TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~  
Deficit Spending as Far as the Eye Can See
Nate Jackson  
.
If Pulosi Believed Her Claims About Trump 
And Russia, She Would Impeach  
by David Marcus  
{thefederalist.com} ~ There was some sad news for progressives yesterday as House Speaker Nancy Pulosi told Washington Post Magazine that she will not pursue impeachment against President Donald Trump... It’s not just Pulosi: House intelligence committee Chairman scumbag-Adam Schiff also came out against trying to remove the president from office, saying “failed impeachment is a bad idea,” and that it can’t happen “in the absence of very graphic evidence.” The speaker claimed “he’s just not worth it,” but anyone who has read a newspaper or turned on the television in the past two years knows full well that if Democrats believed there were serious evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump, articles of impeachment would be flying out of printers in her office. Just back in January, speaking about the Roger Stone case, Pulosi said “It’s also bothersome his [Stone’s] and the president’s suggestion that’s that we should question whether we should be in NATO, which is a dream come true for Vladimir Putin.” Back in July of 2017, Pulosi promised there is “cold, hard evidence” of collusion between Russia and the Trump family. Less than a month ago, scumbag-Schiff was even more bullish on the collusion question. He told CNN, “You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence.” One thing is clear to any fair observer: if Pulosi and scumbag-Schiff really believed their outlandish rhetoric on Russian collusion, they would be moving to impeach the president. If they believed, as they previously claimed, that there is clear evidence to show Trump is in bed with Putin, they could not move fast enough to present that evidence and force Republicans to defend an obviously compromised commander in chief. The fact is, they don’t have the evidence, and they don’t expect Special Counsel dirty cop-Robert Mueller to provide it...
Open Borders Is Just Another Form Of 
Foreign Intervention Doomed To Fail  
by Benjamin Bossi 
{thefederalist.com} ~ Libertarian-leaning conservatives such as me understand that while the United States is an exceptional nation, we can’t alleviate the entirety of the world’s suffering... We tried to do just that in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and failed miserably. Why can’t libertarians extend this perspective to immigration? The United States cannot save the world by opening our borders. Its ills are too great and numerous. By taking in millions upon millions of immigrants, even legally, we dilute our political culture of ordered liberty and diminish our ability to be a beacon of freedom to the rest of the world. Meanwhile, we do little to nothing to alleviate the overall suffering of the vast majority of the world’s people. Is it worth it to help one million, two million, even ten million foreigners if we make the lives of 325 million Americans worse? When this question is posed in the context of foreign policy, libertarians will unanimously say no. Yet the worst big government neo-conservatives align with open borders libertarians not to mention open-borders leftists on immigration policy because neo-conservatives apply their naive worldview consistently to international issues. Libertarians must extend the realist, humble perspective that they apply to foreign policy to immigration policy. The United States can and should be an example for the rest of the world, but we cannot hope to rid the world of suffering, despite our best intentions. According to data compiled by the late Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, most immigrants come to the United States with decidedly left-wing views on everything from health care, to gun control, to the overall size of government. According to a study conducted by the Center for Immigration Studies’ James Gimple, most immigrants are more than twice as likely to identify with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party...
Are we underestimating Iran's
cyber capabilities?
by Annie Fixler
{thehill.com} ~ While Iran is unlikely to match the cyber capabilities of Russia, China, or even North Korea in the short term, this third-tier actor has already racked up some notable wins... Between 2011 and 2013, in some of their first forays into cyberwarfare, Iranian hackers cost U.S. financial institutions tens of millions of dollars and  knocked Saudi Aramco’s business operations offline for months. Over the past two years, Iranian hackers hit more than 200 companies around the world, inflicting hundreds of millions dollars’ worth of damage, according to a new Microsoft report. We downplay this evolving menace at our peril.  Too quickly, experts dismiss Iran’s  ability to conduct significant operations. After a February  breach of the Australian parliament, the Syndey Morning Herald reported that “Australian sources with detailed knowledge of the hack” dismissed a cybersecurity firm’s  attribution of the attack to Iranian hackers, claiming that Iran lacks the cyber skills necessary to conduct such a sophisticated operation. While the firm has provided insufficient data to draw definitive conclusions, analysts should not discount Iran out of hand. After all, Tehran did reportedly conduct a similar operation in 2017 against the British parliament. In that attack, hackers compromised dozens of email accounts belonging to lawmakers by identifying accounts with weak passwords and without two-factor authentication. While Downing Street has not publicly identified the hacker, British news outlets  reported that British intelligence has attributed the attack to Iran. In its annual Worldwide Threat Assessment, the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded that Iranian hackers are only capable of “causing localized, temporary disruptive effects.” Yet, the assessment also cautioned that “Iran uses increasingly sophisticated cyber techniques,” and is attempting to deploy capabilities to attack U.S. and allied critical infrastructure. In fact, as the cybersecurity firm FireEye warned in January, Iranian operations pose a threat to “a wide variety of sectors and individuals on a global scale.” A European Union report released the same month concluded that Iran will likely “intensify state-sponsored cyber threat activities.”...   https://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/433431-are-we-underestima...
.
AG William Barr Meets AG Advisory Committee, Chairman Richard Moore and 
Vice-Chair John Huber
by sundance
{theconservativetreehouse.com} ~ The U.S. Attorney General’s Advisory Committee (AGAC) was created in 1973 and reports to the Attorney General through the Deputy Attorney General... The AGAC represents the U.S. Attorneys and provides advice and counsel to the Attorney General on matters of policy, procedure, and management impacting the Offices of the U.S. Attorneys. The purpose of the AGAC is to ensure consistent interpretation and application of the Attorney General’s priority throughout the broad U.S. justice system. [28 CFR § 0.10] As much as possible pay attention to the dates and names (highlighted) as they each play an important role in understanding what has taken place in the past two years. Those November 2017 appointments included: U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama Richard Moore; U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah John W. Huber; U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jessie K. Liu; U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio Justin E. Herdman; U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina Robert Higdon; U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma Trent Shores; U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana Joshua Minkler; U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Jeff Jensen; and Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Alaska Bryan Schroder...
Why Trump Wins on National Emergency
 by Dov Fischer

{spectator.org} ~ Since passage of the 1976 National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1651, some 60 or so “national emergencies” have been declared by American Presidents...
 Approximately half have expired over time, and 32 “national emergencies” now are active, typically renewed annually. Quick — hide under your chair! Under the law, the President has authority to declare a “national emergency” as long as it falls within any of 136 statutorily prescribed areas. Among those areas, he may authorize military construction projects using any existing defense appropriations for such military constructions: In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake  military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces. Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated. The President has declared a “national emergency” at the southern border and wants already-approved funds to be redirected towards construction of the ubiquitously discussed wall. Although his declaration should have included explicit references to the crises of human trafficking and opioid smuggling at the border, he did lay out the case for declaring an immigration emergency. Invoking his statutory authority, the President declared in pertinent part: By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), [I] hereby declare that a national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States, and that section 12302 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked.… To provide additional authority to the Department of Defense to support the Federal Government’s response to the emergency at the southern border, I hereby declare that this emergency requires use of the Armed Forces and, in accordance with section 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1631), that the construction authority provided in section 2808 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretary of Defense and, at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, to the Secretaries of the military departments. He has that authority, and he wins under the law. OK...  https://spectator.org/why-trump-wins-on-national-emergency/?utm_sou...
.
.
Deficit Spending as Far as the Eye Can See
Nate Jackson:  President Donald Trump’s fiscal year 2020 budget proposal will be released today, revealing his priorities for the next decade and beyond. Frankly, that’s all a president’s budget does — Congress routinely says, “Yeah, thanks,” and then promptly ignores every president’s budget. But what does Trump prioritize? Primarily two things: the military and the border wall.

Trump will propose a big boost for the Pentagon, $8.6 billion in new funding for a border barrier, and what The Washington Post says are “major spending cuts across a range of domestic government programs.” Reportedly, that’s a 5% reduction in nondefense discretionary spending amounting to $2.7 trillion.

In practice, however, what are “major cuts” in Beltway Speak are actually slight reductions in the growth rate. Despite media messaging that permeates even many other conservative outlets, actual cuts — i.e. literally spending less year over year — are rare.

The Post notes, “The government now has more than $22 trillion in debt, and the deficit is projected to run between $900 billion and $1 trillion in the coming years.” Of those numbers, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) rightly complains, “Consider that the president’s budget proposes we spend vastly more money than we take in for 15 years, bust the spending caps again, leave ourselves with about a trillion dollars in deficit spending in fiscal 2020, accumulate debt well over $30 trillion by 2030, and lead us to spending more in interest payments than we do on Social Security or defense.”

Indeed, under Trump’s plan, eliminating the deficit will now take 15 years. “Even with deep spending cuts, the president’s plan would not balance the budget until the mid-2030s,” the Post reports, “falling short of the 10-year time frame that Republicans have sought for years.” Ever notice that we never actually get closer to the end of that 10-year window? Republicans and Democrats alike have been promising to “eliminate the deficit in 10 years” since the last time the federal government had a budget surplus in fiscal 2001. Funny how future Congresses and presidents have their own agendas, including kicking the can down the road.

The media deride the tax cuts for that shift in time frame, but the reality is that Trump campaigned on not touching two of the Big Three major entitlements — Social Security and Medicare — and those programs are the primary drivers of deficit spending and national debt. And most Americans just don’t want the reforms needed to change that.

As for the military, it does indeed need a buildup after years of war and Barack scumbag/liar-nObama’s policies, so a boost is all well and good. And yes, the border barrier should be a priority, but we all know how well the shutdown worked out for security funding. “scumbag-Chuck and Nancy” are no warmer to the idea of giving Trump what he wants now than they were in December. “Congress refused to fund his wall and he was forced to admit defeat and reopen the government,” the pair warned in a statement. “The same thing will repeat itself if he tries this again. We hope he learned his lesson.”

Few in Washington ever really learn lessons. They just keep spending the money of future generations.  ~ The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/61679?mailing_id=4126&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4126&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

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 Tom Stiglich

Political Cartoons by Lisa BensonPolitical Cartoons by Gary Varvel

ALERT ALERT

CONFUSION:   Pelosi Says Constitution Spells Out ‘Two Co-Equal Branches’ Of Government

No Nancy. No.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi must be taking night classes at the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez School of Government.

Pelosi, the 79-year-old third-highest ranking official in the U.S. government, was speaking to the Center for American Progress today when she mistakenly said there are “two co-equal branches” of government, before correcting herself to say there are three.

Watch:

“First of all, let me just say, we take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” Pelosi said.

“Democrats take that oath seriously, and we are committed to honoring our oath of office. I’m not sure that our Republican colleagues share that commitment, and I’m not sure that the president of the United States does, too,” she claimed.

“So, in light of the fact that the beauty of the Constitution is a system of checks and balances— two co-equal branches— three co-equal branches of government,” she corrected with a laugh.

“A check and balance on each other,” she continued. “Con— Constitution spells out the pri— pa, uh, the duties of Congress and one of them is oversight of the president of the United States, another one of them is to impeach the president of the United States,” Pelosi said.

In November, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rallied supporters on Facebook to pitch in and help Democrats take back “all three chambers of Congress.”

“…the Progressive movement works and it wins in all districts…If we work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress– three chambers of government…,” she said during the virtual appearance.

She clarified that she meant the “presidency, the Senate and the House.”

According to the Constitution, the three branches of government are the legislative, executive and judicial.

Below: Nancy Pelosi is continuing to promote the false narrative that President Trump is involved in a cover-up and therefore may be guilty of an impeachable offense. Millie Weaver joins Alex to break down the propaganda being used to overturn the democratic election of 2016 

SPECIAL VIDEOS

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service