Tucker Carlson DESTROYS Kevin Appleby Migration Advocate Extreme Vetting

Tucker Carlson DESTROYS Kevin Appleby Migration Advocate Extreme Vetting

Rating:
  • Currently 5/5 stars.

Views: 445

Favorite of 1 person

Comment

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

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by John Barr on January 29, 2017 at 6:36pm

Is all part of the long range plan to bring The United States of America to her knees

Comment by Marilyn Calkins on January 29, 2017 at 6:19pm

I used to enjoy going up to St. Paul/Minneapolis, MN.  And if it weren't for my favorite relative on mom's side living up there, I wouldn't go back.  They have a HUGE population of muslims.  And of course even the local media rarely covers the incidents, but my cousin no longer wants to go out in the evening because you don't know if you're going to run into a roaming gang of muslim cockroaches.  They have people being assaulted and vandalism all the time, and it's never reported.  And now MN has allowed them to infiltrate their government.

Comment by Don R. Sherwood on January 29, 2017 at 6:05pm

I like America.  I like the Constitution.  I like our form of government.  I like our culture

I do not like Islam.  I do not like Sharia Law.  I do not like Radical Islamic Terrorism.  

Every place where large numbers of Muslims immigrate (including France, Germany, England), they have NOT assimilated they have demanded their ghettos be ruled by Sharia Law.  They become "NO GO Zones" where police DO NOT DARE GO!  Rape, robberies and murders have increased.

I do not want my country to become like that! 

Comment by John Barr on January 29, 2017 at 6:02pm

Liberals want the total destruction of The United States of America as a world power.

Liberals want the United States to become a third world country.

Comment by Marilyn Calkins on January 29, 2017 at 5:24pm


WHAT is it going to take to convince the idiots that islam is not a religion of peace?  For that matter.....a religion AT ALL...

Faith Spirituality Belief Religion

Faith— Most of us think of “faith” in supernatural terms, as in “faith in God.” This is actually more of what psychologists of religion would call “belief” (see below). Faith, from a more naturalistic, psychological perspective, is merely the innate drive to search for meaning, purpose and significance.


From infancy, every human person has an innate sense that “there is something more than just me” and a drive to discover what that might be. The baby calls out for the mother even when the mother is gone from view. In the same way, all people, whether they are believers or not, seek the deeper meaning, purpose, and significance that exists in life, relationships and the things that happen to us. We recognize this basic striving as “faith” and it is a universal part of being human. Even atheists have this kind of faith. I think this is an especially useful understanding of the term because of its universality. We often hear that “faith is a gift” but when we see so many people who do not believe in God, we wonder if God simply did not gift those people with faith. The answer is that everyone has the gift of faith–that innate drive to seek meaning, purpose and significance–but some people have exercised this innate gift more than others, allowing their faith to be better defined than others.


Spirituality—For psychologists of religion, the term “spirituality” represents both the things on which a person focuses his or her faith (e.g, God, church, nature, etc) and the things he or she does to try to make a connection with those things (prayer, sacraments, hiking). In other words, spirituality represents the paths a person’s faith (as defined above) travels as it seeks meaning, purpose, and significance. In these terms, faith is an internal feeling, a sense that there is “something more.” By contrast, spirituality represents the effort to find out what that “something more” might be. Spirituality results when one’s faith that has been activated.

 

Belief–Belief represents the truths claims I make as a result of my spiritual journey. When, as a result of my spiritual striving, I decide that “this is true” and “this is not” I am articulating various “beliefs” that I hold because of experiences I have had while trying to satisfy my innate sense of faith (i.e., that innate human longing for meaning, purpose, and significance) by engaging in various spiritual practices and pursuits.


Religion–Religion refers to the community of people who share similar beliefs and who work together to provide both support for going deeper into those beliefs and accountability for living up to those beliefs. Religions codify beliefs into sacred texts and–by means of rituals and moral practices–seek to facilitate the deepest possible connection with the beliefs the particular community holds.


Of course you should feel free to use whatever terms you want in your conversation with your friends and family about these issues, but these distinctions can be helpful in discussions with people who wonder why so-and-so “doesn’t have the gift of faith” or what it really means when someone says they are “spiritual but not religious” or any number of other exchanges that can get bogged down when people use words in poorly-defined, little understood ways.

Comment by sharon ostwinch on January 29, 2017 at 4:10pm

How is it ok to let people in that hate you and want you dead.  Really??  Religion or not they will all tell you this.  No one of muslim faith will assimilate - so there you go..  They don't want to be here at all.

Comment by Bob Russell on January 29, 2017 at 3:52pm

In response to Oleg's post I must say I agree and wrote about the satanic cult of islam:  http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2015/09/islam-is-a-satanic-cul...

Comment by Skip peters on January 29, 2017 at 12:14pm
We miss many things here, when we can't ask what faith they are. And is the reasoning there coming here is 1. To excape the evil attacks of ISIS? 2. To move here to repopulate America with Muslim faith based territory. 3. By doing both is a attack on Christians and there families and our Country. We can look at Germany today and see there entent. They have brought more criminal crimes to Germany and have forced there laws on the German people. The German people are mad and want it stopped, but the One World Order Groups want to control all people by controlling the money system. And this controls healthcare,food,housings do every form of life.
Comment by Randal W. Howard on January 29, 2017 at 12:03pm

"Multiculturalism is a large part of the problem where it is accepted as a normal religion."

Multiculturalism is not viable when one of those 'cultures' is hell-bent upon the destruction of all the others.  We are aware that they want nothing to do with Christians and Jews.  Does anyone remember the two Buddha statues in the desert that were blown up because they were "UN-ISLAMIC"?  How many more are there?  I don't claim to know how many Religions there are that rate as genuine belief systems, content to allow others to believe differently, without killing them.

Comment by Oleg Gielman on January 29, 2017 at 11:36am
"The term moderate islime is ugly and offensive. There's no moderate islime ...islime is islime." -erdogan, PM of Turkey

And here's proof...
Michigan Muslim Woman Openly Defends The Stabbing of Jews. Yes, All Jews…
This Michigan woman must be one of those moderate Muslims we’ve been hearing a lot about. Scratch that, it’s the moderate Muslims she’s mocking. You know...
https://louderwithcrowder.com/michigan-woman-stabbing-jews-is-a-ok/
Ref. Brigitte Gabriel (Facebook)
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10154033028897581&i...

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