017, Mueller had removed the lead investigator, Agent Peter Strzok over the rabidly anti-Trump texts he’d exchanged with Lisa Page, a top FBI lawyer who served as McCabe’s counsel. Page herself had resigned in May. Meanwhile, the FBI reassigned its top counsel, James Baker (who later resigned); and the bureau’s inspection division referred McCabe to the Justice Department’s inspector general for leaking investigative information and then lying about it (and McCabe was later fired and referred to the Justice Department for possible prosecution).
This means that by autumn 2017 when it would have been time to go back to the court and reaffirm the dossier’s allegations of a Trump-Russia espionage conspiracy, the major FBI officials involved in placing those unverified allegations before the court had been sidelined. Clearly up to speed after four months of running the investigation, Mueller decided not to renew these allegations.
Once the fourth warrant lapsed in September, investigators made no new claims of a Trump-Russia conspiracy to the court. The collusion case was the Clinton campaign’s Steele dossier, and by autumn 2017, the investigators now in charge of the Trump-Russia investigation were unwilling to stand behind it.
In order to get the FISA warrants, the Justice Department and the FBI had had to allege that there was probable cause to believe former Trump adviser Carter Page was an agent of Russia. Under FISA law, that requires alleging that he was knowingly involved in clandestine activity on behalf of Russia, and that this clandestine activity involved probable violations of American criminal law – offenses such as espionage. Yet, despite the fact that this representation was made four times in sworn “verified” applications, Mueller never charged Page with a crime – not espionage, not false statements, nothing.
When Special Counsel Mueller closed his investigation last week, he almost certainly knew for about a year and a half that there was no collusion case. Indeed, the indictments that he did bring appeared to preclude the possibility that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Yet the investigation continued. The Justice Department and the special counsel made no announcement, no interim finding of no collusion, as Trump detractors continued to claim that a sitting American president might be a tool of the Putin regime. For month after month, the president was forced to govern under a cloud of suspicion.
Why?
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM ANDREW MCCARTHY
Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review. @andrewcmccarthy
Jeff Flake Is Willing to Toss 2020 Win to Democrats If Trump Is Republican Nominee: ‘Look at the Long Term’
Madison Summers
Intelligence Squared US/Facebook and Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
Former Republican Sen. Jeff Flake is not shy of his criticism toward President Donald Trump, and he’s explaining how he’d rather toss the 2020 presidential win to a Democrat than let Trump see a second term.
At the Intelligence Squared debate in New York on Thursday, Flake delivered a scathing rebuke of the president.
“Are you willing to lose a cycle for the Republican Party because of the principles that you’re arguing?” moderator John Donvan asked Flake.
“Oh yes, yes,” Flake answered.
When asked what should happen if Trump is the Republican nominee, Flake said, “You sacrifice a generation, and you think, ‘Man, we might get some policy goals in the next year or two.'”
“Look at the long term. Look at the long term, at what you’re doing for the party, because people don’t want to be associated with it,” Flake added.
“It’s not to say that we want the Democrat elected, I’d like another Republican elected. But if we continue and go with President Trump, I think, that Republican principles, conservative principles will be damaged more in the long run by having President Trump with a second term than they would by limiting him to a first term.”
New York Times columnist Bret Stephens also joined Flake on the idea of not wanting Trump as the Republican nominee in 2020.
However, former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and Peek showed their support for Trump.
“No other Republican can possibly win if Donald Trump is nominated,” writer Liz Peek said in response to Flake. “… The list of people considering running at this point, they have no purchase whatsoever in the Republican Party.”
Flake, a frequent critic of Trump, also rebuked the idea that Trump is the only Republican candidate that can garner the votes, calling it “fallacy.”
“We would certainly like it to be a Republican,” Flake said. “And this notion — this narrative that’s been built up, that Donald Trump is the only one that can cobble together the electoral college and win is just a fallacy.”
As for the 2020 presidential election, there is a long list in the Democratic presidential field who don’t seem to be doing much to separate themselves. Several of their campaign websites make it hard for voters to understand what the candidates’ policies even are because they lack actual policy pages, as IJR Red Reported.
As for Trump, he’s been setting himself apart from other candidates since his 2016 election, especially with his “Promises Kept” section of his campaign website.
Kavanaugh votes against Gorsuch to stay execution of Buddhist inmate
by Jerry McCormick
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh went against the conservative line to block the execution of a Texas prisoner based on a claim of a violation of religious freedom.
Death row inmate Patrick Murphy was convicted of capital murder in the killing of a suburban Dallas police officer as a member of the “Texas 7.” While doing a 50-year-sentence for aggravated sexual assault, Murphy escaped from prison along with six other inmates.
The police officer was shot while they were robbing a sporting goods store. Murphy was the lookout in the getaway car.
Several members of the gang have already been executed. Murphy would have been the fifth, with one member of the gang dead and the seventh still awaiting an execution date.
The Problem
Murphy’s case was a bit different, though. He appealed for a stay because authorities were not willing to let a Buddhist priest witness his execution.
According to Murphy’s attorneys, this is a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Murphy converted to a form of Buddhism while incarcerated. “Murphy’s belief is that he needs to focus on the Buddha at the time of his death in order to be reborn in the Pure Land,” the attorneys wrote.
The challenge here for the court was to weigh Murphy’s request against that of other death-row inmates who are allowed to have chaplains present during the execution.
The prison maintained this has nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with safety. Murphy made the request just one month before the execution date, and the prison would only permit the official chaplain, a prison employee, to be present in the room, per its security guidelines.
Court rules for religious freedom
In his majority opinion, Kavanaugh stated, “As this Court has repeatedly held, governmental discrimination against religion in particular, discrimination against religious persons, religious organizations, and religious speech violates the Constitution. The government may not discriminate against relegation generally or against particular religious denominations.”
By his own wording, Kavanaugh was not making a case against the death penalty but rather for religious freedom as it is protected in our Constitution.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
It is very important to realize that, as this case is probably going to get twisted seven ways to Sunday by the media as some great revolt by Kavanaugh. In this case, he did what he was supposed to do: interpret the law according to the Constitution.
The Two Americas Have Grown Much Fiercer
The U.S. was divided 46 years ago. But no one saw it as a fight to the death.
The U.S. was divided 46 years ago. But no one saw it as a fight to the death.
By Peggy Noonan
Police separate anti-Trump and pro-Trump supporters in Denver, July 1, 2016. PHOTO: MICHAEL REAVES/THE DENVER POST VIA GETTY IMAGES)
Sometimes you write about the most obvious thing in the world because it is the most important thing. Reaction to the outcome of Robert Mueller’s investigation shows Americans again how divided we are. If you are more or less of the left, you experienced the probe as a search for truth that would restore the previous world of politics. Instead the traitor got away with it and you feel destabilized, deflated. If you are of the Trumpian right, it was from the beginning an attempted coup, the establishment using everything it had to remove a force it could not defeat at the polls. You are energized, elated.
Now both sides will settle down, with the left as forthcoming in its defeat as the right is forbearing in its victory. I just wanted to show you my fantasy life. The Trump forces will strike with a great pent-up anger, and the left will never let go.
Both sides will be intensely human. And inhuman. Because the past few years the character of our political divisions has changed, and this must be noted again. People are proud of their bitterness now. Old America used to accept our splits as part of the price of being us—numerous, varied, ornery. Current America, with its moderating institutions (churches) going down and its dividing institutions (the internet) rising, sees our polarization not as something to be healed but a reason for being, something to get up for. There’s a finality to it, a war-to-the-death quality.
It is, actually, shocking, and I say this as a person always generally unshocked by American political division, because I came of age in it. When I was a kid we came together as a nation when John F. Kennedy died and manned rockets went up, but after that it was pretty much turmoil—Vietnam, demonstrations, Watergate. You were on one side or the other. The terms left and right started replacing the boring old Democratic and Republican.
I will never forget seeing, on the cover of Time magazine, in October 1972, an essay by Lance Morrow that was ostensibly about the last days of the race between Richard Nixon and George McGovern but really about something bigger. I was in college, and it struck me hard. It was called “The Two Americas,” and was elegantly written and prescient. The candidates were so unlike each other that they seemed to represent different “instincts” about America. “They suggested almost two different countries, two different cultures, two different Americas,” Mr. Morrow wrote. “The McGovern campaign marches to the rhythms of the long, Wagnerian ’60s”—racial upheaval, the war, feminism, the sexual revolution. McGovernites had a more romantic conception of what leadership could be, should be.
In Nixon’s America, on the other hand, there was “the sense of ‘system.’ The free enterprise system, the law and order system, even the ‘family unit’ system.” They were protective of it, grateful to it. And the antonym to their idea of system wasn’t utopia, it was chaos. “They are apprehensive of the disorders that the late ’60s adumbrated to them, the turmoils that they suspect a McGovern accession might bring.” They wanted evolution, not revolution.
While Nixon supporters tended to be more “comfortable,” McGovern backers had their own kind of detachment. Harvard sociologist David Riesman was quoted on part of McGovern’s constituency, professional elites: “They have very little sense of that other day-by-day America.”
Mr. Morrow noted a dynamic still with us, only more so. On both sides, “voters repeat their candidate’s themes and even rhetoric with a precision that is sometimes eerie.” He concluded with the observation that within the two Americas he saw “one common denominator,” the sophistication of the people, their earnest desire, left, right and center, to find and support the best thing for America.
It was written with a respect and warmth toward the American people that is not so common now.
The notion of a country divided reinforced what I thought at the time I’d been seeing. The facts and feel of the divisions change, but division isn’t bad, it’s inevitable and human.
In my lifetime I have seen two things that have helped us reorder ourselves as a nation into some rough if temporary unity. Tragedy, such as 9/11, is one. Sheer political popularity is another. Ronald Reagan had two authentic landslides, the second time, in 1984, winning 49 states. Today’s America doesn’t yield outcomes like that. But there was something we did then that could never happen now.
Writing is never pleasurable, at least for anyone sane, but the most pleasurable and satisfying speeches I worked on with Reagan were those in which you get to bring your love for the other side. A Rose Garden speech praising the excellence of Scoop Jackson or JFK, a speech never given on the excellence of Eleanor Roosevelt. We quoted Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman more than Dwight Eisenhower. The boss had been a Democrat. He’d stumped for Truman in ’48 with Truman. Reagan was not sentimental about our divisions—he knew exactly why he was not a Democrat anymore—but he took every chance he could to reach across the lines and hold on.
But that kind of popularity is probably not possible in this environment. That’s for many reasons, and one is that policy demands have become maximalist. It’s not enough that contraceptives be covered in the government-mandated plan; the nuns must conform. It’s not enough you be sensitive to the effect of your words and language; you must be punished for saying or thinking the wrong thing. It’s not enough that gay marriage is legal; you must be forced to bake the cake. It won’t do that attention be paid to scientific arguments on the environment; America must upend itself with green new deals or be judged not to care about children.
Nothing can be moderate or incremental, everything must be sweeping and definitive. It is all so maximalist, and bullying.
In that environment people start to think that giving an inch is giving a yard. And so they won’t budge.
You don’t even get credit for being extreme in your views but mild in your manner, in the way that people called Barry Goldwater both extreme and mild. Now you must be extreme in your manner or it doesn’t count, you’re not one of us.
It is just such an air of extremeness on the field now, and it reflects a larger sense of societal alienation. We have the fierce teamism of the lonely, who find fellowship in their online fighting group and will say anything for its approval. There are the angry who find relief in politics because they can funnel their rage there, into that external thing, instead of examining closer and more uncomfortable causes. There are the people who cannot consider God and religion and have to put that energy somewhere.
America isn’t making fewer of the lonely, angry and unaffiliated, it’s making more every day.
So I am worried, which is the point of this piece. The war between Trump and not-Trump will continue, will not be resolved, will get meaner. One side will win and one side will lose and the nation will go on, changed.
Is it self-indulgent to note that this grieves me? I suppose it is. But it grieves me.
Dick Morris: Electoral College in Jeopardy
People vote on Election Day (Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images)
By Dick Morris
Democrats, impelled by losing the elections of 2000 and 2016 despite winning the popular vote, are seeking to eliminate the Electoral College. But they are not going about it the normal way — by amending the Constitution.
Instead, they are seeking to circumvent the Electoral College via what they call the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Under the plan, states will vote to instruct their electors to back the winner of the national popular vote regardless of who carried their particular state. The Compact would take effect when and if states that cast a majority of the Electoral College — 270 votes — ratify the compact. With these states marching in lockstep, the Electoral College would become irrelevant.
The Democrats have already passed the Compact in fifteen states and the District of Columbia with a combined 198 electoral votes. (The following states have already approved the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington State and the District of Columbia).
With Democrats in control of both houses of the Oregon legislature, passage there seems likely, adding Oregon’s seven electoral votes to the tally (bringing it to 205).
Ten states — totaling 105 electoral votes — have divided legislatures with each party controlling one house. If they were all to pass the compact, it would take effect and the national popular vote would control the outcome. The ten states are: Michigan, Minnesota, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Virginia.
What’s wrong with basing the election on the popular vote?
The prime reason not to dump the Electoral College is that doing so expands, exponentially, the possibilities of fraud and makes it easier to steal the election.
With only a handful of states in a position to decide the winner in the Electoral College, the possibilities for fraud are limited. It doesn’t matter how many phony votes the Democrats can steal in big cities like New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles because their electoral votes are already spoken for.
Among the swing states, the opportunities for fraud are more limited, making it easier to police the voting and prevent fraud.
But if the massive populations of the big states are all in play, the chances for fraud are multiplied, making honest elections difficult to hold and harder to monitor.
Republicans and all fair-minded people must band together to assure that the Republican majorities in the remaining state legislatures are not beguiled by the sweet bi-partisan talk of Compact supporters and reject this dangerous initiative.
Clapper Sings – Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper Tells CNN Obama Ordered the Trump-Russia Spying Operation
by Jim Hoft 
On Monday former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper went on with CNN’s Anderson Cooper to discuss the Mueller Report after its release on Sunday.
After two years of investigation Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team of angry Democrats did not find any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Mueller also did not find any evidence of conspiracy after President Trump fired crooked leaker FBI Director James Comey.
Clapper defended the Obama administration’s spying on their political opposition during the election.
And then Clapper appeared to put blame on Barack Obama for spying on his opponent during the 2016 presidential election.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: The 2017 assessment that the President says he now agrees with, that was done while you and then NCI Director John Brennan were still in office. So, how can we reconcile the President attacking you, but apparently after a very long time finally, allegedly saying — or saying he allegedly agrees with the product of the intelligence community that you, yourself oversaw?
JAMES CLAPPER: Yes, well, this is — yes, as we’ve come to know the President, he is not a stalwart for a consistency or coherence. So it’s very hard to explain that. One point I’d like to make, Anderson, that I don’t think has come up very much before, and I’m alluding now to the President’s criticism of President Obama for all that he did or didn’t do before he left office with respect to the Russian meddling. If it weren’t for President Obama, we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that set off a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today, notably, special counsel Mueller’s investigation.
President Obama is responsible for that, and it was he who tasked us to do that intelligence community assessment in the first place. I think it’s an important point when it comes to critiquing President Obama.
Prince Charles Snubs President Trump—But Visits Cuba and Proudly Poses with Che Guevara Backdrop
Humberto Fontova
Source: AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth, File
“Royal family snub President Trump during UK visit: Prince Charles and Prince William were unwilling to meet Donald Trump on his visit to Britain, leaving the Queen to greet the US president alone.” (London Times, July 18, 2018.)
Well, what could be more fitting than British royals snubbing the upstart leader of an upstart former British colony—and one who was elected by “deplorables” to boot?
On the other hand, Prince Charles and Duchess Camilla, not only rank as the first British Royals to grace Bolshevik Cuba with a visit—but this week (aping President Obama three years ago) posed for a photo in front of the image of mass-murderer and faithful Bolshevik protégé Che Guevara.
The phrase “faithful Bolshevik protégé” is not flippant. The Bolsheviks, lest we forget, sadistically murdered an entire family of Prince Charles’ royal relatives (the Romanovs) in cold-blood, including the women and children, as they screamed in terror and pleaded for mercy.
In case Prince Charles somehow “forgot” that terrifying historical datum, perhaps a famous song by a famous subject of Prince Charles (Mick Jagger) can remind him of the famous atrocity:
“I stuck around St. Petersburg, when I saw it was a time for a change, killed the czar and his ministers, Anastasia screamed in vain.” (Sympathy for the Devil, 1968.)
Nonetheless, according to Britain’s ambassador to Cuba Anthony Stokes, the royal visit to Bolshevik Cuba was a jolly-good show: “I think it’s been a wonderful visit and the first official royal visit to Cuba – I think that’s highly significant.”
“The solution to the world’s problems lie behind the Iron Curtain,” wrote Che Guevara who often signed his correspondence “Stalin II!” In fact, so fanatical was Prince Charles and Duchess Camilla’s photo prop’s devotion to the Bolsheviks that he even applauded the Soviet slaughter of Hungarian freedom-fighters in 1957. All through the horrifying Soviet massacre, Che dutifully parroted the Soviet script that the workers, peasants and college kids battling Russian tanks in Budapest with small arms and Molotov cocktails were all “Fascists and CIA agents!" who all deserved prompt execution.
Throughout the royal visit Duchess Camilla, a world-renown “women’s rights activist,” seemed enchanted to be photographed graciously meeting the KGB-trained apparatchiks and admiring the handiwork of a regime which ranks as the Western Hemisphere’s top jailer, torturer and murderer of (genuine) women’s rights activists.
In fact, the regime that so enchanted Duchess Camilla jailed and tortured 35,150 Cuban women (and girls) for political crimes. This ranks as a totalitarian horror utterly unknown—not only in Cuba, under those unspeakable “right-wing dictators!” you always hear about in the Fake News Media--—but in the Western Hemisphere. Some of these Cuban ladies suffered twice as long in Castro’s Gulag as Alexander Solzhenitsyn suffered in Stalin’s.
“Chirri was just a kid,” recalled one former Cuban prisoner named Ana Lazaro Rodriguez about one of her cellmates, “Barely 18. Tiny blonde and beautiful, she should have been going to high school dances. Instead because her father had been involved in a plot against Castro, she was squatting in a dark filthy cell, wallowing in menstrual blood and excrement.”
Jailing, torturing and murdering people (particularly females) for the crime of being related to “enemies of the Revolution,” by the way, comes straight from the Bolshevik playbook. The practice was started by the Soviet Cheka and greatly expanded upon by Stalin during the Great Terror. Naturally the Castros and Che Guevara adopted the practice with their own brand of gusto.
Not that at 18 Chirri was among the youngest female victims of Prince Charles and Duchess Camilla’s gracious hosts. “Mommy—MOMMY?—HAY!—NO!” Ana Rodriguez recalls the shrieks of pain and horror coming from a nearby torture chamber.
The victim had been a 13-year-old girl raised in a Havana Catholic orphanage founded in 1705. Castroite commissars, perfectly mimicking their Bolshevik mentors, had taken over the orphanage and began hectoring the girls on how the nuns who had been raising them were actually witches preparing to sell them into prostitution. Many of the barely pubescent girls broke a blackboard and some desks in protest against the Bolshevik insults against the only home and mothers they’d ever known.
So the Soviet-mentored Castroite police yanked the little girls from the orphanage, hauled them down to the women’s prison and threw them into the cells with common prisoners.
Can someone out there puh-leeze inform all those tourists to Cuba and all those visiting dignitaries-- from Obama to Prince Charles and Duchess Camilla-- that the building with Che the mass-murderer’s mural they love to pose with as a backdrop is the headquarters for Cuba’s KGB-founded and mentored ministry of the interior (i.e. secret police)?
“Always interrogate your prisoners at night,” Che Guevara ordered his torturers during the early days of the revolution, “a man’s resistance is always lower at night.” That today the world’s largest Che mural adorns Cuba’s Ministry of the Interior, the headquarters for Cuba’s KGB- and STASI-trained secret police strikes many of us as perfectly fitting.
The prisoners in these KGB-designed chambers of horrors considered “waterboarding” a rest period, compared to the other tortures they were put through by the gracious hosts of the perpetually smiling Prince Charles and Duchess Camilla.
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/www_31.html
Related Posts :
Nickelodeon Celebrates Black History Month With Brand-New Campaign "Our Places, Our History" [Updated]
The Cast Of 'All That' Reunite For An Episode Of MTV's 'Wild N' Out'- Happy Darwin Day! | The Wild Thornberrys | Nickelodeon Animation Archives
- Maemae Renfrow Reveals Her Secret Valentine's Crush | Nickelodeon Italia
Nickelodeon Greenlights 'Sunny Day' Season Two; To Bring Hit Show To Life With Merchandise And Interactive Tour
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment