TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
Family Separation Not 
Trump Administration's Fault
by Hans von Spakovsky 
.
Wednesday Top Headlines 
by Media Editors:  As NATO summit begins, Trump says allies “must pay more,” the U.S. “must pay less” (CNS News)
.
Trump challenges NATO on defense spending (BizPac Review)
.
Trump’s “fresh eyes” spark massive federal reform (Washington Examiner)
.
dummycrats-Dems attack, but know they don’t have the votes on Brett Kavanaugh (The Hill)
.
How significant is rino-McCain’s cheerleading for Kavanaugh? (Hot Air)
.
Here’s what happened the last time dummycrats-Democrats tried to deny Kavanaugh a court seat (The Daily Signal)
.
Illegal border crossing would be felony offense under proposed GOP bill (Fox News)
.
Sen. Lankford: Some illegal alien parents don’t want to take their children back (CNS News)
.
DNA tests, criminal charges complicate effort to reunite illegal alien families (The Washington Times)
.
Judge warns Trump administration to stick to deadline on family reunification (The Hill)
.
Trump hits two more countries with visa sanctions for refusing to take back deportees (The Daily Caller)
.
Trump administration details $200 billion in new tariffs on China (Washington Examiner)
.
rino-Jeff Flake says Senate will vote on resolution opposing Trump’s tariffs (Washington Examiner)
.
The case for civil disobedience in Oregon (National Review)
.
U.S. will become world’s top oil-producing country (Bloomberg News)
.
YouTube will use “quality news” sources to fight fake news (The Daily Signal)
.
commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with another surprise election win — in a district she wasn’t even running in (New York Daily News)
.
Trump pardons Oregon cattle ranchers in land dispute (The Washington Times)
.
Anti-Trump FBI lawyer Lisa Page refuses to testify, despite subpoena (The Washington Times)
.
CU Boulder students join effort to fight Boulder’s new “assault weapons” ban (The College Fix)
.
Policy: A “balanced” Supreme Court isn’t the point (Washington Examiner)
.
Policy: Costly prevailing wage laws harm minorities and younger workers (E21)   
 
.
The UN Fraudulently Addresses 
"Extreme Poverty" in the United States
by Francis Menton
{ gatestoneinstitute.org } ~ Is the United Nations a group of people of good faith, joining together in the effort to help bring peace and justice and economic development to the world?... Or is it a group of haters of freedom and capitalism engaged primarily in spewing ignorance, malice or both toward the United States? For a clue, you might take a look at the "Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights on his mission to the United States of America," recently issued by the UN's so-called Human Rights Council. Yes, this is the same Human Rights Council from which the U.S. just announced its withdrawal. It is also the same Human Rights Council that includes among its members China, Cuba, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela -- with ambassadors who think that the best use of their time and resources is to criticize the economic and human rights record of the U.S. The UN's Report grew out of a two-week December 1-15, 2017 "visit" to the United States by an Englishman, Philip Alston, designated the "Special Rapporteur." After its issuance in May, the Report drew more attention than it might have otherwise because on June 12 it brought forth a letter to UN Ambassador Nikki Haley from a collection of Members of Congress, led by commie-Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth dimky-Warren, expressing supposed "deep concern" about the findings. This letter in turn provoked a sharp rebuke from Haley on June 21...
.
Israeli spacecraft aims for historic moon landing… within months
by STUART WINER AND SHOSHANNA SOLOMON
{ timesofisrael.com } ~ Save the date. On February 13, 2019, an Israeli-built unmanned spacecraft is expected to land on the moon... having blasted off from Earth two months earlier, project managers said at a news conference Tuesday. If all goes well, the SpaceIL spider-like craft will give Israel entry into the exclusive club of just three nations that have so far achieved a controlled landing on the moon’s surface. The probe will be launched sometime in December from Cape Canaveral aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, officials said during the media event, held at an Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) space technology site in Yehud. It is scheduled to land on February 13, 2019...
.
Trump pardons ranchers whose 
arrests led to armed occupation of wildlife refuge 
by Andrew O'Reilly
{ foxnews.com } ~ President Trump on Tuesday pardoned the father and son ranchers from Oregon... whose imprisonment for setting fires on federal land sparked a 41-day takeover of a wildlife refuge in the state. Trump signed the order granting clemency to 76-year-old Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven Hammond, 49, who were convicted of arson in 2012 for fires that burned on federal land in 2001 and 2006. Though they served their original sentences for the conviction -- Dwight serving three months, Steven serving one year -- an appellate judge ruled in 2015 that the terms were too short under federal minimum sentencing laws and the Hammonds were resentenced to serve the mandatory minimum. This decision led to the 2016 protests...
.
Mexico Creates ‘Police Force’ to 
Stop Illegals from Crossing Its Southern Border 
by Randy DeSoto 
{ westernjournal.com } ~ Mexican President-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is planning on strengthening his nation’s southern border... with a new specialized police force in an effort to crack down on drug-related gun violence and illegal crossings. Alfonso Durazo, who has been picked by Obrador to head up the effort, told  Bloomberg the new force will be sizable. The force will be deployed to Mexico’s northern border with the U.S., as well. “We’re going to create a border police force that will be highly specialized,” Durazo said. “They need to apply the law,” including stopping undocumented migrants and human traffickers from crossing into Mexico...Its really hard to believe this stroy, we will need to see it.
.
The Inauthentic Flip-Flopping of commie-Bernie Sanders
by Daniel Greenfield
{ frontpagemag.com } ~ "Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal," commie- Bernie Sanders snapped... "You're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that." "What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy,” he continued. "You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you're a white high school graduate, it's 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?" That was three years ago. commie-Bernie’s final surrender came after dodging a question on CNN about abolishing ICE. After the backlash, he went even further, issuing a statement urging that we "abolish the cruel, dysfunctional immigration system we have today”. Open borders had gone from a right-wing position to a commie-Bernie position. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, commie-Bernie's rare successful socialist candidate, had already told Al Jazeera that, "We should grant people a safe and documented right of passage"...
.
.

Family Separation Not Trump Administration's Fault

by Hans von Spakovsky

 

             The furor over the family separation issue — children not being kept with their parents who have been detained for illegally entering the country — is odd. This is not some new phenomenon suddenly imposed by the Trump administration. It happened during the liar-nObama, Bush, and liar-Clinton administrations, too.
               Where did the policy come from? In 1997, then-Attorney General Janet Reno settled a lawsuit, Flores v. Reno, filed in California challenging the liar-Clinton administration’s detention of juvenile migrants taken into custody by the INS. In the settlement, the government agreed that it could detain unaccompanied minors for only 20 days before releasing them to the Department of Health and Human Services for placement either in foster care or with their parents, close relatives, or a legal guardian. A controversial decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to juveniles who illegally cross the border with their parents.
               So the reason that children can’t stay with their parents who are being prosecuted under federal immigration law is because of a court’s misinterpretation of a settlement agreed to by the liar-Clinton administration — not the Trump administration.
               Keep in mind that those parents would be instantly reunited with their families if they did the right thing — volunteered to return to their native country. By breaking the law and bypassing our legal immigration process, those parents are responsible for what is happening to their children.
               President Trump signed an executive order on June 20 directing that families who enter the country illegally be kept together “to the extent permitted by law.” This is an obvious reference to the Flores settlement and the limits it places on the government. But at least Trump is trying to do something about that. The executive order directs the attorney general to go to the California court with jurisdiction over the Flores case and ask the court to modify the settlement agreement to allow the government to keep families together while the parents are detained.
               The current outrage over this was generated by a recent Associated Press story about 2,000 children separated from their parents. The hypocrisy of the critics and protesters is demonstrated by their lack of concern for the much larger number of children who are placed in foster care when their parents are incarcerated. We don’t fail to arrest, prosecute and jail Americans who commit crimes because they have children.
               In 2016 alone, according to a report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 20,939 children were placed in foster care because their parents were incarcerated. In 2015, the number was 21,006. So the number of American kids who are placed in foster care because their parents are incarcerated is exponentially larger than the number of children who are also separated from the parents because their parents broke federal immigration law.
               Another reason for the separation problem is immigrants who enter the county illegally making false asylum claims to avoid being deported. If an immigrant follows the law by presenting himself at a port of entry with his family and claiming asylum, then his family will stay together. It is when immigrants who are caught illegally crossing the border then claim asylum that they risk being prosecuted for illegal entry. They are then separated from their children because of the liar-Clinton-era settlement.
               Many immigrants claiming asylum pass through countries such as Mexico with their own generous asylum laws. If an immigrant doesn’t claim asylum before he gets to the U.S., that is a clear indication that he is coming here for economic reasons, not because he has a valid asylum claim.
               No one wants to see families separated — and that includes the families of immigrants and of American citizens. But one of the consequences of breaking the law is that you may be separated from your children when you go to prison. Moreover, they may end up in foster care because of your misdeeds. That applies whether you are committing a domestic crime such as assault or robbery, or violating federal immigration law by illegally crossing — or recrossing — our border.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/56987?mailing_id=3617&utm_medium...

Views: 11

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