TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
Roe v. Wade and the Confusion 
of Sen. rino-Collins 
by Bill Murchison 
.
Secretary Pompeo Arrives in Japan 
To Brief Prime Minister Shinzo Abe
by sundance
{ theconservativetreehouse.com } ~ One of the strongest geopolitical alliances exists between the U.S. and Japan... President Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe are not only good friends, but also work well together toward regional goals for a denuclearized Korean peninsula. Additionally, the U.S-Japan alliance is bolstered by a respectful economic partnership; and the appearance of Secretary Pompeo arriving in Japan to brief Prime Minister Abe on his discussions with the DPRK also highlights the importance of the relationship.   https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/07/07/secretary-pompeo-ar...
.
No, President Trump Is Not Purging The Military Of Immigrants
by JEFF SCHOGOL and ADAM LINEHAN
{ taskandpurpose.com } ~ The Department of Defense is strongly disputing a recent article by the Associated Press that suggests the United States Army has begun purging its ranks of non-U.S. citizens... as the Trump administration ramps up efforts to crack down on illegal immigration. The July 5 article centers on the plight of immigrant recruits attempting to enter the military through the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) program, which was launched in 2008 to attract more recruits with critical skills such as doctors, nurses, and those who speak strategically valuable languages like Chinese, Dari, Farsi, and Russian by offering them an expedited path to citizenship. Service members who’ve enlisted through the MAVNI program represent only a small percentage of immigrants in the military, the vast majority of whom joined through the same channels as their U.S.-born counterparts. Titled “US Army quietly discharging immigrant recruits,” the AP story reports that “some immigrant U.S. Army reservists and recruits who enlisted in the military with a promised path to citizenship are being abruptly discharged.” The story implies that institutionalized xenophobia might be behind the a recent spike in the number of MAVNI recruits being “booted” from the program...
.
Devin Nunes: Evidence Underlying Carter Page FISA 
Warrant Was “Fraudulent"
by sundance
{ theconservativetreehouse.com } ~ HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on Fox News with Jeanine Pirro to discuss the ongoing investigations into the DOJ, FBI and State Department.   https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/07/07/devin-nunes-evidenc...
.
100 Days of Fire 

by Tsvi Sadan
{ israeltoday.co.il } ~ For the last 100 days not a single day has passed in which fields and forests were not set ablaze by Hamas kites and balloons... During these 100 days, Israel did next to nothing to stop Hamas from burning Israel's southern Negev region. Justifying Israel's policy of containment and appeasement is possible only by trying really hard. Containment and appeasement, the legal daughters of defeatism, have accompanied Jews in exile for a very long time. In exile, where they were a defenseless, persecuted minority, containment and appeasement were entirely understandable, a necessary evil that allowed Jews to survive. This approach to conflict resolution is recited three times a day at the conclusion of the Amidah prayer – "let my soul be mute to those who curse me and let my soul be as dust before all." Two thousand years of recitation have done their job, and made this approach second nature, a habit difficult to abandon. And it is not as if we haven't tried. From the 1920s to the 1940s, the Jewish society in Israel was deeply divided between those who opposed appeasement (revisionists) and those who supported it (labor parties). Back then, those supporting appeasement feared that retaliation would endanger the small and vulnerable Jewish population in mandatory Palestine. Containment, then, was believed to be an effective way to appease the Arabs and the British, but it never really worked out that way...
.
Exalted Righteousness, Tawdry Methods Lead to Walk Away
by Clarice Feldman

{ americanthinker.com } ~ Victor Davis Hanson, writing in American Greatness, surveys how history’s bad ideas inspire the “progressives.”... He focuses on the plans for court packing, the resegregation of students in universities, the growing movements to censor speech, restaurants’ decision to refuse service to those whose views they disagree with and local governments’ nullification of laws sanctuary cities. The common themes in all these schemes are innate to progressivism. To survive and spread, exalted righteousness always excuses tawdry methods, given the supposed ignorance and gullibility of the unenlightened. Short-term expediency is well worth the goal of regaining power. Any smell from low tactics later can be perfumed away -- once power is back in the correct hands. Unfortunately for them, it seems not to be working so well this time. The growing #WalkAway movement, in which lifelong dummycrats-Democrats publicly announce they are walking away from the party, shows they supposed wrong about “the ignorance and gullibility of the unenlightened.”...
.
JW Videos of the Week
DOJ is Thumbing its Nose at Congress, Trump
.
Tom Fitton’s Video Weekly Update – July 6, 2018
.
Attorney of Strozk’s Claims are a Publicity Stunt
.
Call Your Congressman and Demand Action on scumbag/mad-Maxine Waters
http://jwatch.us/oK8geJ via @JudicialWatch
.
Mueller should testify on Capitol Hill
.
NSA deletes over 685 million phone, text records
.
.
.
Roe v. Wade and the Confusion 
of Sen. rino-Collins 

by Bill Murchison

{ townhall.com } ~ Neat! We know what the Supreme Court debate is all about -- the debate, that is to say, over who shall take retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy's seat.

The debate is about abortion.

Or so declares Sen. rino-Susan Collins, the Republican moderate from Maine, whose vote could prove essential to confirmation of whatever nominee the White House puts forward: "A candidate for this important post who would overturn Roe v. Wade would not be acceptable to me. That would indicate an activist agenda that I don't want to see a judge have. And that would indicate to me a failure to respect precedent."

Where to begin? Almost anywhere, I warrant.

Let's start with the right to abortion, a piece of Supreme Court craftsmanship from 1973. No authority, prior to the Roe decision, had believed, or asserted, that the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy lay draped, undiscovered, in the folds of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Aha, said seven justices, speaking for the court. Here it is! We had to search, but we found it: No law can take from any woman the basic if previously undiscovered right to an abortion.

And that was that. Supposedly. Except that the country soon learned that perhaps half our fellow citizens either thought the high court was out of its mind, or else accepted that abortion might be permissible under circumstances less sweeping than laid out in Roe. A likely never-to-be-finished controversy began almost the minute the justices went to lunch.

But a Supreme Court nominee unpledged to last-ditch defense of the Supreme Court's 1973 job of judicial engineering wouldn't get Sen. rino-Collins' vote.

You don't say. I duly note that this is the nature of things when law and the divergent art of politics collide. Don't look for the logic in these occasions.

The second thing to notice here is Sen. rino-Collins' adamancy as to what she calls precedent. If the court said it -- by golly -- that's it! Dissenters, be off!

Sure would have been fun in the 1950s and '60s watching the future Sen. rino-Collins, or her intellectual avatars, attack Brown v. Board of Education -- the school desegregation case -- for its disregard of precedent. Precedent cf Plessy vs. Ferguson, 1896, and Lum v. Rice, 1927 was squarely on the side of the states' claimed right to segregate the races. In Brown, the court said dismissively, "Plessy v. Ferguson is overruled." Minds change; the world moves on. The higher truths endure; not so, in every case, the interpretations we fallible folk put on things.

I do hope Sen. rino-Collins is not downing one dry martini after another, hoping to blot out the dire prospect of a Brown-like overrule of Roe. As a piece of judicial mischief -- unanchored, that is to say, in precedent or moral reasoning, Roe deserves to fall on its face in the mud. However, I don't think that's likely to happen. Not in our own time, anyway.

Roe, by now, due to the love it inspires in feminist activists and their well-wishers -- due as well to the culture's acclimation to the idea of detaching sex and its consequences from childbirth -- enjoys enormous support. That it doesn't deserve such support is beside the point, politically speaking. Were the Supreme Court suddenly to sweep Roe down the back steps, with the household dust and dead insects, there would occur such tumult as the political process is not well fitted for. A likelier near-term prospect than reversal is gradual acceptance by the court of state laws making abortion harder and more expensive to achieve. This, while -- maybe -- the moral environment becomes friendlier to the idea that bringing new humans into the world is not the bad or oppressive thing it is often said to be.

In any case, how useful to note Sen. rino-Collins' confusion between the abiding principles of law and the politics of the moment. It is a very modern kind of confusion, making the stakes in Supreme Court confirmation hard to discern. It is enough to know the present stakes are altitudinous: far, far less about Roe v. Wade than about prospects for the survival of American freedoms.

Views: 12

Comment

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

Join Tea Party Command Center

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service