The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
Why Democrats Voted
Against Bills to Protect Americans
by Susan Stamper Brown
 Liberal vs Leftist 
What is a liberal? Or maybe a better question is, what does the term liberal mean today? Well, according to Jacques Berlinerblau, a professor from Georgetown University who recently wrote an article for the Washington Post, there are liberals and then there are "radical leftists." Berlinerblau admits that American academia is mostly composed of liberal professors and that professors who identify as politically conservative are utterly underrepresented in America's halls of higher learning, with humanities departments in particular being the least politically diverse. In other words, leftist ideology is controlling most of the nation's colleges and universities.
          But while Berlinerblau rightly concludes that conservatives are not to blame for the recent havoc wreaked in places like Middlebury, UC Berkeley and Evergreen College, he also attempts to shift the blame away from liberals. According to Berlinerblau, three groups exist in academia: a small conservative minority, a sizable liberal contingent and the dominant radical left he blames for the current campus intolerance. The question remains, what is the difference between a liberal and a leftist?
          Berlinerblau's answer to that question ends up sounding more like a disagreement over the manner of application rather than over opposing ideologies. He cites as examples liberals' reactions to certain events, such as "liberals didn't exult over Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution," or that liberals didn't "refer to the victims of 9/11 as 'little Eichmanns.'" He also notes that "liberals are generally made highly uncomfortable by censorship, speaker boycotts, trigger warnings, safe spaces and the like." Berlinerblau's argument sounds eerily similar to the one made by Muslims who may reject the methods of Islamic terrorists, yet refuse to disavow radical Islamists.
          The truth is that modern liberalism stands in stark contrast to the classical liberal values expressed by our nation's Founding Fathers. It is today's conservatives who hold most closely to those classical liberal principles. Today's radical leftist social justice warrior is merely the logical manifestation of modern liberal ideology. Liberal and leftist is a distinction without a difference. It is modern liberalism that can be credited with teaching the ideology of socialism that glories in the utopian ideals of Karl Marx. It is modern liberalism that sees little value in Christianity and has long mocked Christians as backward fools. It is modern liberalism that has questioned the very nature of truth itself, opening a Pandora's box of relativism. No, Professor Berlinerblau, liberals may not like it, but the radical left is their creation.  ~The Patriot Post
Dems Obstruction Above All Else
Policies Costing Them With Voters
by Rick Wells
{} ~ Lou Dobbs has “a few thoughts for Democrats who can no longer control their venomous rhetoric and their outright lies, even though they must surely now realize that they are only further damaging their party... and all but eliminating the Dems’ remote chances of being competitive in the midterm elections.” Dobbs observes, “The Dems have been carrying out a campaign of ignorance and scorched earth mindlessness since President Trump was elected.” He reminds us of their schemes and claims of Russian collusion, the George Soros-Jill Stein recounts for liar-Clinton, and the vitriol of racist John Lewis who claimed that President Trump was not a legitimate president before he had even been inaugurated. Cabinet confirmations that took an average of 25 days to be approved, with the last not happening until April 27th are further evidence that the Democrats’ job one is obstruction. He notes their calls for impeachment since day one, without any basis of illegality, or Russian collusion...  
The Tragic Case of Charlie Gard
Highlights the Importance of Parental Rights
by Paul Diamond
{} ~ The tragic case of Charlie Gard, the British infant who will soon be taken off life support, has exposed the scale of the malfunction in the British family court system... This is a court system driven by ideological professionals and overseen by compliant judges who have lost their moorings in Judeo-Christian values. Charlie is a 10-month-old infant who suffers from an extremely rare and debilitating genetic disease and has already suffered significant brain damage. He cannot move his arms or legs and cannot breathe without the assistance of a ventilator. On June 8, the United Kingdom Supreme Court permitted the hospital to withdraw such support to enable Charlie to die with “dignity,” in its own words...
It's a Start - Congress to
Repeal the ACA Individual Mandate
by Kerry Lear
{} ~ Although Congress did not repeal the Affordable Care Act this summer like many Republicans had hope for, lawmakers are making a push to repeal the individual mandate of liar-nObamacare... which forces individuals without health insurance to pay high penalty fees. "The plan is separate from Republican efforts to repeal the health care law, and appears more likely to be adopted because it would be written into the annual spending bill for the Treasury and the I.R.S., writes the New York Times. "But it has a similar purpose: to weaken the health law that President Trump and Republicans in Congress want to dismantle." “None of the funds made available by this act may be used by the Internal Revenue Service to implement or enforce section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code,” states the bill. Section 5000A imposes the penalty on individuals without insurance...
Korean Nuclear Misperceptions

{} ~ The President of the Republic of Korea met with President Donald Trump last week. Very high on the agenda of the two President's was the threat posed by North Korea's increasingly aggressive and bellicose actions in the region... including the testing of nuclear weapons and the extensive test launch of dozens of ballistic missiles off all ranges including a most recent test of ICBM caliber. China, North Korea, the New York Time, the Wilson Center and a number of former high ranking US government officials, are pushing very hard for a freeze on North Korean missile testing and nuclear weapons tests as a prelude to unconditional "negotiations" with the United States. Such a "deal" would probably also include an end to "reciprocal" military exercises between the United States and the Republic of Korea and an end to our missile defense deployments. Such calls for diplomacy and negotiation are almost universally put forward but relying on a series of common assumptions that make such an approach-diplomacy-seem the only available means to "resolve" the "tensions" in the region...
Trump: CNN Took Wrestling GIF "Too Seriously," They Hurt Themselves "Very Badly"
CNN: Voter Fraud Allegations Are "BS", GOP Just Trying to Suppress Vote
How did Maxine Waters afford a 6,000 sq ft, $4.3 million mansion after working 40 years in government?
Fleitz on Russia intelligence: "I think this assessment was rigged"
113th Wing commander talks defending America
President Trump Honors Veterans and Participates in the Celebrate Freedom Rally
CNN Has Secured Its Place as "America's Fake News Leader"
Why Democrats Voted 
Against Bills to Protect Americans
by Susan Stamper Brown
{} ~ Only in Washington, D.C. will you find politicians so wrapped up in themselves, their party, crazed ideology, or something -- that they will not come together to pass legislation for the sake and safety of the American people.

Even though the House managed to pass two common sense, safety-focused bills on June 29, it is beyond comprehension that most Democrats voted against Kate’s Law and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act. The GOP did have a handful of rogue nays, but very few in comparison.

What were they thinking?

Whatever they were thinking, it had little to do with safety and security of Americans. Leftists do their best to hoodwink normal Americans into accepting their San Francisco-style values like the absurd presumption that it is moral to break federal immigration law and shelter those who illegally cross our borders instead of following the rule of law to protect U.S. citizens.

A little background on the two bills. Lawmakers introduced Kate’s Law after an illegal immigrant killed a beautiful, young San Francisco woman named Kate Steinle. Although her killer, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, had a lengthy list of felony convictions and multiple deportations, sanctuary city policies meant the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department would not honor a detainer issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs [ICE]. Sheriff officials said they found no active warrant for his arrest, so rather than contacting ICE to pick him up, they released him and the rest is history.

The San Francisco which Lopez-Sanchez found sanctuary in, Miss Steinle did not. Kate’s Law serves to enforce immigration laws already on the books, imposing mandatory minimum prison sentences for lawbreakers like Lopez-Sanchez should they reenter the U.S. post-deportation.

The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act cuts off federal grant money to safe harbor cities and forces sanctuary city leadership to take responsibility for their actions, opening the way for victims of illegal immigrant crimes to sue.

You would never know it from the uproar by the left, but we are only talking about illegal immigration, not legal immigration, albeit Washington Democrats and their corporate media sidekicks have an astonishingly tough time differentiating between the two.

The left’s obsession with protecting lawbreakers at taxpayers’ expense is baffling.  Taxpayers in San Francisco are set to foot the bill for a $190,000 lawsuit brought by an illegal immigrant who sued because a police officer had the audacity to obey federal immigration laws and report his whereabouts to ICE, reports CBS’s KPIX-TV.

It comes as no surprise that a Harvard-Harris Poll survey taken earlier this year found that 80 percent of voters surveyed reject sanctuary cities because they believe “local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with.”

Regardless of surveys or polls or public opinion, Senate Democrats will try to defeat these two bills using the lame excuse they have already raised that supporting this legislation might somehow ramp up fear in the immigrant community.

Apparently, there is nothing more petrifying than obeying the law.

Democrats’ fear of ramping up fear in the immigrant community is misdirected. They should instead focus on the fact that besides the Almighty, the only thing Democrats should fear is themselves. They alone are responsible for the mess they are in and the chaos they have created.

It would be nice to believe Senate Democrats will set aside their partisanship and emotions long enough to do what’s right by the American people to vote “yes” on this legislation.  But, if history is a prognosticator, don’t hold your breath.

So, with countenances drawn and somber defeat on their faces, Democrats will march lockstep into the 2018 midterm elections as weak on crime and weedy on principles as ever.

Views: 16


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

Join Tea Party Command Center



BREAKING: The Hillary Clinton Investigation
Just Caught Fire


© 2017   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service