~ Featuring ~
Unconstitutional No-Fly, No-Buy 
Won't Prevent Mass Murder 
by Louis DeBroux
Trump will accept Kim Jong Un's 
invitation to meet, White House says
by Brooke Singman and Matt Richardson

{ } ~ President Trump will accept an invitation by North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un to meet... 
the White House confirmed Thursday night, in a dramatic development after months of sabre-rattling between the two world leaders. Kim extended an invitation to meet with Trump and the president agreed that the two would meet by May, South Korean National Security Adviser Chung Eui-yong announced at the White House. "President Trump greatly appreciates the nice words of the South Korean delegation and President Moon," White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said. "He will accept the invitation to meet with Kim Jong Un at a place and time to be determined. We look forward to the denuclearization of North Korea. In the meantime, all sanctions and maximum pressure must remain."...
DeSantis – 2nd Special Counsel Can’t Be 
liar-CLINTON Pt 2 – Must Be A 
{ } ~ Lou Dobbs says today was a day of extraordinary developments, noting the partial settlement of litigation between the House Oversight Committee... and the DOJ over documents relating to scum-Holder and liar-nObama’s gun-running operation, Fast and Furious and the intensifying calls for a second special counsel. He asks his guest, Rep Ron DeSantis (R-FL) for his views, as one who has been calling for months for a second special counsel to be appointed. He says he thinks the trigger that caused the calls for another special counsel to increase was the statement by AG Jeff Sessions that he was going to leave the investigation up to the Inspector General. He says a lot of people in the House who might have been on the fence about the issue realized that the “Inspector General has no prosecutorial authority, he can’t hold anybody accountable. He can’t even subpoena people who are outside the department, so people like Comey and Clapper, he has no access to any of those.”...
House Oversight Committee Calls for
Investigation into liar-nObama 
by Matt
{ } ~ Barack liar-nObama set the record for the greatest number of regulations enacted during one presidency – but when it came to government surveillance... he was more than happy to deregulate away the hurdles that agencies would need to spy and share surveillance with one another. In fact, one of the last things liar-nObama did while in office was sign off on new rules relaxing NSA rules that hampered their ability to share surveillance intelligence. This rule change officially happened on January 12, 2017, just days before Trump was elected, and while liar-nObama was officially in the “lame duck” stage of his presidency. While every other president was confined to granting pardons in that late stage, liar-nObama was changing rules for surveillance. Why? Could it have been that the NSA has been acting recklessly throughout liar-nObama’s presidency, in complete disregard for the rules on the books at the time, and liar-nObama needed to simply change the rules after the fact to justify their actions?... 
Jeff Sessions ‘Seriously’ 
Considering Second Special Counsel
{ } ~ Attorney General Jeff Sessions told Fox News’ Shannon Bream Wednesday that he “will consider” naming a second special counsel... to probe the FBI and Justice Department’s investigations into possible collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia. “Well, I have great respect for Mr. Gowdy and Chairman Goodlatte, and we are going to consider seriously their recommendations,” Sessions told Bream in an interview that ran late Wednesday night. “I have appointed a person outside of Washington — many years at the Department of Justice — to look at all of the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee members sent to us and we are conducting that investigation.”...
VIDEO at the site.
New York Times Issues Humiliating 
Correction to Hit Piece on Trump Tax Cuts 
{ } ~ The far-left New York Times was forced to issue a massive and humiliating correction in a piece that was obviously meant to scare middle-class families... into believing President Trump’s recently passed tax plan would explode their tax liability. To prove that Trump’s tax cuts would, in fact, increase taxes on the middle class, the Times made up an imaginary family and created an interactive showcase article that included this family’s imaginary tax returns. The only problem is that the Times got the math wrong. The Times announced, “2018’s Bottom Line,” adding, “The family would owe $3,896 more in taxes under the new tax law.” Two weeks later, the Wall Street Journal reported, the Times was forced to crawl back and add the kind of correction that is, in reality, a full-blown retraction... 
Britain's Massive Charity Scam
by Giulio Meotti
{ } ~ In a secularized West, charitable organizations are the modern-day saints granting us our expiatory rites... Many humanitarian NGOs even seem to cater to Western consciences filled with guilt. Since these NGOs say they work on behalf of "humanity" and for a "better world", while possibly assuming that states and governments act only for the sake of social efficiency or their own self-preserving interests. Yet, often these NGOs risk becoming bureaucracies as much as states do, sometimes even with similar sexual and financial scandals. At times these NGOs also can look like just a "mammoth machinery" with more employees than services; a steep, often unaccountable budget, and an ideology promoting the worst "Western stereotyping". The weekly magazine The Spectator called them "the bad charity". Lately, not a single week has passed without a negative story in the press about British NGOs. Now Oxfam, one of the wealthiest and most important of them, is sinking from a series of scandals in Africa and Haiti. It used, it seems, taxpayers' money, intended for the earthquake victims, to pay for "Caligula-style orgies". It also fired the actresses Kristin Davis and Scarlett Johansson, who volunteered as Oxfam "ambassadors," after they appeared in advertisements for Israeli companies. Oxfam accused the women of rhetorically "oppressing" the Palestinians; meanwhile Oxfam's staff was physically oppressing the Haitians... 

Unconstitutional No-Fly, No-Buy Won't Prevent Mass Murder 

by Louis DeBroux:  Watching the CNN town hall following the Parkland massacre — in which Republican Sen. Marco Rubio and NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch were accused of being Nazis and complicit in the 17 deaths at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School for daring defend the Constitution — reminds us of a truth written by 19th-century British journalist Walter Bagehot. He declared, “A democratic despotism is like a theocracy: it assumes its own correctness.”

          During this inquisition, whenever Rubio or Loesch attempted to introduce facts or reason into the gun debate, a howling mob screamed and shouted them down. The mindless outrage, refusing to allow a different opinion to even be spoken, was reminiscent of the “Two Minutes Hate” in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 — every citizen screaming hate and fury for exactly two minutes each day while watching a film depicting the state’s enemies.
          This is what public debate has been reduced to, with one side demanding the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens be stripped without due process, and accusing any dissenters of the most malevolent motivations and a desire to see children die gruesome deaths. It leads to a sort of security theater where “solutions” are proposed that do nothing to address the actual problem.
          And while this is being mostly driven by Democrats (who, as Justice Clarence Thomas notes in his concurrence in the McDonald v. Chicago case, originally passed gun control laws in order to leave blacks defenseless against KKK mobs), even a few Republicans have joined in, most notably Arizona’s retiring Sen. rino-Jeff Flake.
          rino-Flake introduced a bill that recycles a 2016 bill dubbed “No-Fly, No-Buy,” which would prohibit anyone on the federal government’s no-fly list from exercising his or her Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
          As The Federalist’s David Harsanyi notes,“One day Sen. rino-Jeff Flake is warning America about rising Stalinism and the next he's supporting a bill that strips the rights of citizens who’ve been arbitrarily placed on secret government lists without any probable cause or due process.
          Indeed, rino-Flake’s bill represents an egregious infringement of the citizens’ First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, giving often incompetent and/or abusively partisan bureaucrats the power to prohibit both travel and self-defense based on an inaccurate, extrajudicial government list.
          Both the NRA and the ACLU, which agree on very little, nevertheless concur that the “No-Fly, No-Buy” bill is bad legislation, and even leftist rags like The New York Times and Los Angeles Times published editorials in 2014 arguing that such a ban is unconstitutional.
          Why? The no-fly list is arbitrary; hundreds of thousands of Americans placed on the list have not only committed no crime but are not even suspected of committing a crime. By the government’s own admission, 40% of those on the watchlist have “no affiliation with recognized terrorism groups.
          The Washington Examiner’s Philip Wegmann reports, “According to congressional testimony from 2014, the FBI estimates that those lists ‘currently stands at about 800,000 identities.’ Those names aren’t public though, and neither is the selection criteria. There is only one way to find out if your name is in that database: try boarding a plane.”
          The watchlist is so riddled with errors that Congressmen Tom McClintock (R-CA) and John Lewis (D-GA), as well as the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) found themselves on it. Despite their connections, it took months to get them removed. Granted, Kennedy probably should not have been allowed to drive a car, but that was no reason to keep him from flying. Regardless, if it took a U.S. senator and a congressman months to get off the list, what chance does the average citizen have of righting this injustice?
          Though Democrats are pushing the bill, minorities will be hurt most, especially those of Middle Eastern descent with names similar to actual terrorists. That may seem ironic — until we consider the effect of most Democrat policies. Still, one would think Lewis, who gained fame for bravely defying racist Democrats while crossing Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965 and who was beaten with nightsticks by state troopers, would understand the right to defend oneself from violent criminals and tyrannical government alike is not a right to be lightly infringed upon. Alas, he does not.
          While in the aftermath of this horrific tragedy it’s understandable that many feel a desire to do something, anything, to fix the problem immediately, the reality is that the solution will not be found in the law but in the culture; and an angry, screaming mob mentality that sacrifices Liberty for political expediency and a false sense of security is unworthy of the highest traditions of the American founding.
          We wonder how quickly Democrats would change their tune if the proposed law prohibited these “potential terrorists” from voting or having abortions (after all, at least one innocent child is killed in every one of the 900,000 abortions performed annually in the U.S.).
          Strange indeed that Democrats still call for the closing of the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, declaring it a moral evil to imprison foreign enemy combatants without due process, even demanding constitutional rights for them. Yet these same Democrats (and, evidently, some Republicans) are all too eager to deprive actual American citizens, who have NOT been caught engaging in a violent act and who have NOT been accused (much less convicted) of a crime, of their own right to self-defense and free travel.
          Guns are the tools of these mass shootings, not the cause. The cause is a society that no longer respects the sanctity of human life. The cause is a society that actively erodes the traditional family bonds that create good and decent citizens. The cause is a society that immerses itself in graphic depictions of violence while pretending it has no impact on our collective psyche.
          It’s time to address the cause of these tragedies, while leaving our sacred rights intact.  
~The Patriot Post

Views: 13


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by Rudy Tirre on March 9, 2018 at 10:25am


I have to agree with you. Everything you mention about disgraceful politicians and the state they are from is unrepresented in human history. Its beyond me how those people continue to vote for them. 

Its also distributing how the education of this country continue to teach children to hate our liberty and constitutional rights.

God bless you

Comment by Bonnie Somer on March 9, 2018 at 10:01am







Reporter Kicked Out Of Michelle Obama
Conference For Violating ‘Black Girl Code’

The Black Entertainment Television channel recently hosted a conference in south Florida for black women known as “Leading Women Defined,” which featured a casual conversation between former first lady Michelle Obama and former senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

But according to the New York Post’s Page Six, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who was in attendance was booted from the remainder of the conference after she wrote an article about some of the comments Obama had made during the discussion.

Robin Givhan, a fashion critic and staff writer for The Washington Post, documented the highlights of the friendly chat between Obama and Jarrett.

Some of the highlights of the conversation included the former first lady’s thoughts on President Donald Trump’s inauguration as the Obamas prepared to leave the White House, the role she played during the 2008 election, her difficulty settling in as “the spouse” to the president, how she described her White House garden as a “subversive act” to garner trust with the public and her upcoming memoir. Of course Givhan also wrote about what Obama was wearing … after all, she is a fashion critic.

But following the publication of the article, according to Page Six, BET demanded Givhan leave the conference early amid claims that she had violated a “sacred space” by publishing the content of the conversation.

They also canceled a panel discussion that Givhan initially had been asked to moderate.

However, Page Six noted that BET’s claim that Obama’s discussion was “private” and not intended to be shared with anyone else outside the small gathering in attendance didn’t hold up to scrutiny given the fact that BET itself posted clips from the discussion on its site.

Furthermore, Jarrett also posted those clips on social media and told everyone to “tune in” to the network so they could hear what Obama had to say.

Shortly thereafter, the dispute descended into a sharp back-and-forth on social media between Givhan and others who were irked at what she had done, as can be seen on Givhan’s Twitter feed.

Several of her critics asserted that the conversation had been “off-the-record” — an assertion Givhan flatly denied — and one user claimed the reporter had “violated a sacred trust” between black women.

Another said what she had done was a “complete violation of journalistic ethics and Black girl code, all at once,” while still another asserted through a hashtag that Givhan was “#notoneofus,” as if she were being banished from the exclusive realm of accepted professional black women.

For their part, a BET representative told Page Six that Givhan had been “invited as a guest (not working press) to moderate a fashion panel,” and noted that her travel and lodging expenses had been paid for by the network.

“She was made aware that it was an intimate conversation in a sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship,” the rep added.

Neither Givhan nor representatives for Obama responded to requests for comment on the report from Page Six.

If the WaPo reporter really was instructed ahead of time that the conversation between Obama and Jarrett was “off the record” and a private affair, but published anyway, then BET was justified in booting her from the remainder of the conference — though the mean-spirited commentary she received on social media still crossed the line.

But if Givhan received no prior warning on the matter — and given the fact that BET itself published the conversation later — then this is just a major display of hypocrisy and unnecessary infighting.

What do you think?


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service