TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
Eminent Domain and Protection 
for Private Property 
by Michael Swartz
.
Federal Appeals Court: Trump Supporters
Lawsuit Against San Jose California Will Proceed
by sundance
{ theconservativetreehouse.com } ~ In June of 2016 the Mayor and Police Chief of San Jose California made an intentional decision to allow candidate Trump supporters to be violently attacked... by a coordinated mob of radical leftists. In the days and weeks that followed it was discovered that an actual plan was put into place by city officials to assist the mob. Undercover police officers admitted they were given stand-down orders and watched as hundreds of Trump supporters were beaten and brutalized. A lawsuit was filed against the city of San Jose and the officials who coordinated the planned response. City lawyers have been trying to get the lawsuit dismissed: Supporters of Donald Trump attacked during a presidential campaign rally in 2016 won a ruling allowing them to proceed with a lawsuit against the city of San Jose, California, over claims that police failed to protect them from violence....
.
Right to Work in Peril in the Show-Me State
by ANDREW B. WILSON
{ spectator.org } ~ The most closely watched contest in the Aug. 7 elections in Missouri will not be any of the political races... it will be the resolution of an important policy question. In the referendum known as Proposition A, voters will have the final word on whether Missouri does, or does not, become the nation’s 28th state to enact right-to-work (RTW) legislation. Missouri has a RTW law — passed by the Missouri Legislature and signed by the governor in early 2017. It was supposed to take effect on Aug. 28, 2017. However, on Aug. 18, organized labor groups collected enough signatures to give voters the choice of implementing the law with a “yes” vote on Prop A or rejecting it with a “no” vote. A simple majority wins. At a labor rally in St. Louis on June 23, AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka joined with other labor leaders in proclaiming that RTW would set off a “race to the bottom” for all workers, not just union members. He said: “Proposition A will lower wages, destroy jobs, and increase poverty.” Naturally, no union boss who can limit the supply of labor to members of his own union wants to give up control over the labor market. Who wants competition — when you are in the cushy position of not having to compete? But the idea that competition is bad for growth and job creation is complete nonsense. In fact, RTW states have consistently outperformed forced-union states in job growth, personal income growth, and economic growth...
.
Bongino Unloads on Tucker Guest:
We Are All Dumber for Having Seen That
{ rickwells.us } ~ Former Secret Service agent and NRA TV personality Dan Bongino unloaded on Chris Hahn... a radio host and former staffer for New York dummycrats-Democratic Senator Chuck clown-Schumer. Bongino appeared on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” just moments after Hahn, and opened by saying, “I like Chris off the air a lot. He is a great guy, but we are all dumber for having seen that. We may have lost 10 IQ points. You noticed how he scrambled when you asked him a simple question.” During Hahn’s segment, he had explained that Sen. clown-Schumer meeting with Vladimir Putin in 2002 was acceptable because “it wasn’t 2016” and they were discussing an energy deal, not the presidential election. Hahn also argued that the Christopher Steele dossier was simply “opposition research” and it didn’t matter that the Russian government had used it to funnel false information into the liar-Clinton campaign...   https://rickwells.us/bongino-unloads-guest-dumber/
.
The Left’s Newest Star Is None Too Bright
by DAVID CATRON
{ spectator.org } ~ Since her surprise primary victory over 10-term Congressman Joe Crowley in New York’s 14th District, commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been promoted... by the legacy media as the prototype of a new generation of young progressives destined to replace the leadership of the dummycrats[-Democratic Party. Unfortunately for her media boosters, however, she keeps blowing her lines. It’s not just her rote advocacy of single-payer healthcare and guaranteed government jobs, or even that she backs wacky ideas like abolishing ICE and occupying airports — commie-Ocasio-Cortez is genuinely clueless. She outed herself, in several recent interviews, as functionally illiterate in economics, international relations, and history. During a PBS interview with Margaret Hoover, for example, commie-Ocasio-Cortez was unable to provide a coherent answer to a softball economics question that could have been successfully fielded by any Econ 101 student at a community college. According to her campaign website she “earned degrees in Economics and International Relations” at Boston University. But, when Hoover asked her to comment on the low unemployment rate, commie-Ocasio-Cortez revealed that she hasn’t a clue concerning how that statistic is calculated: “Well, unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their kids.” As our hypothetical Econ 101 student might phrase it: What the hell is she talking about? The number of jobs people work doesn’t affect the unemployment rate. This can be verified at the Bureau of Labor Statistics website, where the calculation is explained as follows: “This statistic reflects the number of unemployed people as a percentage of the labor force.” In June, the labor force totaled 162.14 million and there were 6.56 million people between jobs. Thus, the unemployment rate was 4 percent. Ironically, even if the number of people working multiple jobs was part of the unemployment calculation, commie-Ocasio-Cortez’s claim that “everyone has two jobs” is absurd. The actual figure is 5 percent...
.
State Department Trying to Kill Sanctions
on Terrorist Use of Human Shields
by Pamela Geller
{ gellerreport.com } ~ Human shields are illegal. So why does the left support Hamas? Because Islam trumps all... The State Department is said to be opposed to the legislation due to its hesitance to sanction groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, where the United States continues to provide massive amounts of military aid that has repeatedly made its way to Hezbollah forces. No surprise. Is there any Islamic terror group State doesn’t like. The Trump administration’s State Department is working to quash new legislation that would sanction international terror groups for using human shields, a battlefield tactic employed Hezbollah and Hamas, according to multiple U.S. officials familiar with the administration’s behind-the-scenes effort to nix the legislation. A bipartisan team of lawmakers, led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), recently introduced new legislation that would enable the United States to impose harsh sanctions on any foreign person or group caught using human shields during combat. The bill is the first of its kind to be introduced in the United States...   https://gellerreport.com/2018/07/state.html/ 
.

. 

Eminent Domain and Protection for Private Property 
by Michael Swartz:  While the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United campaign-finance decision generates plenty of political controversy, observers on both sides of the aisle contend that the most egregious error made by the Court so far this century was the 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London. That ruling reshaped the definition of “the public good” to include the government’s right to claim “eminent domain” over private property for purposes of economic development. In Kelo, it was successfully argued that this exercise of government power benefits the people in some small way through increased job creation and greater tax revenue, even when a private-sector developer pockets most of the profit.

             At the time, our Mark Alexander called Kelo a decision that “offended our Constitution.”
               Susette Kelo was the plaintiff in the case. She owned a modest house in New London, Connecticut — a house that stood in the way of a proposed development that backers said would create hundreds of jobs and abundant economic activity. By leveraging a proposed adjacent Pfizer research facility, the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) hoped to create a larger mixed-use development on a site that was then a modest working-class residential neighborhood. (Ironically, the plans included new housing, presumably on a more luxurious level than Kelo’s little pink house.)
               When Kelo and other landowners refused to sell, the NLDC, described in the case as “a private nonprofit entity established … to assist the City (of New London) in planning economic development,” took her and the other plaintiffs to court. The case was initially filed nearly three years after Pfizer announced its intentions and 10 months after the NLDC began purchasing properties in the neighborhood, taking more than four years to wind its way through the court system. This was a classic case of a group of working-class Davids vs. the Goliaths of government and special interests, with the libertarian Institute for Justice assisting Kelo and her fellow plaintiffs on a pro bono basis.
               While the iconic house was eventually disassembled and rebuilt by a previous owner in another part of town, the surrounding neighborhood was cleared out — only to remain  mostly undeveloped over a dozen years later as Pfizer backed out and other legal issues surfaced. Meanwhile, Kelo’s story inspired a book, which this past spring became the well-regarded movie “Little Pink House.” Over the years, public outrage from the Kelo  decision also has led to a number of states revamping their laws governing eminent domain.
               With the movie renewing interest in the topic, the Private Property Rights Protection Act unanimously passed the House by a voice vote, marking the fourth time since 2005 that the House has addressed the issue. In this instance, the bill from Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) contains an important “stick”: It “would make any state or locality that uses the economic development justification for eminent domain ineligible from receiving federal economic development funds for two years.”
               While the Senate’s docket is fairly full, there’s reason to believe the PPRPA may make it through before this Congress finishes its work. A bill that’s already popular with Republicans may well pass muster with dummycrats-Democrats just so they can score some political points before the midterm elections. The reason: They can remind voters that, for all his populist platitudes and the roaring economy, Donald Trump has a sordid history on the topic of eminent domain.
               Years ago, developer Trump had no compunction about seizing property when it stood between him and an enhanced limousine parking lot. “You’re talking about … a little group of terrible, terrible tenements; just terrible stuff, tenement housing,” Trump told John Stossel, then of ABC, in the 1990s. But Vera Coking, the owner of this particular “outparcel,” won her court battle against Trump.
               Stossel also notes that Coking turned down a previous million-dollar offer when Trump sought to acquire the land for $251,000 — far from “just compensation,” his lowball offer, said Stossel, made Trump a “manipulative bully.” With Trump’s history, passing a bill limiting eminent domain and daring the president to veto it would provide powerful political ammo for the Left.

              During the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump sold his nascent tax plan by promising, “In order to achieve the American dream, [this plan will] let people keep more money in their pockets and increase after-tax wages.” Susette Kelo put her money and sweat equity into a place where she believed she could make a better life for herself, only to see someone with deeper pockets push her out.
               It’s a wrong that should have been righted 13 years ago, and we ought not let the opportunity pass by again. The next Congress, after all, may not be as friendly to private property rights.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57383?mailing_id=3656&utm_mediu...

Views: 33

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 AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Angry Dem Impeachment ‘Witness’: Pam Karlan Donated Thousands To Hillary And Was On Clinton’s List For Potential SCOTUS Nomination

Image result for Pam Karlan

The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, kicked off its first impeachment circus Wednesday morning.

The four ‘witnesses’ testifying have never actually witnessed any of Trump’s dealings with Ukraine firsthand — the four witnesses are law professors offering legal analysis.

One of the witnesses the Dems rolled out is an angry Hillary Clinton donor who was on Crooked’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination.

No wonder why this unhinged, dowdy woman is so pissed off!

“Professor Pam Karlan donated thousands of dollars to Democrats and was on Hillary Clinton’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination. So she certainly has no vendetta against President Trump,” GOP Rep. Mark Walker said.

Congressman Walker also pointed out that Noah Feldman, the Dems first partisan witness in Wednesday’s hearing tweeted about impeaching Trump right after he was sworn in.

Rep. Mark Walker   RepMarkWalker

Meet Noah Feldman, House Democrats first partisan witness.

Look at the date of this tweet. He has been trying to get @realDonaldTrump impeached since 46 days into his presidency.

His reason? Trump criticized President Obama.

This is a sham impeachment with sham witnesses. https://twitter.com/NoahRFeldman/status/839185127494254592 

Noah Feldman @NoahRFeldman

Trump's wiretap tweets raise risk of impeachment http://bv.ms/2mY1ueX  via @BV

Rep. Mark Walker   RepMarkWalker
 

The next witness, Karlan, has donated thousands to Democrats and was on Hillary Clinton’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination.

So she certainly has no vendetta against @realDonaldTrump.

These witnesses are as serious as House Democrats impeachment case: not at all.

The entire sham show trial is stacked with partisan hacks who have wanted to impeach Trump from the moment he won in November of 2016.

Norm Eisen, the Democrats’ counsel who is blasting Trump and questioning witnesses in Wednesday’s show trial, tweeted about impeaching Trump before Donald Trump was even sworn into office!

Infantilization of Popular Culture

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service