MoeIssuesoftheDay.blogspot.com

Say hello!!!!!!!

Write us at: mvl270@yahoo.com

Wednesday, May 04, 2016

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Say hello!!!!!!!Write us at: mvl270@yahoo.com


To my fellow conservatives --- Remember a no vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary
********

Graham: Trump’s Policies Could Cause “Another 9/11″

By shawn
Senator Lindsey Graham, currently gritting his teeth down to nubs while trying to muster some genuine enthusiasm for Ted Cruz, said Sunday that Donald Trump’s foreign policy proposals will “lead to another 9/11.” The hawkish Republican said that Trump’s isolationist views were reminiscent of the Obama/Clinton Doctrine.

“Obama did not intervene in Iraq,” Graham said on Face the Nation. “We had Iraq in a good place. He withdrew all of our forces, against sound military advice. He didn’t intervene in Syria. His entire national security team advised President Obama to help the Free Syrian Army when Assad was on the ropes. He took a pass. That’s how ISIL came about. ISIL came about because of poor foreign policy choices by President Obama. Leading from behind is not working.”

Playing off a line in Trump’s speech last week, Graham said, “Do not buy the siren song of isolationism.”

Graham’s view of the Obama/Clinton errors is a common one among Republicans, but it’s not a rebuke of Trump’s proposals. The so-called “neocon” wing of the party has this tendency to make Trump sound like he’s Rand Paul and that’s just not in evidence. Trump has made it very clear that he will make the destruction of ISIS one of his primary goals.

But the question is, what’s after that? And that’s the question many Americans have at this point. What pops up to replace ISIS? Which dictator is going to squash a rebellion next? Why does it sometimes feel as though the U.S. is going out of its way to make trouble? How many Al Qaedas are we creating along the way?

We’ve been mucking around in the Middle East for more than forty years now, and you can’t blame hard-working Americans for wanting to know why. Trump isn’t calling for a complete withdrawal from the world stage. It’s not a crime against conservatism to start questioning some of these things. What money are we pouring into these third-world hellholes that could be better spent domestically?

All the pundits are biting their nails about Trump’s “America First” slogan, seeing as how it was used among isolationists who wanted us to stay out of World War II. But this kind of snark presupposes that because the isolationists were wrong in that instance, they’re always wrong. And if that’s the kind of mindset that currently dominates the Republican Party, then we really do need someone to go in and shake things up.
Abortion Is Not Safer Than Giving Birth

Abortion Is Not Safer 

Abortion Is Not Safer Than Giving Birth

In an attempt to prove abortion safer than childbirth, Vox compares two data points from the Centers for Disease Control that the CDC itself has said are not comparable.
By Anna Paprocki
It’s understandable that pro-abortion advocates were eager to circulate a Vox videopurporting to prove the safety of abortion last week. After all, yet another abortion clinic was making headlines for unsanitary conditions and harm to patients, drawing attention to the need for enforcing the health and safety laws abortion proponents bitterly fight. But the attempted defense of abortion Vox’s Liz Plank offered may actually be worse than her attempt at humor with a “Knock, knock. Who’s there? Abortion” joke.
Notably, before repeating the discredited myth that “abortion is safer than childbirth,” Plank admits a profound truth that abortion advocates generally avoid. By prefacing her arguments with the statement “if you only look at the safety of the mother,” she tacitly recognizes that abortion concerns the safety of two human beings. Abortion is always unsafe for the baby. (You know, that whole “crushing of body parts” that Plank displays annoyance over pro-lifers being “particularly vocal” about lately.)
After acknowledging that pregnant women are, in fact, mothers, Plank alleges “abortion is actually safer than childbirth” by comparing two data points from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that the CDC itself has said are not comparable. Maternal mortality and abortion mortality “measures are conceptually different and are used by CDC for different health purposes.” In other words, Plank peddles apples-to-oranges numbers as the basis of her claim.

Abortion Is Much Riskier Than Birth

Contrary to Plank’s attempt to soften abortion’s image by alleging that “most abortions don’t involve any form of cutting or surgery,” the vast majority of abortions are accomplished by invasive procedures that carry risks including, according to Planned Parenthood: “injury to the cervix or other organs.”
The risks to a woman’s short- and long-term physical health are real and deserve serious attention.
Other immediate physical risks from abortion procedures that even Planned Parenthood acknowledges include “allergic reaction, blood clots in the uterus, incomplete abortion — part of the pregnancy is left inside the uterus, failure to end the pregnancy, undetected ectopic pregnancy, very heavy bleeding.” These risks “increase the longer you are pregnant. They also increase if you have sedation or general anesthesia.”
Chemical abortions have a lengthy list of known complications, too. Some recentstudies have even found higher incidences of immediate adverse events for chemical abortions than for surgical abortions.
Regardless of what type of abortion a mother undergoes—a 15-minute invasive procedure, a lengthier surgery, or multiple days of potent drugs—an abortion’s consequences are profound. The risks to her short- and long-term physical health are real and deserve serious attention.

Also, Abortion Data Is Unreliable

The problems with Plank’s defense of abortion run deeper than her euphemisms and faulty use of dissimilar CDC statistics, because U.S. abortion data is known to be incomplete and unreliable.
There is no federal abortion reporting requirement. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute acknowledges that the current “patchwork of surveillance efforts” relies on “incomplete” reports from states and that California—estimated to account for 17 percent, or one out of every six abortions in the country—is one of three states that “do not report to the CDC at all.” Guttmacher uses voluntary reporting from abortionists, filtered through its own ideological lens, which fails to fill these gaping holes.
Even pro-abortion advocates have said women face significant obstacles when reporting complaints against abortion providers.
Other factors compound the poor quality of reporting on abortion and abortion complications. Even pro-abortion advocates have said women face significant obstacles when reporting complaints against abortion providers. Susan Schewel, the executive director of the Women’s Medical Fund in Philadelphia, explained that, in her experience trying to work with women to file complaintswith the Pennsylvania Department of Health, “The women found the complaint process so onerous and the telling of their stories so personally difficult that they failed to complete the paperwork and abandoned the effort.”
Abortionists have allegedly discouraged women from being truthful about their abortion complications. A former Planned Parenthood employee’s “whistleblower” lawsuit explains that chemical abortion patients who later experienced significant bleeding were told “to go to an emergency room and report that they were experiencing a spontaneous miscarriage.”
Still other complications are unreported because they go unconnected to the abortion that caused them. Jayne Mitchell-Werbrich, a nurse who left Planned Parenthood of Delaware because of its “meat market type assembly line care,” not because of any change of heart on abortion, testified before the Delaware
Senate that “the sad thing is that these women may not even realize the fact that Planned Parenthood could be at fault for these medical tragedies even years after they had their abortions at Planned Parenthood.”

Women Deserve to Know These Risks

Further, Plank uncritically parrots the abortion industry’s talking points about the impact of Texas health and safety standards on clinic closures—talking points Texas has already exposed in its brief before the Supreme Court as “inaccurate representations about whether HB 2 caused certain abortion clinics to close.” In an “Impact of HB2” map they created and provided to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the abortionists challenging the Texas law went so far as to include clinics that closed before HB2 even passed.
Plank’s attempt to discredit proponents of health and safety standards ignores the ugly realities of the abortion industry these laws address.
While Plank would have viewers blindly mourn any clinic closures, her attempt to discredit proponents of health and safety standards ignores the ugly realities of the abortion industry these laws address. The inherent risks of abortion are amplified by an industry that has a long history of bad actors placing profit as their highest priority.
On one point Plank and I agree. We should be talking more about abortion and its risks. Although another talking point she repeats—that about 1 out of every 3 women will have an abortion in their lifetimes—has earned a “Two Pinocchios” rating in the Washington Post as a stale claim that fails to take into account declining abortion rates, the high numbers of annual abortions should elevate concerns about the unarguable risks. Even modest risks of harm have a large impact.
Plank set out to prove that passion clouds facts, and ends up proving her own point. If Plank is genuinely interested in helping women, instead of dialing up an abortionist to give a sales pitch for the business she profits from, she should join us in calling for national abortion reporting laws.
Attorney Anna Paprocki is staff counsel at Americans United for Life.



Andrea Tantaros, political commentator and author of Tied Up In Knots: How Getting What We Wanted Made Women Miserable, joined the Federalist Radio Hour to discuss some of the things that the feminist movements of previous generations got wrong. Later in the hour, author and blogger Donna Carol Voss joined to describe what she thinks the fourth wave of feminism should look like.
“Now you have women wanting these careers and kicking butt in the office, but they still have these female duties,” Tantaros said. “Women are doubly stressed out and unhappy… so it’s a long way of saying the genders are pretty confused.”
Domenech commented on Ted Cruz’s last stand that will take place in the Indiana primary and what he expects to see happen. “Cruz actually started out quite popular among Republicans,” he said. “But as the field shrunk and as Trump turned his attention toward attacking Ted Cruz for the first time, Cruz’s negatives went up, because of the Lyin’ Ted meme that Trump was able to apply so effectively.”
Listen here:




Trump: I'll 'Go the Political Route' for Running Mate


Virtually assured of the Republican presidential nomination, Donald Trump says he likely will "go the political route" in choosing a vice presidential running mate.
The real estate mogul says in a broadcast interview Wednesday that he's "inclined" to prefer a No. 2 person on the ticket "who can help me get legislation passed." He notes he already has business experience and tells MSNBC's "Morning Joe" he wouldn't want to have to resort to presidential executive orders to get things done.
Trump also reveals he'll be making a decision over the next week on how to fund a general election campaign.
He says "I do love self-funding," but adds that he's thinking over his strategy and will have an answer soon.
"Do I want to sell a couple of buildings? I don't really want to do that," he said. But he said that he wouldn't necessarily want a new source of money "for myself" but that the party needs to bolster its funding. He was asked if he would accept money from super PACs in the fall, although he has refused to do so thus far.



Islamic State Kills Navy SEAL in Northern Iraq

The Navy SEAL killed in Iraq on Tuesday was identified as Charlie Keating IV, a former Phoenix high school star distance runner and the grandson of the late Arizona financier involved in the 1980s savings and loan scandal.

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey announced Keating died in an Islamic State group attack near the city of Irbil.
He's the third American serviceman to die in combat in Iraq since the U.S.-led coalition launched its campaign against the Islamic State in the summer of 2014, according to military officials.
Ducey ordered all state flags be lowered to half-staff from sunrise to sunset Wednesday in honor of Keating, who also was the cousin of former Olympic swimming champion Gary Hall Jr.
Keating's grandfather, Charles H. Keating Jr., who died in 2014 at age 90, was the notorious financier who served prison time for his role in the costliest savings and loan failure of the 1980s
Charlie Keating, 31, attended the Naval Academy before becoming a Navy SEAL based out of Coronado, Calif.
A 2004 graduate of Phoenix's Arcadia High School, Keating was city and region champion in the 1,600-meter run as a sophomore, junior and senior.
He earned all-city and first-team all-state honors as a senior, according to Indiana University, where he ran in college.
Earlier Story:

Islamic State militants killed a U.S. Navy SEAL in northern Iraq on Tuesday after blasting through Kurdish defences and overrunning a town in the biggest offensive in the area for months, officials said.

The elite serviceman was the third American to be killed in direct combat since a U.S.-led coalition launched a campaign in 2014 to "degrade and destroy" Islamic State and is a measure of its deepening involvement in the conflict.
"It is a combat death, of course, and a very sad loss," U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter told reporters during a trip to Germany.
A U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the dead serviceman was a Navy SEAL. The SEALs are considered to be among the most able U.S. special operations forces and capable of taking on dangerous missions.
A senior official within the Kurdish peshmerga forces facing Islamic State in northern Iraq said the man had been killed near the town of Tel Asqof, around 28 kilometres (17 miles) from the militant stronghold of Mosul.
The Islamic State insurgents occupied the town at dawn on Tuesday but were driven out later in the day by the peshmerga. A U.S. military official said the coalition had helped the peshmerga by conducting more than 20 air strikes with F-15 jets and drones.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Navy Seal was killed "by direct fire" while on a mission to advise and assist local forces in Iraq.
Carter's spokesman, Peter Cook, said the incident took place during an Islamic State attack on a peshmerga position some 3-5 km behind the forward line.
Such Islamic State incursions are rare in northern Iraq, where the Kurdish peshmerga have pushed the militants back with the help of coalition air strikes and set up defensive lines that the militants are rarely able to breach.
The leader of a Christian militia deployed alongside peshmerga in Tel Asqof said the insurgents had used multiple suicide bombers, some driving vehicles laden with explosives, to penetrate peshmerga lines.
The Kurdistan Region Security Council said at least 25 Islamic State vehicles had been destroyed on Tuesday and more than 80 militants killed. At least 10 peshmerga also died in the fighting, according to a Kurdish official who posted pictures of the victims on Twitter.
The peshmerga also deflected Islamic State attacks on the Bashiqa front and in the Khazer area, about 40 km west of the Kurdish regional capital Erbil, Kurdish military sources said.
In mid-April the United States announced plans to send an additional 200 troops to Iraq, and put them closer to the front lines of battle to advise Iraqi forces in the war against Islamic State.
Last month, an Islamic State attack on a U.S. base killed Marine Staff Sergeant Louis Cardin and wounded eight other Americans providing force protection fire to Iraqi army troops.
The Islamist militants have been broadly retreating since December, when the Iraqi army recaptured Ramadi, the largest city in the western region. Last month, the Iraqi army retook the nearby region of Hit, pushing the militants further north along the Euphrates valley.
But U.S. officials acknowledge that the military gains against Islamic State are not enough.
Iraq is beset by political infighting, corruption, a growing fiscal crisis and the Shi'ite Muslim-led government's fitful efforts to seek reconciliation with aggrieved minority Sunnis, the bedrock of Islamic State support.




And Then There Was The One ANN COULTER LETTER

And Then There Was The One


A guy just won the Republican nomination for president by spending no money, hiring no pollsters, running virtually no TV ads, and just saying what he truly believed no matter how many times people told him he couldn’t say that.
I always hoped I’d see this once before I died. It’s like to going to Mecca, for Americans. Pay attention, because it’s the last time we’re going to see it in our lifetimes.
For those of you not yet on the Trump Train, I know you don’t want to vote for Hillary, but all the pundits have been trying to convince you that Trump’s a complete fraud. (That was between their smug assurances that he wouldn’t make it out of Iowa.)
It’s odd. When Trump launched his campaign by talking about Mexican rapists and the wall, his critics hysterically denounced him, rushing to TV to say he did NOT represent the Republican Party! Only after it became resoundingly clear that large majorities of Americans agreed with Trump did his critics try a new tack: He doesn’t believe it!
That’s what my friend Andy McCarthy at the now-defunct National Review wrote recently. I had to spend the weekend figuring out how to attack a friend without saying, “This is the most retarded argument I’ve ever read.”
Here goes: This was not Andy’s best effort.
Of all the arguments that could be made against Trump, McCarthy settled on: I don’t trust him on immigration. (I’d love to have been a fly on the wall at that pitch meeting.)
He bases this claim on a remark Trump made as a businessman four years ago in which he regurgitated the official GOP line about Romney — and which was being stated as fact 1 million times a day on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News.
To wit, Trump told Newsmax that Mitt Romney “had a crazy policy of self-deportation which was maniacal,” adding, “He lost all of the Latino vote … he lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.”
It is strange that Trump would denounce “self-deportation,” which is like a chocolate sundae compared to his own plans for illegals.
But to give you the tenor of the interview, Trump went on to promote “Celebrity Apprentice,” note that he had just bought the Old Post Office building in Washington, D.C., and boast about his recently acquired Ritz-Carlton Golf Club and Spa in Jupiter, Fla. — “which is a phenomenal area.”
Also, a lot of people didn’t like the phrase “self-deportation.” Why not just say: “They’ll go home the same way they came”?
So is Trump lying about his signature issue, immigration? The countervailing evidence to that 2012 pop-off is:
— Nine months of Trump soaring to the top of the polls and slaying all comers by talking about how he’s going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it;
— His never, ever, ever backing down on the wall, sanctuary cities, anchor babies, suspending Muslim immigration, etc., etc., despite unprecedented attacks from both the liberal and “conservative” media;
— The fact that he talks about immigration at every single one of his massive rallies and always gets the biggest, most sustained standing ovations when he mentions the wall;
— The blizzard of tweets he sent out in 2013 denouncing Rubio’s amnesty bill as it was sailing through the Senate, supported by the entire liberal media, Rupert Murdoch, Fox News, most of talk radio, and every other GOP candidate for president this year, including, for a while, Ted Cruz (whose job was to know about bills being voted on in the Senate, unlike a Manhattan developer);
— Trump’s one and only policy guy is the magnificent Stephen Miller, who was Sen. Jeff Sessions’ main immigration guy.
And so on.
Maybe Trump is the Manchurian Candidate and contrary to his entire life’s work he really just wants fancy people in Manhattan to like him.
Maybe the window into his soul is what he said four years ago about Romney’s phrase “self-deportation.”
Maybe 50 years of Trump’s talking about the working class was all a clever ruse leading to this one shining moment when he would trick Americans into voting for him, so he could sell us out, like any other candidate would.
On the other hand, maybe he’s changed his mind about that 2012 remark.
I’m bitter and cynical enough on immigration that I don’t trust anyone not to betray us. But if there was ever a candidate we could believe will build a wall and stop the mass importation of the Third World, it’s Trump.


"The Department of Justice has determined that, as a result of compliance with and implementation of NC House Bill 2, both you and the state of N.C. are in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 0f 1964," Vanita Gupta wrote in the letter. (AP Photo)

Justice Dept.: N.C. bathroom bill violates Civil Rights Act


The Justice Department informed North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory on Wednesday that the bathroom bill he signed into law violates the U.S. Civil Rights Act.

"The Department of Justice has determined that, as a result of compliance with and implementation of NC House Bill 2, both you and the state of NC are in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," Vanita Gupta, principal deputy assistant attorney general, wrote in the letter.

The law was aimed at preventing localities from allowing transgender people to use the bathroom of their choice.

"Access to sex-segregated restrooms and other workplace facilities consistent with gender identity is a term, condition or privilege of employment. Denying such access to transgender individuals, whose gender identity is different from the gender assigned at birth, while affording it to similarly situated non-transgender employees, violates Title VII," the letter continued.

Federal officials have given the state until close of business Monday to state whether they will accept the government's rebuke and reverse House Bill 2, which prevented Charlotte's anti-discrimination ordinance for public restrooms.

McCrory has not stated how the legislature will respond to the Obama administration's ultimatum.

In the aftermath of the N.C. law, companies and musicians said they would not conduct business in the Tar Heel State. McCrory has criticized them for hurting taxpayers, who do not deserve that response.

Scott Brown: Romney would back Trump over Clinton

Former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown suggested during an interview Wednesday that Mitt Romney would support Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, despite the 2012 Republican presidential nominee's steadfast criticism of his likely successor.

"I've heard from many sources that [Romney] has said, indirectly or directly to them, if it's between Hillary and Trump, Trump wins," Brown told a Boston Herald radio program on Wednesday morning.

Unlike Romney, who delivered a blistering speech against Trump before the Utah primary in early March, Brown endorsed the billionaire in February and has since urged others to embrace him as the presumptive Republican nominee.

During the interview Wednesday, Brown suggested that Massachusetts' Republican Gov. Charlie Baker should get behind Trump in order to ensure the Bay State is in good standing with the White
House in the event that Trump makes it to the Oval Office.

"If Charlie picks up the phone and calls Hillary, he's going to get a call like three months later," Brown said. "If he picks up the phone and calls Trump, he is going to get a call within minutes and that's going to be helpful when you need those disaster funds or you need those educational funds or special needs funding or you need … some type of consideration for some legislation that's important in Massachusetts ."

A spokesperson for Romney did not return the Washington Examiner's request for comment.

CC BY-SA 2.0Just how safe is the Bill of Rights with Clinton?

Hillary Clinton has declared war on gun rights.
Despite her loss to Bernie Sanders in Indiana, Hillary Rodham Clinton still appears to be the all-but-confirmed winner of the Democratic Party nomination as its presidential standard-bearer this year, and that leaves Second Amendment activists now worrying about how much trouble she poses for the right to keep and bear arms, not to mention other rights.
Clinton made it clear as long ago as last October when she told a group at a private fund raiser – which was caught on audio and revealed by the Washington Free Beacon – that “The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”
If she is elected, she will have that opportunity possibly two or three times when she nominates new Supreme Court justices, as many predict will happen over the next four years. What would the high court look like with, say, a “Justice Barack Obama” or ‘Justice Charles Schumer?” How about a “Justice Eric Holder?”
Second Amendment activists will uniformly contend that Clinton is not now, nor has she ever been friendly to the right to gun rights. She has made a very public spectacle of her war with the National Rifle Association and, by extension, the entire “gun lobby,” which would include other organizations such as the Citizens committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Gun Owners of America and the Second Amendment Foundation.
A left-tilted activist Supreme Court might waste little time in finding a gun rights case that it could use to erode or possibly reverse the landmark 2008 Heller ruling that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual civil right to keep and bear arms. And if such a court were to be seated during a Clinton presidency, that could affect civil rights for more than a generation because federal judges and justices are appointed for life.
But there are other civil rights about which to be concerned. What about the First Amendment? The right to freedom of the press and speech could logically become another target of an administration that would not care to be criticized. While Clinton appears to have a pretty soft-gloved press fawning over her candidacy, there’s a likelihood she doesn’t share a reciprocal affection.
The stage is set for what many believe is going to be a combative, below-the-belt contest between Clinton and Donald Trump for the White House. And if Clinton wins the November election, it will be, the pundits suggest, a four-year extension of the Obama administration.



Latest Anti-Poverty Initiative: Kill Your Baby
By Larry Farlow  


The UKs Guardian Newspaper reported recently that women who kill their unborn children are financially better off than those who allow the children to be born.
They cite a study published by a research group at the University of California:
“Early results indicated that women who carry unwanted pregnancies to term are more likely to live in poverty, while 40% surveyed said they had sought abortions for financial reasons.”
This is right out of the leftist playbook. Find an issue everyone is concerned about, children’s health, the elderly, poverty, and then claim one of your core agenda items is the solution. No worries if it doesn’t solve the problem, you’re not really concerned about solving the problem, only pushing your agenda – and nothing has been used by the left to push their agenda more than claiming to fight poverty.
Beginning in the 1960s with Johnson’s “War on Poverty” the size and scope of the federal government increased massively only to have poverty rates remain about the same. Despite this, any calls to reign in social programs are decried by the left as being harmful to the poor. The agenda must be protected.
It’s not like we don’t know how to reduce poverty. Unfortunately, the solutions are not politically correct. One thing that helps ensure people, particularly women and children, will not be poor is stable, two-parent households. And not just any two-parent households but ones where there is a father and mother who are married to each other. Logically then, if the goal is to fight poverty, government policies should strengthen and support traditional marriage. But fighting poverty is not the real goal; the destruction of marriage is, so that will not happen. The agenda must be protected.
Now with opposition to abortion increasing and science making it less and less possible to claim an unborn child is not a human being, the left appears to be going back to what’s worked well for them in the past – claiming to be champions of the poor in order to keep the abortion mills churning. But just as you can’t spend your way to prosperity, neither can you murder your way there. Even if there are short-term financial benefits for individuals, it’s not a recipe for cultural prosperity. A nation that kills its citizens before they are born is cutting itself off from untold future creativity, innovation and productivity, virtually assuring its demise. But the agenda must be protected.
 
G’ day
Ciao…….Moe & Helen  Lauzier

About Me

My Photo
As of 1-1-2016 our blog is by Helen and me. We will attempt to provide adult oriented issues and topics.

Blog Archive

issues