TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
liar-nObamaCare Repeal Back From the Dead? 
by Jordan Candler
.
I was a childhood immigrant to the US -- Trump is acting 
wisely and compassionately on illegal immigration 
by Dan Backer
{ foxnews.com } ~ As a legal immigrant brought to America by my parents when I was a baby... I was particularly upset when I saw illegal immigrant parents and children being separated when they crossed into the U.S. in recent days. But I was happy when President Trump did the right thing and signed an executive order Wednesday allowing parents who have crossed the border illegally to remain with their children. Children should not be made to suffer for the actions of their parents. President Trump has compassion for these children. So does first lady Melania Trump, who showed this Thursday by visiting a detention center in Texas for children who entered the U.S. illegally. At the same time, I applaud the president for holding firm on his “zero tolerance” policy and criminally prosecuting any immigrants who come to the U.S. in violation of our laws. This sends a powerful message to all who disrespect our laws...
.
Who’s Responsible for Separating Alien Kids 
From Their Parents? Many People, but Not Trump
by Hans von Spakovsky
{ dailysignal.com } ~ Who truly is responsible for the 2,000 alien kids who, according to the Associated Press, recently have been separated from their detained illegal alien parents?... There is a lot of blame to share. That includes President liar-Bill Clinton and the alien parents themselves, as well as the courts and immigration policies foolishly created by the liar-nObama administration. The perverse incentives in those policies have endangered the lives and safety of children and helped fund the deadly Mexican drug cartels that run the trafficking networks on our southern border. You would not know that based on the absurdly biased coverage and virulent protests that have occurred. The Trump administration is simply doing what it is constitutionally charged with doing—enforcing the law. The president on Wednesday issued an executive order that directs the Department of Homeland Security to keep illegal alien families together “to the extent permitted by law.” That is the crux of the administration’s problem: the extent to which the government is permitted to keep families together while they await removal proceedings...
.
Dems Vow to Dump Pulosi if They Win the House 

by Lionel Parrott
{ libertyheadlines.com } ~ House Minority Leader Nancy Pulosi hopes to return as Speaker of the House... should Democrats take back the lower chamber this November. But her plans may hit a snag,  accordingto POLITICO. And that snag is Democratic candidates who are pledging that she won’t have their support should they become members of Congress. The trend, says the article, started with the upset victory of Rep. Conor Lamb (D-Pa.) in a district that went heavily for Donald Trump in the last presidential election. Lamb’s win was in part attributed to his vow not to vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker...
.
Answering Criticisms of the Conservative 
Health Care Consensus Plan
by Doug Badger
{ dailysignal.com } ~ The Center for American Progress recently released a study criticizing a Health Policy Consensus Group proposal to reduce premiums and increase choices... for the millions of families and small businesses who are forced to choose between remaining uninsured or buying expensive liar-nObamacare policies. The proposal, dubbed the Health Care Choices Proposal, would replace liar-nObamacare individual entitlements with grants to states. States would be required to use their federal grants to establish programs that subsidize premiums for low-income residents and that reduce premiums by assuring that the sick receive the assistance they need without saddling the healthy with unaffordable premiums. CAP’s seven-page critique of the proposal is a gumbo of falsehoods, misrepresentations, questionable assumptions, and contrived data that misrepresent both the content and the effect of the Health Care Choices Proposal...   https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/06/21/answering-criticisms-of-the-...
.
‘We’re called scum, rats, pigs’: S. Africa’s 
Jews protest soaring anti-Semitism 
{ timesofisrael.com } ~ The South African Jewish Board of Deputies protested Thursday what it said was a huge spike of anti-Semitic and threatening messages... in social media and in face-to-face encounters, over the previous 24 hours. SAJBD Chairman Shaun Zagnoev said that while anti-Semitism was not uncommon, the latest comments were far more inflammatory than usual, and said extremist anti-Israel expressions had crossed over into vicious attacks on Jews. “The posts show how easily radical anti-Israel sentiment can spill over into hateful slurs and threats against Jewish people in general,” he said in a statement. “We are being told that we are ‘scum,’ ‘rats,’ ‘bastards,’ ‘pigs,’ ‘swine,’ and ‘fat-nosed f***ks.’ We are further being warned that ‘our time is coming’ and that ‘the Holocaust will be a picnic after we are done with you.’”...
.
.

liar-nObamaCare Repeal Back From the Dead? 

by Jordan Candler:  There are rumblings that health care reform is fixing to reemerge in Congress thanks to a months-long venture by the Health Policy Consensus Group. This conservative coalition is composed of The Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Galen Institute and Manhattan Institute, among others.

             “The conservatives’ proposal would drive control of health care almost entirely to the states, reversing the ACA’s [Affordable Care Act’s] federal mandates that seek to provide basic minimum benefits and consumer protections, which Republicans argue limit people’s choice,” The Wall Street Journal reports. “Under the conservative plan, states would receive ACA money in the form of block grants to help low-income consumers buy coverage. Health savings accounts, which let people set aside tax-free money for medical expenses, would be expanded. Insurers could give discounts to people who are young or maintain continuous coverage.
               The Journal adds: “The block grants would be the backbone of the conservative plan. Half of the grant funding would go toward supporting the purchase of private health coverage, and half toward helping low-income Americans get coverage, although the two categories would likely overlap. The grants would ban states from using the money to fund abortions, according to the draft proposal. Medicaid expansion would also be repealed, and people on Medicaid would be able to buy private insurance coverage.
               The caveat, of course, is succinctly laid out by the Journal: “Republican leaders have said they have no appetite for another push to repeal the ACA before the November midterm elections unless such a bill clearly has the votes to pass. Republicans faced a series of obstacles — including internal division and unified Democratic opposition — as their effort to repeal the ACA collapsed last year. There is little evidence those dynamics in Congress have changed.”
               As David Thornton points out at The Resurgent, “The midterm elections may seal the fate of the repeal effort. If Republicans lose their majority in either the House or the Senate, any serious effort to repeal the ACA would be doomed. At that point, the best that Republicans could hope for would be a bipartisan effort to fix the worst problems of the law.
               Fortunately, even if this new liar-nObamaCare repeal endeavor falters, there are liar-nObamaCare changes afloat. The Wall Street Journal editorial board this week revealed that “the Labor Department rolled out a final rule on AHPs,” or association health plans. The editors explain: “The point is to allow more small businesses to join forces to offer health insurance, using economies of scale to reduce costs and diversify risk. This is how corporations and unions manage health insurance in the large group market, either by paying an outside issuer or self-insuring.”
               It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s progress. “For once,” the Journal writes, “the test of a health-care policy will depend less on government dictates than on the choices of millions of Americans.”   ~The Patriot Pos
t
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56671?mailing_id=3560&utm_mediu...

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 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