~ Featuring ~ 
   Making Schools Less Safe, California Style
 Michael Reagan
Appeals Court Revives Anti-Corruption 
Lawsuit Against Trump’s Businesses
by Kevin Daley
{ } ~ The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived a lawsuit alleging President Donald Trump’s continued ownership of a sprawling business empire violates anti-corruption provisions of the Constitution... A federal trial judge in New York City dismissed the case in December 2017 for lack of standing, saying the plaintiffs — a group of hoteliers and restaurant owners joined by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) — could not attribute declines in business to post-election interest in Trump properties. On appeal, the 2nd Circuit said the trial court had asked the plaintiffs to prove too much too early in the dispute.“The district court demanded too much at the pleading stage by requiring allegations that dispel alternative possible explanations for plaintiffs’ injury,” Judge Pierre Leval wrote for a 2-1 panel. “In so doing, the district court effectively required plaintiffs to prove, pre-discovery, the facts necessary to win at trial. This was error.” The decision creates the prospect of Supreme Court review, as the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Trump in a similar dispute brought by the attorneys general of Maryland and Washington, D.C., concerning the Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue. The justices generally take cases in which multiple courts disagree about the same questions of law. The full 4th Circuit is currently considering whether to review that decision. The New York plaintiffs brought their case under the Constitution’s emoluments clauses, which prohibit the president from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title” from foreign or domestic governments without congressional authorization. Trump did not divest of his business holdings when he became president. Though he turned day-to-day operations over to his children and established a trust for his assets, the president retained ownership over many of his business interests. As such, the plaintiffs claim they have lost business as foreign emissaries and domestic political actors flock to Trump properties in a bid to curry favor with the administration. The 2nd Circuit said the lawsuit could proceed under a theory of competitor standing. That means the plaintiffs will have a chance to prove that Trump’s allegedly unlawful conduct directly harms their ability to attract patrons. “Plaintiffs have plausibly pleaded that the president’s ownership of hospitality businesses that compete with them will induce government patrons of the hospitality industry to favor Trump businesses over those of the plaintiffs so as to secure favorable governmental action from the president and executive branch,” Leval wrote...  
Congress set to ignore Trump's wall 
request in stopgap measure
{ } ~ Lawmakers are preparing to ignore President Trump’s request to loosen restrictions on border wall funding as part of a short-term spending deal... The ask, included in the Trump administration’s 21-page wish list for a continuing resolution (CR), comes amid renewed tensions over the border ahead of a Sept. 30 deadline to avoid another government shutdown. The administration also announced recently it was moving forward with shifting $3.6 billion from military projects to wall construction. Congressional Republicans have stressed that they support the CR funding request, which would let the administration use money to build border barriers outside the Rio Grande Valley Sector. But now they’re sending early warning signals that they don’t expect the CR to include language granting the White House request. “Hopefully they can work out a deal where there’s maximum flexibility for the president when it comes to money for the wall, but I’m sure the Democrats will push hard back against that,” said Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) warned that “the administration asks for it, but the Democrats don’t have to give it.” Asked if Republicans could get Democrats to go along with including the administration’s request in a CR, Sen.Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who oversees the Appropriations subcommittee for Department of Homeland Security funding, added with a laugh: “I doubt it.”...   
Will McCabe Bring the FBI Down with Him?
By Daniel John Sobieski
{ } ~ The DoJ’s rejection of a last-ditch appeal by the legal team representing fired FBI Director Andrew McCabe and the recommendation by federal prosecutors that charges actually be filed against the documented liar, leaker... and co-conspirator in the attempted coup against duly elected President Donald Trump puts the deep state in a face-to-face confrontation with a potential legal Armageddon. An indictment will leave McCabe with no excuse for not carrying out his threat to bring them all down with him. Before his firing, McCabe sent a shot across  the bow of his co-conspirators in the plots to keep scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton out of prison and Donald Trump out of the White House, according to Fox News correspondent Adam Housely in a series of tweets reported by Gateway Pundit at the time of the firing: Fox News reporter Adam Housley reported on Twitter tonight about the firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, stating his sources were telling him that in the past few days McCabe threatened to “take people down with him” if he was fired...8:31 p.m. PDT: “I am told yesterday McCabe felt the heat and went to try and save his last two days and even told some he would take people down with him if he was fired. So…let’s see what comes of this. I know this…a ton of agents…a ton…were watching this very closely.” Investigative journalist Sara Carter confirmed McCabe’s threat on the March 16, 2018 episode of "The Ingraham Angle": CARTER: He lied. Plain and simple he lied. A lot of former FBI agents that I spoke to say I hope he's fired. Is he going to get fired today? That's all I kept hearing all day because they realize if they had done this, they would have been fired too. And there's a lot of ongoing investigations right now. This is not just about Michael Horowitz at the DOJ right now. Remember, there's a prosecutor looking into the unmasking, the FISA abuse that has been taking place with Carter Page in particular. So, we have a number of investigations and McCabe is worried. He's said over and over again, if I go down, I'm taking everybody else with me...   
Why Is Surprise Medical
Billing Congress' Problem?
By James C. Capretta
{ } ~ As Congress returns from its summer break, the effort to rein in surprise medical bills hangs in the balance. Physician and hospital groups are engaged in aggressive lobbying to derail the emergence of compromise legislation... or at least to water it down before it gets approved. Congress should ignore the industry and do what is necessary to protect patients who have no ability to avoid these bills on their own. Important as it is for Congress to act, policymakers also should consider why the insurance industry seems incapable of fixing this problem on its own, because the answer has implications for broader reform. Some of the most egregious examples of surprise bills are those that arise in conjunction with elective, hospital-based procedures. The patient goes through the trouble of selecting an in-network facility and primary physician often a surgeon only to get a bill later from one or several out-of-network ancillary providers, such as the anesthesiologist, radiologist, or pathologist associated with their care. An obvious question is why insurers don’t take steps to prevent such abusive practices from occurring in the first place. After all, their customers — the patients — are enraged when they get these bills, and insurers have the theoretical power to head off the problem. They already sign contracts with hospitals and surgeons to establish networks of preferred providers. Those same contracts could stipulate that in-network hospitals and surgeons are only allowed to work with in-network ancillary providers when caring for the insurers’ patients. That would eliminate surprise billing in many cases. Insurers say they don’t do this because it would hand market power to the ancillary providers. If the anesthesiologists in a community know that hospitals and surgeons need them to secure in-network status, they will demand inflated prices for their services. To avoid these costs, insurers choose instead to leave them out of their networks, which has the effect of exposing patients directly to the inflated prices in the form of surprise bills...   
Shi’ite Muslims worldwide mark Ashura by 
slicing their heads open, and those
of their children
{ } ~ FASCINATING images show devout Muslims using knives to cut open their heads during a traditional show of faith. Every year, thousands of Shia worshippers take part in the ceremonies... performed to mourn the death of Husayn ibn Ali, a grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. The commemorations take place on Ashura, the tenth day of the first month of the Islamic calendar. They mark Husayn’s death at the Battle of Karbala, fought between Husayn and Yazid I on October 10 680AD to determine who should succeed the prophet as the leader of Islam. Yazid is considered a tyrant by some Muslims, and Husayn’s death is considered by the Shia community to be a symbol of humanity’s struggle against injustice, tyranny, and oppression. The anniversary is a national holiday in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain, and Pakistan, and typically involves public expressions of mourning….Other rituals carried on Ashura include mourning processions, recitations of mournful poetry, and services in which the history of the Battle of Karbala is retold.  https://www.{/2019/09/shiite-muslims-worldwide-mark-ashura-by-slici...   
Making Schools Less Safe, California Style
 Michael Reagan

California politicians are up to their stupid legislative tricks again.

This time, the state Assembly has passed a law that says students from kindergarten to eighth grade can’t be suspended for “willful defiance.”

Senate Bill 419 will soon make it illegal for public and charter schools to suspend a student who disrupts school activities or otherwise “refuses to follow the valid authority of school personnel.”

For example, if a sixth grader refuses to take off his hoodie in a classroom, it’s defined as “willful defiance.”

The good news, I guess, is that under the bill, students can still be suspended for violence or bringing a weapon or illegal drugs to school.

California schools were already prohibited from suspending kids in kindergarten through third grade, which, given their young ages, made a certain amount of sense.

But the new bill extends the suspension ban to eighth graders, and, if I know California, and I do, it won’t be long before the suspension ban is extended to high schoolers who steal cars or deal heroin.

Believe it or not, California is not a pioneer in going soft on trouble-making school kids. The feds were.

Just ask Andrew Pollack, the father of Meadow Pollack, who was killed in the horrible Parkland, Fla., high school shooting last year that claimed 17 innocent lives.

Pollack’s new book — which you will see featured on Fox News but not CNN — is titled “Why Meadow Died: The People and Policies that Created the Parkland Shooter and Endanger America’s Students.”

As Pollack and his co-writer Max Eden found out after the Feb. 14, 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, everyone who worked at the school (including the janitor) knew the killer was a strange, gun-obsessed, hate-filled, stressed-out, mentally troubled kid from an early age.

While he was still in middle school, his therapist and the school psychiatrist knew that he was having dreams of killing people and being covered in blood.

One of his eighth-grade teachers wrote the future mass-murderer was “a danger to the students and faculty at this school.”

This was a kid who had to be frisked every time went into the high school.

This was someone who after a teacher said to him “You’re really a good kid” said, “No I’m not. I’m really bad. I want to kill people.”

This was a kid whose house was called upon dozens of times by Broward County police, starting at age nine.

This was a kid who threatened his fellow students and scared his neighbors, one of whom in 2016 warned on Instagram that he “planned to shoot up the school” two years before he did it.

In other words, school administrators and local cops knew for years that the future killer was a disturbed and potentially dangerous person, but never expelled him or filed any official charges against him.

Pollack says that the soft-on-troublemakers policy implemented in Broward County schools was a direct result of the one pushed by President scumbag/liar-nObama’s department of education.

It was part of scumbag/liar-nObama’s attempt to end the, “school-to-prison pipeline” by having schools not report various misdemeanors, including assault, committed by students to the authorities.,

Instead, students were to be disciplined in-school by participating in healing circles, obstacle courses and other self-esteem building exercises that don’t work too well on future mass killers.

In interviews this week, Pollack said he believes it was the system that killed his daughter, not a gun.

Because school and police officials did not press charges against an obviously demented and violent teenager, he had a clean record and there were no red flags raised to stop the purchase of the weapon he used to kill 17 people with.

Pollack has decided to devote his life to making schools safer and to make sure the mistakes made in Broward County by school and police officials do not happen again.

In California, the politicians are doing their best to make his mission even more difficult.   ~The Patriot Post  

Views: 7


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

Join Tea Party Command Center



Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Chip BokThe cartoonist's homepage,


YIKES!!! Chelsea Clinton Emphatically States A Person With A Beard And A Penis Can ‘Absolutely’ Identify As A Woman

  • The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification
  • In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons about transgender self-identification
  • Chelsea Clinton replied ‘yes’ emphatically when asked if someone with a beard and penis can ever be a woman
  • ‘It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently,’ Hillary said
  • Aitkenhead said Hillary became ‘uneasy’ when the question was asked while Chelsea shot a ‘furious stare’ at the journalist as her mother answered
  • Hillary added: ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw’

(Daily Mail) – It may appear Hillary and Chelsea Clinton always see eye-to-eye, but in a recent interview one topic cracked the facade of the like-minded mother-daughter power duo.

The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons if someone with a beard and a penis can ever be a woman, to which Chelsea replied emphatically, ‘Yes.’

However, as Aitkenhead describes it, Hillary looked ‘uneasy’, and blamed generational gaps for being less accepting.

‘Errr. I’m just learning about this,’ Hillary responded. ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw. It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently.’

The Clintons sat sown with Aitkenhead to promote the book they co-authored, The Book of Gutsy Women: Favorite Stories of Courage and Resilience.

The book features Danica Roem, the first trans woman elected to a U.S. state legislature.

According Aitkenhead’s account, she tells Hillary during the interview that many British feminists of Hillary’s generation have a problem with the idea that a ‘lesbian who doesn’t want to sleep with someone who has a penis is transphobic.’

Hillary nods in agreement, while Chelsea ‘stiffens and stares at me’, according to Aitkenhead.

The journalist then adds that many women of Hillary’s generation are uncomfortable with biological males sharing women’s bathrooms.

‘I would say that, absolutely,’ Hillary nods firmly. ‘Absolutely. Yes.’

That’s when Chelsea begins shooting a ‘furious stare’ at Aitkenhead, who points it out to her.

‘I’m a terrible actor’, Chelsea laughs.

Chelsea then says she is thrilled with the National Health Service’s decision to assign patients to single-sex wards according to the gender they identify as, instead of their biological make up.

‘How can you treat someone if you don’t recognize who they feel and know in their core they are?’ Chelsea says.

‘And I strongly support children being able to play on the sports teams that match their own gender identity,’ she adds. ‘I think we need to be doing everything we can to support kids in being whoever they know themselves to be and discovering who they are.’

At this point Hillary looks conflicted.

‘I think you’ve got to be sensitive to how difficult this is,’ Hillary says. ‘There are women who’d say [to a trans woman], ”You know what, you’ve never had the kind of life experiences that I’ve had. So I respect who you are, but don’t tell me you’re the same as me.” I hear that conversation all the time.’

Despite the clear tension in the room, the pair say they don’t argue about this topic.

But according to Aitkenhead, ‘I get the impression they don’t like to present anything less than a united front to the world.’

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service