Monday AM ~ thefrontpagecover

TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~  
Fake News About Fake News
5woKphIfezBvcw8xe_odeUPJuKY_DmVlCpeKkJlEJwI7Z7hp4eUkr8aIXuDkRRv-HASS2Tfitdo8piLAfl0tzba8DVQh421gGut98iI5lLvfBZS1L7fBPgPc07K5tfUzvjUanVMxqKtlAuq7QNshwlxcO3oJq1mgNYttLNA=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
Nate Jackson  
AGHnzvDgAIc_dkrUO59jF21LrUmiQ79dA3RIshU-YlAdfSFPOhc54BmJs1OTRtvnrEX-cCbeiMVXdurlydL03p7YzXsWg_6cAavWTIOYU1PogQU4ftAjtXM=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
.
Social Security Will Be Insolvent in 16 Years
IBGNY3vt3mHi1zjZyTMGUN-ijD80UANH5JCmZMCvuNtdfpbOGLVtY4B-OJKqC3_XKIOVs_fetifDSIo5ERVBUnJYlKqh6EjmW77wK9KBnZmc8VX-DjihyvVazYS9iGHTick0rpz_cbjl3bNu5JPoKyGO05WPUPFoHqJ6h1c=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710xby Eric Boehm
reason.com } ~ Social Security will be insolvent and unable to pay the full value of promised benefits by 2035—that's one full year later than previously expected... and Social Security's costs will exceed its income by 2020, according to a new report published Monday by the program's trustees. At the end of 2018, Social Security was providing income to about 67 million Americans. About 47 million of them were over age 65, and the majority of the rest were disabled. If nothing changes, the Social Security Trust Fund will be fully depleted by 2035 and the program would impose across-the-board cuts of 20 percent to all beneficiaries. That may sound like it's a long way off, but 51-year-old workers today will be just hitting retirement age when the cuts kick in. Some current retirees will still be younger than 80. By that point, some parts of Medicare will already be unable to cover the full cost of benefits. The trustees' report released Monday shows that the trust fund for Medicare Part A, which covers hospital and nursing home costs, will be gone by 2026. Medicare Part B, which covers routine medical care like visits to the doctor, and Medicare Part D, which covers prescription drugs, are on more solid footing and will remain solvent "indefinitely." It is important to remember that insolvency is not the same as bankruptcy. By 2026 and 2034, respectively, Medicare and Social Security will not have enough money to pay the full cost of their obligations, but that's not the same as saying they'll have no money at all. It's also important to keep in mind that these projections are constantly shifting based on economic data, demographic trends, and actuarial projections. Last year, Social Security was supposed to hit insolvency in 2034. The year before, the trustees said insolvency wouldn't hit until 2037. It's a moving target, but time keeps on slipping and ignoring the looming crisis won't make it go away...
.
A Federal Judge Has 
Defied the Law to Protect Abortion
ylWEkfgDAMYNpraVdaZyfp5FXMx_ELv4DIhiudhQQ9oUaABs5Q13yph_YjrwHU4DNiYbS0OI5hENfHswzJfoRGPR5KeA2bJW6cd0UcZ2B6j9NeY8mWVT8qjFCw7onGtzW-XWLr3aCTv79S7D3Iwi7g2zoPgT03bt77rZ2wJ1WA=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710xby David French
nationalreview.com } ~ Honestly, after two years of nationwide injunctions, ludicrously expanded standing rules, and blatant disregard for precedent, it’s become hard for the judicial #resistance to surprise... If there is a Trump regulation they can block — at least temporarily — they will do so, sound reasoning be damned. But even my cynical heart received a jolt at the sheer brazenness of Judge Stanley Bastian, from the Eastern District of Washington.  Yesterday he issued yes, of course a nationwide injunction   blocking implementation of the Trump administration’s new Title X regulations — regulations that were a milder version of the Reagan administration’s so-called “gag rule” against abortion counseling by Title X recipients. Whereas the Reagan rule prohibited Title X projects from counseling or referring for abortion, the Trump rule limits the referral. Both the Trump and the Reagan rules required physical and financial separation of Title X projects from abortion-related activities. But here’s what makes Judge Bastian’s decision so brazen. The stricter Reagan rules were upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in Rust v. Sullivan, one of the seminal abortion decisions of the Rehnquist Court. The Court noted that Title X itself states that “none of the funds appropriated under this subchapter shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning” and then held that the Reagan rule — which, again, prohibited even abortion counseling — “plainly allowed the Secretary’s construction of the statute” and that the administration’s break with past regulatory practice was supported by “reasoned analysis.” Given this on-point Supreme Court precedent, you would think that a judge contradicting it would engage in searching analysis of why the Court’s ruling doesn’t govern the case. The Affordable Care Act, for example, does contain provisions prohibiting regulations that “interfere with communications regarding a full range of treatment options between the patient and the provider” or that create “unreasonable barriers to the ability of individuals to obtain appropriate medical care.” But the ACA does not disturb Title X’s prohibition against use in programs “where abortion is a method of family planning,” and that is the key language the Supreme Court used to uphold Reagan’s rule...   https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/a-federal-judge-has-defied-the-law-to-protect-abortion/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=theinsider&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTVRRMll6VmtNV1l3WlRoayIsInQiOiJKUERNZWM1cXN1VmNXbUtOMXUyZHVadnBEbFhLeFFQNEVoK0E0SWUxc0Fra1BKVzBVNGd5MmpxbjN1OVhrN2oySTJvekFISVwvVWVSTHQxdVZBVWd2czJCaWpsMklxcEtLR0xjSkUzSEtGWVFmbUttS05ReUNHZVZ4Q0FsZWZmUUcifQ%3D%3D  
.
This Special US Banking Program for 
Illegal Aliens Will Infuriate You
V6EuArxFT5blnJ_rqhClfM6dM5e4QrE-kUPdxa_d6VtHq6AE6dK6lHYdIDq197wQzIAUoM1Uf-sCbyCHTD_-rYUnaHhDT9OM0j5ZTytDVhmzVDkBLyOpIFzciZi851g7PRFrieZERM6-ys68WboD5XatGvs=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
by americanlibertyreport.com:  The remittance payments that illegal aliens send back home to Mexico, after stealing jobs meant for Americans and paying no taxes on their wages, seem a bit… unfair.... A lot of Americans would probably like to sign up for that. All the money that you make at your job, for example, may be intended to benefit members of your immediate family. Therefore, wouldn’t it be nice to be able to pay no taxes on your salary, simply by claiming, “But the money is for my family!” Alas, you can’t get a sweet deal like that in America. That’s only a benefit that illegal aliens in our country get to enjoy. If you’re an American and you do happen to have family overseas, you’ve probably noticed that it’s a bit expensive to wire money to them. According to Lending Tree, here are the international wire transfer fees that Americans must pay at their banks to send money to a foreign country. Bank of America, Citi, PNC and Wells Fargo all charge $45 per transfer. Chase, SunTrust and US Bank each charge $50 per transfer. BB&T charges $65 per transfer. The average cost for Americans to send an international wire transfer from these banks is a little over $48 per transfer. That will buy you a tank of gas and some biscuits & gravy in most places. Oh, but there is one banking program administered through the Federal Reserve which allows you to send foreign wire transfers for just $0.67 per transaction. Unfortunately, you must be an illegal alien sending untaxed remittance payments home to Mexico in order to participate in this special, exclusive program. Crossing the border illegally has so many benefits!...
.
Hannity to Leave Fox News Partially Due to Lack 
of Trump Support, According to New Report
BpNTD_9TfIkuprdjtnelKG2MBJIPIXK5OfShXuqlwJVDfLjrBzCNMiMe7teaE7dVOurCy6xuhFYv060vTB1xIUifksEXm8tDaB12OidsFU2bcfBf854wJN1JyBx0qFSAMNnS=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710xby Todd Neikirk
hillreporter.com } ~ Donald Trump has been very unhappy with Fox News lately. First the president lamented that the network hosted a town hall for commie-Bernie Sanders. Last week... he tore into the liberal leanings of hosts, Arthel Neville, Leland Vittert and Shepard Smith. It seems that Trump is not the only prominent conservative who is having issues with Fox’s oversight. Host Sean Hannity has reportedly told friends that he plans to leave the network in 2021 due in part to the Murdochs’ lack of support for the president. The Murdoch family owns the network. A Fox News staffer told Vanity Fair, “Sean doesn’t feel supported. He has no relationship with Lachlan Murdoch. Sean thinks, Wait a second, I was hired to get ratings and I get ratings, but now people are embarrassed about me? He feels Fox spends a lot of time supporting Shepard Smith but his show makes no money. That’s annoying to him.”The relationship with Rupert Murdoch’s sons seems to be a tipping point for Hannity. He has also lost some significant allies in former network president’s Roger Ailes and Bill Shine. In fact, a second source told Vanity Fair that Hannity “told Trump last year that the Murdochs hate Trump, and Hannity is the only one holding Fox together.” While not on the level of Laura Ingraham or Tucker Carlson, Hannity has lost some significant sponsors. His support for Roy Moore during a 2017 special election cost him advertising spots from companies like Peloton and Cars.com. But the main problems between Hannity and the network goes back to Lachlan and James Murdoch. James is reportedly looking to invest in some media outlets that lean more liberal than conservative. Those kind of investments could spell the end of the relationship between Hannity and Fox News.
.
NRA president says he won't serve second 
term amid turmoil in gun rights group
FX_O6tCIXPG6ZgEiEy372iPi_LE6TnjUq8RknfhHlqeAcZQyk9jhDi6OjAQ58jMiu0o1wdxdhmgqjqEv8pkHrOgIFZVSuD1tg7uEHcR-8NZEFVDd8Z4hY8U68pNtDLDP8NfphvOGPsL7VvNOacK4kurc7Mg4C4-3-sPwrXOWW_RSalq53mrN3YHL=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
by Lukas Mikelionis 
foxnews.com } ~ National Rifle Association President Oliver North said Saturday that he won’t serve a second term as the leader of the gun-rights group... The resignation came amid internal power struggle among the leadership that has recently engulfed the group, culminating in a public fallout on Friday when a letter by NRA’s executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, the effective public face of the organization, was published in which he accused North of pressuring him to resign. “Please know I hoped to be with you today as NRA president endorsed for reelection. I’m now informed that that will not happen,” North said in a letter read out by a board member Saturday. He said that the NRA should form a committee to probe the group’s finances, adding that it represents a “clear crisis” that “needs to be dealt with” if the organization wants to remain a viable organization. In a separate letter dated Thursday to NRA board members, meanwhile, LaPierre said North asked him to resign on Wednesday. North told LaPierre the NRA’s longtime advertising firm, Ackerman McQueen, planned to send a letter to the board through North that would be “bad for me” unless he resigned.  “Yesterday evening, I was forced to confront one of those defining choices — styled, in the parlance of extortionists — as an offer I couldn’t refuse,” the letter, which was obtained by the Wall Street Journal, read. “I refused it.” He added that North said “the letter would not be sent — if I were to abruptly resign,” noting that “He stated that he could ‘negotiate’ an ‘excellent retirement’ for me.”...
.
AGHnzvDgAIc_dkrUO59jF21LrUmiQ79dA3RIshU-YlAdfSFPOhc54BmJs1OTRtvnrEX-cCbeiMVXdurlydL03p7YzXsWg_6cAavWTIOYU1PogQU4ftAjtXM=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
.
Fake News About Fake News
5woKphIfezBvcw8xe_odeUPJuKY_DmVlCpeKkJlEJwI7Z7hp4eUkr8aIXuDkRRv-HASS2Tfitdo8piLAfl0tzba8DVQh421gGut98iI5lLvfBZS1L7fBPgPc07K5tfUzvjUanVMxqKtlAuq7QNshwlxcO3oJq1mgNYttLNA=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
Nate Jackson:  “The Press Didn’t Just Report Accurately on Trump-Russia Corruption. It Prevented the Corruption From Being Worse.” So read a headline at Slate yesterday over a story in which the site’s “chief news blogger,” Ben Mathis-Lilley, argued that the Leftmedia basically got the collusion narrative right all along (though, notably, he used the word “corruption,” not “collusion”). As reporters discovered tidbits, he insisted, Donald Trump and his staff were forced to change course and not actually collude with Russia because of the accurate reporting.

But Mathis-Lilley and his colleagues at Slate are hardly the only ones claiming this absurd revisionist history. CNN’s Shimon Prokupecz claimed dirty cop-Robert Mueller’s report“really corroborated a lot of the good journalism that was done.”

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake boasted, “The dirty cop-Mueller report was by and large an affirmation of the mainstream media’s investigative reporting. Almost all the big stories were confirmed in the report.”

And the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman insisted, “The report confirms a lot of the reporting by NYT, WaPo and others about the president’s actions, many of which he or his advisers denied in real time.”

While the Leftmedia’s own “fact-checkers” may award points for truth-telling in that some specific claims were indeed factual, from a strategic standpoint it’s hard to unpack how delusional these boasts are. So we’ll focus on just two overarching points.

First, the Leftmedia spent more than two years reporting that Trump had colluded with Russia, not that their reporting stopped him. These scribes may congratulate themselves, but their reporting didn’t even rise to the level of one of Hollywood’s films “based on a true story.” The entire collusion narrative was based on totally fabricated lies, as dirty cop-Mueller’s report made painfully clear. That a few reporters got some facts right while reporting fake news is irrelevant.

Second, a journalist’s job is not necessarily to prevent corruption, as the second part of Slate’s headline claims the media did. It’s true that preventing corruption may be a desired byproduct of good reporting in that no politician wants to get caught, but the idea that journalists should be activists is one of the main problems driving the bias in the media today. Journalism students are taught by leftist academics that they can “change the world,” and these young people then go out into journalism careers thinking their “progressive” mission is to fight everything on the Right. It’s putting it mildly to say that being blinded by partisan advocacy is not conducive to good journalism.

Speaking of blind squirrels, even scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton alluded to this nut when she observed in her op-ed that “Watergate offers a better precedent” for going after Trump. Who brought Richard Nixon down? Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein — the idols for subsequent generations of Leftmedia activists.

We find ourselves agreeing with Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi, who argues, “It’s shocking to see national media voices after the release of dirty cop-Robert Mueller’s report patting each other on the back, congratulating themselves for a three-year face plant they must know will haunt the whole business for a long time.” Leftmedia activists learned nothing, and they’re celebrating themselves for it.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/62635?mailing_id=4233&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4233&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  



E-mail me when people leave their comments –

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

Join Command Center