Monday AM ~ thefrontpagecover

~ Featuring ~  
Put Troops on the Border and Shut It Down
Arnold Ahlert  
What the Mueller Report Didn't Say About 
Felix Sater and the Trump Tower in Moscow
D6OhLbyCKh57Zw80cWUcX4_ur91S8IyvhQdaSTLken3eQP3GjtY1EBSNHObFOTRUmCCxwNjryStDffbPgtyW4Azuh3RPUfG_CAxzrdEpi4EP7zXrth8Rl10HcrKY6UI3qoW4onWWizQrBuT5tMdoF3r2Bvg04eaKV9ygY7SlmMQX5cR65An7xXgGYY0eiuzI-VngdV_xlz2ganGIjXUHnL8aze9xcM4IL_XyVbIMuE7FJ_olyzBgcLsetm79CID8f0ujyhTaB9R_nwnmN9taMC1qDCo6=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710xby Johnny Dwyer
{} ~ The redacted Version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report contained quite a bit of information about the perfidy of the Trump White House... the lack of evidence on collusion, and the limits of testimony to support a criminal charge of obstruction. But what’s most interesting is what the report did not say. This can be seen in the report’s accounting of the Trump Moscow project, which — for all of its clumsiness and failure to materialize — remains the most substantive link between the Trump Organization and the Kremlin. The report’s section on the project, headlined, “Russian government links to and contacts with the Trump campaign,” consists of a 12-page account of two fledgling Trump deals in Moscow. The report paints a picture of three of Trump’s dealmakers, Donald Trump Jr., Michael Cohen, and Felix Sater, trying to get the project off the ground with little success. The president has denied having any business relationships with Russia, but that lie falls apart in an email-by-email, text-by-text, call-by-call narrative of the deals. The report makes clear that he and two of his children participated in efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow as then-candidate Trump heaped praise on Russian President Vladimir Putin in the midst of the 2016 campaign. The most glaring omission concerns Felix Sater. The report describes Sater as a “New York-based real estate advisor,” which is technically accurate — but a bit like calling O.J. Simpson a “California-based football player.”
The report fails to mention a few things that would appear to be relevant information to Justice Department officials. For one, Sater was a criminal cooperator, confidential source, and intelligence asset working for a variety of federal agencies over two decades — leaving aside his felony convictions for assault and racketeering. The silence on these facts is colored by the peculiar, decades long relationship between Sater and members of Mueller’s staff. Sater’s 1998 criminal cooperation agreement was signed by a senior member of Mueller’s team, Andrew Weissman, then a prosecutor in Brooklyn’s U.S. Attorney’s Office. The apparent remarkable coincidence that a central figure within this report would have a substantive history with some of its investigators and authors goes unremarked on. A footnote indicates that Sater spoke under a proffer in a redacted grand jury matter...  TD5JpaIOdHJRQ_nP0MtRsnhCHWj188CT3EAD_M_qhv3tTwdpLJyeqEjOMfZO1AlFii7xZrGV1Q7XpYCrJ4LEcpvFv_9yRY1YRnjR1GtWgKFUaihWRLVVuPSuAN4DKq0Z6xotEeftqRfubYfTqCyvRV8YZLWtF7Gbl-PQSC6VzYzItTevf2PzONpWzxICfPpvVxw=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x.
ARROGANCE! House Democrats 
Think They Deserve A Pay Raise
k4GFq1gfvyww8dDqAHoe3ktJ_BAZxqZf47-0iSEsdYzBEi11v7wyA9Jr5m4UcJAB2gbunHWnvgPciT007mShkzdZXwbNAm75qactBA3Rsw24ODmVmQ=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710xby Rusty Weiss And Jeff Dunetz } ~ House Democrats are so pleased with their performance in Congress that they believe taxpayers should be giving them a $4,500 pay raise... Spending leaders have reportedly voiced support for 2020 funding bills that would no longer block cost-of-living adjustments. Congress had voted to freeze congressional salaries at $174,000 in 2009 as the midterm elections approached and while the scumbag/liar-nObama economy struggled. GOP leaders struck down the automatic increases every year since. Now, with Democrats regaining control of the House following the 2018 midterms, they’re setting their sites on a pay raise. Perhaps they think trying to push a duly elected president out of office qualifies them for more money. Evan Hollander, a spokesperson for the House Appropriations Committee, said: “There is strong bipartisan support for these modest inflation adjustments.”  But understand to the Democrats, if they find one Republican who isn’t sure about a bill while the rest of the GOP hates it with a passion, that’s bipartisan... Hell no, no pay raise.  
'Sharp divisions': Ginsburg indicates 
splits ahead for Supreme Court
POx6B_zYEbjfKRU-cXbIUGxGQqPDmZWs3Vcm-hdsxFggYjIOdyb5f2VgcA3xR0LRCfCASPtuYVh7sLGUmlkGBhix6KmvAY-93aB2TWX5xijDPCi9xFL0ty01L-buesPjUhwPEPyYwFZSU0r0ffcwpW9xgdwBRF_VcuydWyIsgJfz_cwl8DTR0RbR2LSuAIOZeWNF3D3WPxzRGL3xw_1aZoJvNjguahKYRil1wi-y9YMXKyRze1XAaSRFeNrimqnJ35k6jI0fh5EULZTJmunJXKahb3v5EmOhJ7IjBfpqK9Ec_rP-uVjNR4AxbqkxpEOHfhSw2L0CVSZUiR49Ocg=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710xby Melissa Quinn } ~ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that more sharp splits among the Supreme Court justices are ahead... In remarks on Friday before the Second Circuit Judicial Conference in New York, Ginsburg noted that of the 43 decisions in argued cases so far, just 11 were decided by a vote of 5-4 or 5-3. In many of those decisions, the high court split along ideological lines. “Given the number of most watched cases still unannounced, I cannot predict that the relatively low sharp divisions ratio will hold,” she said.The end of the Supreme Court’s current term at the end of June is likely to bring rulings in high-profile disputes involving partisan gerrymandering and the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 census. It's the first court term with Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whose appointment by President Trump cemented a five-justice conservative majority on the high court. Kavanaugh filled the seat left vacant by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced he would be stepping down from the bench in June 2018. Kennedy’s retirement, Ginsburg said, was “the event of greatest consequence for the current term, and perhaps for many terms ahead.”The Supreme Court still has opinions in 27 cases to announce, including in the most high-profile disputes the justices heard this term. Among those include a challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to include a citizenship question on the decennial census and two partisan gerrymandering cases, which present the Supreme Court with the opportunity to decide whether and when the excessive injection of politics in redistricting crosses a constitutional line. Its not your opinion but on the ruling of the constitution should decide the outcome.  
8 ISIS-Affiliated Americans Returning to U.S.
by  Eight American women and children who were captured with ISIS are being returned to the United States by Kurdish authorities in northern Syria... Two women and six children are to be returned at the request of the U.S. government and based on their own desire to return “without any pressure or coercion,” said Abdulkarim Omar, a senior official in the Kurdish self-rule administration, according to the Military Times. U.S. officials have not commented, and it was unclear where in the U.S. they would be taken. Earlier this year, a woman and four children affiliated with ISIS were returned to the U.S. Thousands of ISIS members and their families remain in camps and detention centers in northern Syria in the wake of the territorial defeat of ISIS.  Omar said any fighters or women accused of working with ISIS will remain in detention, pending trial. He insisted only “humanitarian cases” are being repatriated. The Military Times said Kurdish authorities want to establish an international tribunal to prosecute the foreigners arrested during the five-year campaign against ISIS...
No, My Study Didn’t Find Medicare for All Would Lower U.S. Health Costs by $2 Trillion
by Charles Blahous } ~ Last year I published a study with the Mercatus Center projecting that enacting Medicare for All (M4A) would add at least $32.6 trillion to federal budget costs over the first 10 years...
 After the study was published, some advocates misattributed a finding to it, specifically that M4A would lower national healthcare costs by $2 trillion over that same time period. This misattribution has since been repeated in various press reports. Multiple fact-checking sites have pointed out that the study contains no such finding, as did a follow-up piece I published with e21 last year. However, because the mistake continues to appear occasionally, this article provides additional detail about how and why it is wrong. First, some brief background on the study itself. The study estimated the federal budget costs of M4A, as this is an important number that would guide Congress’s procedural points of order if such legislation were considered. The study did not focus on aggregate changes to national health spending under M4A, in part because such estimates do not affect Congress’s legislative procedures. Whenever Congress considers legislation with budgetary significance, such as a new federal program or a tax cut, its procedures are affected by what the bill would do to federal spending, revenues, and deficits, but not private-sector spending. For example, no Congress would consider a large tax cut as having zero budgetary effect, based on the irrelevant rationale that the reduction in federal revenues would be offset by an equal gain in taxpayers’ after-tax income. Accordingly, my study’s estimates, like any performed by the Congressional Budget Office, focused on M4A’s effects on the federal budget rather than on other areas of the U.S. economy. This is a primary reason why neither the $2 trillion figure nor any other such estimate appears in the study. However, a critical additional reason why the attribution of $2 trillion in savings is wrong is that it is inconsistent with the study’s conclusions. Some have attempted to convert the study’s lower-bound federal cost estimate of $32.6 trillion into an estimate of savings in national health spending, arriving at the $2 trillion number. It is incorrect to do so, as the following analogy may help to explain. Imagine that members of a family have separate cell-phone data plans that add up to $57 a month. Now imagine the following conversation...
Put Troops on the Border and Shut It Down
Arnold Ahlert:  “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence…” —preamble, U.S. Constitution “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States…” —Article II, Section 2

Fellow Americans, you’ve seen it all before. The broken promises to “do something” about illegal immigration that amounted to nothing, even when each political party had complete control of Congress and the White House. The bankrupt arguments, like the contemptible idea America should tolerate wholly avoidable crimes, including rape and murder, because illegals commit them at “lesser rates” than native-born Americans. The judicial activism, as in preventing the Trump administration from transferring Pentagon funds to border-wall construction, or forbidding it from withholding grants from sanctuary cities that openly defy immigration law. And the wreckage of lives perpetrated by drug cartels, to the point where the number of lives lost to drug overdoses exceeds the number of those killed in car crashes.

Thus, Americans are enduring a wholesale invasion of our nation. One so egregious the number of apprehended illegals could top one million just in FY2019, a total that is surpassed only by the 10 most populous cities in the nation.

And you’ve witnessed every bit of it abetted by open-border, nation-state-despising, “abolish ICE!” leftists, many of whom believe that any attempt to preserve our customs, culture, language, and exceptionalism is tantamount to white nationalism.

When President Donald Trump declared a national emergency, the Democrat/Media Complex assured the nation he was “manufacturing a crisis,” that he was “abusing” the Constitution, and that Congress was the only entity that could address the issues that would effectively eliminate the problem. Yet the legislative branch has failed to address issues such as birthright citizenship, E-Verify, visa-overstays, the Flores Settlement that requires government to release children detained by ICE within 20 days, and the idea that an asylum claim automatically gets one entry into America, even though international standards require asylum-seekers to claim it in the first safe country they enter.

Lawmakers’ calculated impotence is no accident. “For decades politicians made statements about how our immigration laws must be enforced and our borders secured against the illegal and uninspected entry of aliens, while making certain never to implement the measures to actually achieve those commonsense and achievable goals,” columnist Michael Cutler explains.

They have an equally recalcitrant ally. “Mexico … refuses to sign a ‘safe third country’ agreement with the United States — this despite Mexico having incredibly generous asylum laws that are even broader than our own,” writes columnist Rachel Bovard, who further asserts that Mexico is the key to solving the crisis.

Mexican President President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has other ideas. “‘America First’ is a fallacy because until the end of times, even beyond national borders, justice and universal fraternity will prevail,” he asserts.

Thus, the game continues. Trump’s proposal for a merit-based immigration system that would raise skill-based immigration from 12% to 57% of the total, and decrease family-based and lottery-based immigration by 50%? A deflection.

His promise to impose a 5% tariff on all Mexican imports beginning June 10, and rising to 25%, if Mexico does not take action to “reduce or eliminate the number of illegal aliens” crossing the border? “This is a misuse of presidential tariff authority and counter to congressional intent,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) insists. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) agrees. “Senator Cornyn supports the president’s commitment to securing our border, but he opposes this across-the-board tariff which will disproportionately hurt Texas,” a Cornyn spokesperson said.

Disproportionately hurt Texas? Compared to what? “‘We’ve never seen anything like this’: As Trump threatens to close border, migrants overwhelm Texas cities,” stated a USA Today headline — in March.

April? “On Wednesday, CBP reported ‘off the charts’ figures for the number of migrants apprehended at the border in April,” Fox News reports. “109,144 people were encountered trying to illegally enter the U.S., up from 103,719 in March and a 160 percent increase over the previous year.”

May? An NBC News headline says it all: “Record number of undocumented immigrants flooded the southern border in May.”

Mexico’s response to the proposed tariff? “Mexico’s top diplomats issued a veiled threat to the U.S. government suggesting that without their efforts, 250,000 more Central American migrants could proceed north,” Breitbart News reveals.

Central American migrants? “Border officials in Texas say a group of 116 Africans was arrested Thursday after wading through the Rio Grande to enter the United States,” Fox News reports. “The migrants were from Angola, Cameroon and other African nations and include families with children and young people who were not with relatives.”

In other words, how to game America’s immigration system is becoming common knowledge worldwide.

Enough. America currently maintains 28,500 active-duty troops on a South Korean border they have defended since 1953. And as columnist George Neumayr reminds  us, the same Congress that refuses to address the problem at America’s border gives “billions of dollars to governments across Asia, Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America.” Moreover, that funding “combined with the astronomical costs of U.S. military protection, allow those countries to seal off their borders” (italics added).

It’s time to seal our border the same way. And it’s time to ignore the voices that insist it will violate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, prohibiting the use of U.S. military forces to perform civilian law-enforcement tasks without congressional authorization. Mexico has demonstrated for years it is willing to behave as a hostile power. Cartel-driven human and drug trafficking need to be treated like the terrorist operations they are. And caravans are being organized for the sole purpose of breaching our border.

Repelling an organized invasion abetted by heavily armed cartel members is not civilian law enforcement. Moreover, nothing but a complete border shutdown enforced by troops will force Congress to act and Mexico to behave.

Ruling-class mandarins who speak of the dire economic consequences of such a move? As always, globalist-minded elites with armed security, who erect walls around their houses and their neighborhoods, and who send their children to private schools and access first-class medical care — all of which is wholly unaffected by massive illegal immigration — couldn’t care less about “racist deplorables” forced to endure the orchestrated descent into Third World-ism.

A descent that will entrench those same elitists in permanent positions of power.

As stated above, the number of apprehended illegals this year is likely to exceed the population of Austin, Texas. Combined with those who aren’t caught? How about San Diego, California? Combined with the current level of legal immigration that engenders 1.1 million new green cards every year? Are Americans really supposed to abide the admission of a population close to the size of Chicago — every year — or endure accusations of bigotry for refusing to do so?

A promise to fix illegal immigration put you in the White House, Mr. President. You said a “nation without borders is no nation at all.” It’s time to act like a commander-in-chief and defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Put troops on the border and shut it down. Everything else is politics — and has been for decades.  ~The Patriot Post  

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

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

Join Tea Party Command Center