June 30, 2017

Germany's Parliament Votes Overwhelmingly For Same Sex Marriage








Germany’s parliament has voted overwhelmingly to legalize same-sex marriage, granting full marital rights to gay and lesbian couples and clearing the path for them to adopt children.

The bill was passed by 393 votes to 226, with many Conservative MPs voting in favor of the measure. Chancellor Angela Merkel, who had opened the door to the snap vote earlier this week, voted against the change, sticking to her long-held beliefs.

“For me, marriage, as it's meant in the constitution, is a marriage between a man and a woman, and that’s why I voted against today,” Merkel said after the vote. “It was a long, intense, and emotionally touching debate. That’s true for me personally as well. That’s why I hope that with this vote we were able to create not only mutual respect between the different positions but also a bit more peace and unity in society.”

However, Merkel added that she supported adoption for same-sex couples.
The vote came just days after Merkel’s comments during a live event that she wanted to move the discussion about marriage equality toward a decision of conscience rather than imposing a party line, hinting, in effect, that her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party would drop its opposition to a vote on marriage equality.

The move to allow a vote was already a significant shift for Merkel, who had previously said she had a “hard time” with the issue and had “difficulties” with giving gay and lesbian couples the right to adopt. Her party went into the 2013 election opposed to equal marriage and adoptions by same-sex couples over concerns for a child’s wellbeing. Just two years ago, the chancellor defined marriage as “coexistence between a man and a woman.”

During Monday’s event, Merkel also shared the story of a lesbian couple she met in her home constituency, who she said had contributed to shifting her views on marriage equality. The chancellor said she had been invited to dinner by the couple, who were caring for eight foster children, and saw that the children were well cared for. She described the encounter as a “life-changing experience.”
“If the youth welfare service entrusts a lesbian couple with eight foster children, then the state could no longer use child welfare as an argument against adoptions,” Merkel said.

The main opposition parties jumped on Merkel’s comments, forcing the issue onto the parliamentary agenda. The chancellor was left with no choice but to allow a free vote to take place without voting instructions for her MPs.

On Wednesday, the bill was officially approved for a vote by the parliament’s legal affairs committee, which had blocked the bill 30 times in the past.

Despite catching many by surprise, Merkel’s remarks on Monday did not come out of the blue. The Social Democrats (SPD), the Free Democratic Party, and the Greens, with whom Merkel will likely to have to negotiate to form a coalition after September’s election, had all said that marriage equality would be one of the conditions to forming a government.

Merkel knew this would be an issue during the election campaign, and the leadership of the CDU and sister party the Christian Social Union (CSU) had already been talking about their position, an official told BuzzFeed News. Merkel was also aware that there was a clear parliamentary majority for same-sex marriage, and that a vote would need to take place in the near future.

However, the same official said the chancellor didn’t intend for a vote to take place as early as this week and would have preferred the issue to be preceded by a more substantive parliamentary debate.
In an interview with the German publication WirtschaftsWoche on Wednesday, Merkel called the disagreement with the SPD “sad” and “completely unnecessary.”

For its part, the SPD had little sympathy for the CDU’s position. The party’s chairman Thomas Oppermann told broadcaster ZDF ahead of the vote that marriage equality wasn’t an election tactic: “For us, marriage for all is a question of conviction.”

A poll released ahead of the vote found that three-quarters of Germans, including the vast majority of CDU/CSU supporters (73%), backed same-sex marriage, while 72% had welcomed Merkel’s decision to allow a free vote among her party’s MPs.

Germany will join a dozen other European countries in having same-sex marriage: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg, France, the Republic of Ireland, and the UK (except Northern Ireland and Jersey). The change will take effect later this year after the bill is signed into law by the country’s president.


BuzzFeed News Europe Editor


More on Trump Demanding Voter Rolls from States {Follow Up}




A letter from Kris Kobach, the vice chairman of a White House commission looking into voter fraud and other irregularities, is drawing fire from some state election officials. The letter, sent Wednesday to all 50 states, requests that all publicly available voter roll data be sent to the White House by July 14, five days before the panel's first meeting.
The information requested includes the names, addresses, birthdates, political party (if recorded), last four digits of the voter's Social Security Number and which elections the voter has participated in since 2006, for every registered voter in the country.
Kobach, who is also Kansas' Republican secretary of state, did not say how the commission plans to use the data other than to help it "fully analyze vulnerabilities and issues related to voter registration and voting."
However, Kobach has long advocated comparing state voter rolls with other government databases to identify noncitizens or other illegitimate registrants. Voter advocacy groups say such comparisons are prone to error and worry that the effort will result in legitimate voters being purged from the rolls.
The bipartisan commission — chaired by Vice President Pence — was established by President Trump after he made his widely dismissed allegations that as many as 5 million people voted illegally last November. Its stated purpose is to recommend ways to improve the public's confidence in the integrity of elections.



But in response to Kobach's letter, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said Thursday that he would not provide sensitive voter information to the commission.
"California's participation would only serve to legitimize the false and already debunked claims of massive voter fraud made by the President, the Vice President, and Mr. Kobach," Padilla, a Democrat, said in a statement.
Connecticut Secretary of State Denise Merrill also released a statement, saying that she would share publicly available data with the commission but complaining about a "lack of openness" about what the panel is looking for. Merrill cited past legal challenges to Kobach's efforts to clean up voter rolls in Kansas, which have led to some eligible voters being removed from registration lists.
"Given Secretary Kobach's history we find it very difficult to have confidence in the work of this commission," said Merrill, a Democrat and outgoing president of the National Association of Secretaries of State.
A spokeswoman for the association said the secretaries will almost certainly discuss Kobach's controversial request at their summer conference next week in Indianapolis.
The commission, which has yet to meet, has been viewed with suspicion from the start by civil rights groups, which think it will be used to justify measures — such as strict ID requirements — that will make it more difficult to vote.
Vanita Gupta, who headed the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department during the Obama administration, said in a tweet that the letter confirms that "Pence and Kobach are laying the groundwork for voter suppression, plain & simple."
However, Kobach's letter also seeks recommendations from state officials on other issues, including how to prevent voter intimidation and disenfranchisement. It also asks how the commission can help with information technology security and vulnerabilities, a growing concern after reports of widespread Russian efforts to hack into U.S. election systems last year.
New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, one of four Democrats on the commission, told WMUR reporter John DiStaso on Wednesday that he was impressed that Pence made it clear in a phone call with panel members earlier in the day that they would work on a bipartisan basis "with no preconceived notion and we should search for the facts."
After that call, the White House released a statement saying that Pence told commissioners: "The integrity of the vote is a foundation of our democracy; this bipartisan commission will review ways to strengthen that integrity in order to protect and preserve the principle of one person, one vote."
NPR

States Saying No To Trump Request for Voter Rolls!!








A growing list of states is refusing to comply with the White House’s unprecedented demands to hand over their voting roll data.

On Thursday, Trump’s “Commission on Election Integrity” sent out a letter to all 50 states ordering officials to turn over a whole lot of information on voters. The list of requested information includes: “full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of Social Security number if available, [and] voter history from 2006 onward.”

A pretty frightening list of demands, especially given the vice chairman of the commission’s documented history of voter suppression: As Secretary of State in Kansas, Kris Kobach led an assault on voting rights so terrible, it prompted the ACLU to describe him as “the King of Voter Suppression.” As an advisor to Trump, Kobach has also signaled he supports a Muslim registry.

Why Are Many Evangelicals Changing About Gay Rights





  
 Modern Evangelicals are Having a Change of Hearts. After all, the same freedom that allows them to worship whomever they want is the same Gays asked to be who they are.




A recent Pew survey reported that gay marriage support among white evangelicals has more than doubled, from 14 percent to 35 percent, over the last 10 years, plus, about half, 47 percent, of young white evangelicals, support gay marriage. 

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. said in an interview with The Christian Post Wednesday that he thinks the specific wording was geared to produce results showcasing greater support for redefining marriage. Respondents were asked if they favor or oppose "allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally."
"The use of the word 'allowing' appeals to a libertarian streak which is strong in many Americans," Sprigg said.
"Most Americans believe people should be 'allowed' to live their lives as they see fit — even if those choices fall short of a social or moral ideal. The opposite of 'allowing' is 'forbidding,' and most people do not want the law to 'forbid' people from making choices about their private relationships."
Same-sex marriage has been framed in civil liberties terms. The language used in the survey is based on and reinforces what Sprigg calls the "gay identity paradigm."  This model considers homosexuality as a fixed trait like skin color and ties the gay rights struggle to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, a connection he believes rests on faulty premises.
Some evangelicals say they support gay marriage "legally" but not necessarily theologically, but the poll questions do not explore that dimension, he added.
Alex McFarland, an apologist and a director of the Center for Christian Worldview and Apologetics at North Greenville University, said in a phone interview with The Christian Post Wednesday that the growing Christian support for gay marriage is multi-faceted.
"Several things are coalescing in our culture," McFarland said.
 "We've got a public school system and a public university system that for decades now, 50 years at least, has been trending away from belief in morality and belief in God."
And in the public square for approximately 25 to 30 years "militant secularists have controlled the narrative," he continued, adding that Darwinism and moral relativism are now firmly established as givens in the minds of many people.
The concept of "separation of church and state" has also been misappropriated by many atheists, who consider the voice of the Church as irrelevant in the realm of government or in the academy, the apologist argued.
And with regard to marriage law, Sprigg added, many young evangelicals operate with the secularist thinking that "separation of church and state" means "that one-man-one-woman marriage is a uniquely Christian viewpoint — it isn't — which cannot be 'forced' upon the secular world," even if they think churches ought to be free to maintain their religious standards. 
"We have certainly reached the point in our culture where it takes far more courage to oppose the redefinition of marriage than to support it," he added. "Some [evangelicals] who secretly oppose such a redefinition may fear to say so publicly — even to a pollster — for fear that it will jeopardize their educational and professional prospects and public reputation."
Yet McFarland maintains that abandonment of Christian sexual ethics and warped ideas about marriage is also due in part to other spiritual developments in recent decades, including Mainline Protestantism's rejection of the Jesus Movement in the 1960s–1970s and unfortunate divisions within evangelicalism.
"From 1967–1977 God came by," McFarland said, adding that he's convinced the Jesus movement was America's Third Great Awakening.
But the Mainline denominations turned a hard left, forsaking the authority of the Bible and stopped emphasizing evangelism, he explained. And evangelical denominations and movements underwent a twofold split: hard, legalistic orthodoxy and touchy-feely, seeker friendliness.
"But there's got to be a third way," he said. "Truth in love thoroughly prayed over ... we need a revival."
To curtail this decline he reiterated comments he made in a previous CP interview about his book, Abandoned Faith, that Christians have to invest in people with no expectation of return, while also sharing the Gospel.
Just as the breakdown of the family has contributed to millennials leaving the faith, he said, that has distorted their ideas about marriage. With four decades of legalized no-fault divorce and rampant fatherlessness, American social life is a breeding ground for warped attitudes toward marriage in general, he said.

Christian Post



Trump's New Papi Gorsuch is Against Having Gay Parents on Their Kids Birth Certificates







(LifeSiteNews) — Newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a blistering dissent to the Court’s decision to allow “spouses” of the same gender to appear on children’s birth certificates. 
The court’s decision was predicated on the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case that legalized same-sex “marriage” across the country.  
Because same-sex “marriage” is now the law of the land, the court reasoned that states must “provide same-sex couples 'the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage.'" In particular, since the Obergefell ruling specifically identified birth and death certificates as two of those rights, states can no longer deny same-sex couples any rights related to birth certificates that are granted to opposite-sex couples.
Obergefell v. Hodges laid the groundwork for rulings such as this, going beyond establishing a legal right to gay “marriage,” to asserting all rights normally associated with marriage.  

The constitutional basis of Justice Gorsuch’s dissent

Justice Gorsuch said, “[N]othing in Obergefell indicates that a birth registration regime based on biology, one no doubt with many analogues across the country and throughout history, offends the Constitution. To the contrary, to the extent they speak to the question at all, this Court’s precedents suggest just the opposite conclusion.”  
“Neither does anything in today’s opinion purport to identify any constitutional problem with a biology-based birth registration regime.”
Gorsuch asked, “What, then, is at work here?”  
“Given all this, it seems far from clear what here warrants the strong medicine of summary reversal. Indeed, it is not even clear what the Court expects to happen on remand that hasn’t happened already. The Court does not offer any remedial suggestion, and none leaps to mind.”

Gorsuch sets off LGBT alarm bells

At ThinkProgress in a piece subtitled Donald Trump’s judge is doling out Mike Pence’s justice, Ian Millhiser said, “The Supreme Court took two actions Monday morning that provide a fairly clear window into how Gorsuch will handle claims alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
“First, the Court announced that it will hear Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case brought by a baker who claims that religion gives anti-LGBTQ business owners the right to ignore civil rights laws.  
“Second, the Court reversed an Arkansas Supreme Court decision permitting the state to engage in a subtle form of discrimination against same-sex couples. ... Taken together, these two cases suggest Gorsuch will join the Court’s right-most faction in matters relating to LGBTQ rights.”
And over at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern, who covers law and LGBTQ issues, said Gorsuch’s “dissent should be deeply alarming to LGBTQ advocates; it indicates an eagerness to read Obergefell with implausible narrowness, and a hostility to the extension of civil rights to same-sex couples.”

The true significance of the Court’s decision — for children

Children’s rights activist Katy Faust, writing at ThemBeforeUs, reacted to the court’s decision: “(I)n the name of ‘equality’ for adults, today’s Supreme Court ruling denies children both the right to their mother and father and the right to their biological identity. ‘Equality’ for same-sex couples comes by way of children’s inequality.”
Faust continued, “Children raised by gay couples will always be missing a biological parent as well as the dual-gender influence that children crave. Studies tells us thatchildren with same-sex parents will suffer as a result. Many of those children will also struggle with identity issues as a result of being donor-conceived. But those challenging the ban were not concerned about actual outcomes for these kids and instead argued, ‘When it comes to same-sex spouses, the state’s refusal to list both of them on the birth certificate “causes those children to suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser …’”
Justice Gorsuch, who joined the Supreme Court in April, has clearly aligned himself with the court’s conservatives.
Gorsuch was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority.  

In China Coming Out is a Family Affair

The day Piao Chunmei’s son told her he was gay, she reacted the way many Chinese parents do, sleepless and crying for days due to the lingering “shame” of same sex relationships in China.
But she eventually accepted her son and is now part of an expanding network of gays and their parents who help other families cope with the stress of coming out in a country which until 2001 classified homosexuality as a mental illness.
Deep-seated cultural expectations for each generation to produce a male heir – heightened by China’s “one-child policy” which expanded to two in 2015 – added to the pressure to conform. But a new generation is more willing to take a stand on their sexuality, despite what their relatives may think.
Piao and her fellow volunteers bridge the generation gap.
“We don’t want to shut them in the closet where no one can see them,” said Piao, an effervescent 54-year-old who works for a Shanghai cosmetics equipment company.
Taiwan’s top court recently ruled in favour of same-sex marriage, Shanghai’s low-key annual gay pride festival is in its ninth year and opinion surveys increasingly indicate greater public acceptance of China’s gays. 
On May 20, “Lover’s Day” in China, a group of mothers, affiliated with the US-founded PFLAG, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, caused a stir by appearing at a Shanghai park where parents regularly display advertisements seeking marriage matches for their heterosexual children.
The gatecrashing parents did the same for their gay children – before police escorted them out.
But coming-out in family-oriented China remains traumatic, often tearing households apart or leading to suicides. The fears are so intense that advocacy groups estimate millions lead a double life, hiding their identity by marrying heterosexuals.
“Family is the most important part [of coming out] in terms of our emotions, but it’s the hardest area to break through,” said Duan Rongfeng, a 40-year-old gay Shanghai architect.
Volunteers for PFLAG say they are seeing more people confident enough to come out, especially in cosmopolitan cities such as Beijing, Guangzhou and Shanghai, which are have more relaxed attitudes than rural areas. 

PFLAG organises various discreet events, but earlier this month arranged its biggest yet, a four-day ship cruise from Shanghai to Japan, which organisers said drew more than 1,000 people.
The group took to sea to avoid interference from the authorities, as LGBT events are often abruptly shut down.
But Duan, also a volunteer, estimates more than 100,000 parents and children nationwide have been helped by PFLAG’s loose network, which he said is expanding to smaller cities and China’s interior.
Piao’s initial devastated reaction to her son’s announcement reflects the lack of understanding common among Chinese parents.
She wondered whether she had caused it by giving him too much candy as a child or if he was corrupted at university or by foreigners. She asked him to seek a medical cure.
But after reading about gay suicides, she relented.
“I was afraid he would disappear before my eyes,” she said.
Anguished parents reach out to Piao daily by phone, social media, or in person. To some, she is affectionately called “Big Sister Mei”, but others accuse her of corrupting their kids.
Her unwavering message: you can’t change your child’s sexual identity.
“I would give my life away to make him change, but he can’t,” she said.
Piao said most Shanghai parents eventually come around and families end up stronger, but success is less assured outside major cities.

Fearing ostracism, Piao and her son relocated several years ago from northeastern China to Shanghai.
The support network helped He Fenglan, 55, pull out of a year long spiral of despair after her son came out three years ago. “The first thing I thought was, how could I face relatives? How could I face society? How could I face close friends? The problem of ‘face’ is very important,” said He, who was “repulsed” by homosexuality.
But she added: “You see more and more gays coming out, as well as their parents. You feel you are not alone in this world.”
Today she embraces her son’s identity and the prospect of his relationships with a uniquely Chinese twist.
“Having two sons is even better. My one son has turned into two.”

Russian Jury Finds Chechen Men Guilty of Killing Opposition Leader Nemtsov



Zaur Dadayev. File photo REUTERS
Image captionZaur Dadayev is a former a member of an elite Chechen military unit

A Russian jury has found five ethnic Chechen men guilty of murdering leading opposition politician Boris Nemtsov. 
Zaur Dadayev shot the former deputy prime minister, a vocal critic of President Vladimir Putin, in February 2015 near the Kremlin.
Four others acted as accomplices. The group was allegedly promised $250,000 (£192,000) to kill Nemtsov. They all denied the charges.
Nemtsov's relatives fear that whoever ordered the murder will never be found.
Russian authorities are still looking for another Chechen said to be behind the killing, Ruslan Mukhudinov. He believed to have fled abroad.
But lawyers for Nemtsov's family have said the investigators have exaggerated Mr. Mukhudinov's role and "the masterminds are high-ranking people".

Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov pictured in 2009 AFP
Image captionBoris Nemtsov was one of President Putin's fiercest critics

The jury in Moscow convicted the five men after more than eight months of hearings.
Zaur Dadayev is a former member of an elite military unit. He was under the command of pro-Moscow's Ramzan Kadyrov, the head of Russia's Chechen Republic in the North Caucasus.
The other four defendants are brothers Anzor Gubashev and Shadid Gubashev, Ramzan Bakhayev and Tamerlan Eskerkhanov.
A sixth man, Beslan Shabanov, died after he was detained in Chechnya.
Nemtsov served as first deputy prime minister under President Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s, and later became a vocal critic of President Putin.
The 55-year-old was shot dead on 27 February 2015 on his way back from an interview with a liberal radio station, in which he had called on listeners to join a rally.
At the time, Nemtsov was working on a report examining Russia's alleged role in the conflict in Ukraine. 
President Putin called the murder "vile and cynical" and vowed to hold those responsible to account.
Russia has seen several killings of high-profile politicians and journalists in recent years.
But the country has a long history of prosecuting alleged hit-men and failing to follow the chain of command to discover who ordered the murder, correspondents say.

Murder that Shocked Russia - by BBC's Sarah Rainsford at Moscow's courtroom

After about 12 hours of debate, the jury returned with a clear verdict - they found all five men guilty of murdering Boris Nemtsov, and by a clear majority.
REUTERS

The five defendants in a glass cage in Moscow's courtImage copyright

Image captionThe five defendants in a glass cage in Moscow's co

In a glass cage, the men listened in silence - with the occasional smile - as the decision was read out. The wife of one of the defendants broke into tears.
This was the murder that shocked Russia, a prominent critic of President Putin shot in the back right besides the walls of the Kremlin.
Once a political hi-flier, Nemtsov had been sidelined under Vladimir Putin. But he remained a loud voice of protest in Russia.
Nemtsov's family are sure that's why he was killed. 
But this trial focused only on the contract killers, without asking who hired them and why.


Trump Turns on His Pals at MSNBC Who Helped Him Get Elected.Joe a Psycho-Mika Something as Bad



Lately, Morning Joe is been on Trump's sh_**  list.  Joe a Republican and ex-Congressman from the age of President Clinton.  He gave Trump a free hand and never really questioned the many discrepancies on his promises and sometimes crazy demeanor and words. It wasn't until Trump became President that He, like many people, realized Trump was not kidding like they thought he was or did not mean it, or was overpromising. He was going to try to do what he said he was going to do. Say what you want about Trump but nothing of what he does or says should be anything but news and promises from 2016. What Trump Said is inexcusable particularly from the President himself who happens to be the legal US voice.
 Joe, Mika, and Trump. Their show was a perfect example of the media giving  Trump free press. He was never or rarely confronted on any of his views and promises. Tne only he was asked continually was about the wall and Muslims which gave his haters a hard on.  

MSNBC comes out backing their show and ratings with the following ( 

MSNBC responded to President Donald Trump’s Twitter tirade Thursday against "Morning Joe" hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski by saying the president is putting personal grudges over the job he was elected to do. 
“It’s a sad day for America when the president spends his time bullying, lying and spewing petty personal attacks instead of doing his job,” MSNBC spokesperson Lori Acio said in a statement. 
Trump lashed out at the hosts of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Twitter for speaking “badly of me.” The tweets — which drew immediate criticism from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle — came toward the end of the pair’s morning cable news show. 
When asked whether the president's tweets were "out of line" during his weekly press conference, House Speaker Paul Ryan said, "Obviously I don't see that as an appropriate comment." 
"Look, what we're trying to do around here is improve the tone, the civility of the debate, and this obviously doesn't help do that," Ryan added. 
Trump was a frequent guest on "Morning Joe" during the start of his 2016 presidential run. But his contentious relationship with the media has only grown since taking office earlier this year. He attacked CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post on Twitter earlier this week. 
The tweets aimed at the MSNBC hosts were quickly condemned by members of Trump’s own party for being below the dignity of his office: 
Republican Sen. James Lankford, bringing up the recent attack on GOP congressmen at a baseball practice in Virginia, said Trump's comments "don't help." 
"I just chaired a hearing with the US Capitol Police about safety, and the June 14 shooting attack of Steve Scalise, Matt Mika and Officers Crystal Griner and David Bailey. National and local leaders, including our President, should model civility, honor, and respect in our political rhetoric. The President's tweets today don't help our political or national discourse and it does not provide a positive role model for our national dialogue," Lankford said in a statement. 
White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended the president on "Fox News" on Thursday. 
"Look, I think what's necessary is to push back against unnecessary attacks on the president, both personally. I've seen far worse things come out of that show," Huckabee Sanders said. "Again, directed not just at the president but at everyone around him — personal attacks, mean, hateful attacks and again, this president isn't going to sit back and not push back, and he's going to fight fire with fire and I think that's exactly what he did today." 
Melania Trump's press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, tells NBC News: "As the First Lady has stated publicly when her husband gets attacked, he will punch back 10 times harder.” 
Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, appeared to be referencing Trump’s tweet as well when he sent out a link to an op-ed he recently penned on the subject of civility in politics.

~~~~~NY Daily News Trump talks about an imagined Mika's bleeding which it seems as a feminine put down smack because of a woman's biological period. Maybe he had a bad experience and now any female he doesn't like he sees as spewing blood from every women's  cavity (this is something he has used in Publ before)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The ugly American President: Donald Trump's tweet-rant against Mika and Joe reaches new heights.

 The President of the United States, possessed of awesome power and awesome responsibility, readies to grapple with the most urgent business of nation and world.

The man in the mirror.

For embarrassingly too many a morning since Jan. 21, 2017, Donald Trump gripped his phone, opened the Twitter app and unleashed self-serving deceptions, personal attacks, and rages against the “FAKE NEWS MEDIA.”

But Thursday’s astonishingly infantile burst of trash talk aimed at MSNBC morning hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough descended to newly squalid depths, in line with a surge of administration attacks against news outlets.

Trump mocks Mika Brzezinski for ‘bleeding badly from a face-lift’
Ranted the tweeter-in-chief: “I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don’t watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came..”

And then . . . silence. What weighty matters could have occupied the President’s time, his fingers, his mind as the seconds ticked by?

Court docs reveal Donald Trump's 'cruel' treatment of Ivana
Perhaps the fate of the Obamacare repeal he had promised the voters of America, hanging on by mere threads in the Senate, where he must flip at least two expected “no” votes to yes in his own Republican Party to prevail.

Perhaps the swelling nuclear ambitions of North Korea, which National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster confirmed Wednesday have prompted a U.S. military response plan.

Nah. Time to get back in the Wrestlemania ring for another round of bashing, this one aimed squarely at Brzezinski.

House Russia probe zeroes in on Trump bodyguard Keith Schiller
“. . .to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year’s Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!”

Trump likely had been triggered by an on-the-air statement from Brzezinski about a @realdonaldtrump tweet implying that the pending Senate health care bill would boost Medicaid spending: “That’s your President of the United States lying to you.”

Anyone possessed of even minimal maturity would have let the fair-and-square comment alone.

Instead, Trump resorted to the below-the-belt move he’d pulled on another female TV host, Megyn Kelly, following her tough questioning during a presidential debate — smearing her with the image of blood. (Paging Dr. Freud.) Compelled to relieve the boo-boo on his tender ego, the President unleashed his torrent of schoolyard insults infused with still more lies.

Obviously, “Morning Joe” is still on screens somewhere in Trump’s vicinity — and lots of other places, judging by healthy ratings.

Scarborough and Brzezinski were, duh, seeking an interview with the President holed up at his estate.

(Photos from the scene revealed no evidence of her bleeding or recent surgery).

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has a self-inflicted black eye with poor prospects for recovery.

June 29, 2017

Australian Cardinal Sex Abuse Charges Rocks The Vatican

Never has a Cardinal been accused of a crime such as this or any criminal or civil crime for that matter. Not because they didn't happen but because at that height it was very hard for anything to reach them. Instead, it will reach the ones below holding the institution. This Cardinal is accused of trying to hide what others were doing and now we now it was because they were hiding him and he was hiding them. A trial is the worst thing the Vatican would want because at trials everything tends to come out. I don't see the Vatican allowing a trial to take place. {adamfoxie.blogspot.com]

Australian Cardinal George Pell speaks to members of the media at the Vatican on 29 June 2017.Image copyright
Image captionAustralian Cardinal George Pell will return to Australia to defend himself in court

Australian Cardinal George Pell, one of Pope Francis' most senior advisers, is facing criminal charges for alleged sex offenses dating back several decades.
Cardinal Pell has emphatically denied the charges.
At the Vatican, it's being seen as a punishing body blow to the reputation and credibility of the worldwide Roman Catholic Church.
Cardinal Pell, 76, is a former Archbishop of Sydney who now resides inside the Vatican. He was summoned to Rome by Pope Francis in 2014 to try to sort out scandal at the Vatican Bank and to reform a particularly messy situation in Vatican finances. 
Three years ago, the cardinal pleaded health reasons for refusing to return home to face questioning at a public hearing by a Royal Commission set up to investigate allegations of child sex abuse inside Australian institutions such as churches, schools, and sporting groups. 
However, he agreed to answer questions by video link from Rome, vigorously denying any wrongdoing, although arousing some public criticism over a surprising analogy that he offered.
He likened the Catholic Church's responsibility for child abuse to that of a trucking company for the behavior of its employees.
"If a driver picks up some lady and then molests her," the Cardinal said, "I don't think it is appropriate because it is contrary to the policy [of the company] for the ownership, the leadership of that company, to be held responsible." 
The Australian Trucking Association, representing 170,000 local truckers, said it was "deeply insulted" by his remarks.
The cardinal has been granted a leave of absence by Pope Francis to return to Australia to defend himself in court in Melbourne on 18 July.
A Vatican statement said that Pope Francis "...has appreciated Cardinal Pell's honesty during his three years of work in the Roman Curia, is grateful for his collaboration, and in particular, for his energetic dedication to the reforms in the economic and administrative sector".
It went on: "The Holy See expresses its respect for the Australian justice system that will have to decide the merits of the questions raised. 
"At the same time, it is important to recall that Card Pell has openly and repeatedly condemned as immoral and intolerable the acts of abuse committed against minors; has cooperated in the past with Australian authorities (for example, in his depositions before the Royal Commission); has supported the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors; and finally, as a diocesan bishop in Australia, has introduced systems and procedures both for the protection of minors and to provide assistance to victims of abuse."
At a news conference, Cardinal Pell told reporters: "There has been relentless character assassination for months ... I am looking forward finally to having my day in court, I am innocent of these charges, they are false. The whole idea of sexual abuse is abhorrent to me."  The decision by Australian prosecutors to take Cardinal Pell to court comes at a particularly significant moment in Pope Francis' four-year reign - his handing over this week of red hats to five new "princes of the church". 
Pope Francis is selecting new church leaders - and perhaps his own successor - from clerics of a very different mold to that of his predecessors. In fact, he emphatically told his new cardinal appointees not to consider themselves "princes" but "servants of God and the people".
Instead of promoting to top positions in the church former administrators of great metropolitan Catholic dioceses around the world, like Cardinal Pell (who has already submitted his resignation having reached the compulsory retirement age of 75), Francis is increasingly choosing new cardinals from among bishops in countries "on the periphery" as he puts it. 
Four of the five cardinals he appointed this week to come from countries - Laos, Mali, El Salvador, and, surprisingly, predominant Lutheran Sweden - that have never had a representative among the Sacred College of Cardinals, the elite churchmen who alone have the power to elect future popes. 
A church dominated for centuries by Italians in particular, and Europeans, in general is reconfiguring itself to reflect the real and diverse world of the 21st century.
BBC


Featured Posts

TV Personality in Egypt Get One Yr Hard labor for Interviewing Gay Man

BBC   An Egyptian TV presenter has been sentenced to one year of hard labour for interviewing a gay man last year. ...