Monday Noon ~ thefrontpagecover

TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~  
McConnell Considers the Next Nuclear Option
XIl4mILbARfqMDhMoC1x_OFY9O6cXHBpDk8X5MsH9GhrQnPY_TuXUtPnAz4nuVx13y0BG1nlFWU5rE4NlJqyXbFeqNPXWJouqpF3tSl-9k5_lAiTt-QTZdbgFNaNifNP143tDE9Corzpvj71JwQmq4jRJM7MJCbnd74-E3o=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
Brian Mark Weber  
AGHnzvDgAIc_dkrUO59jF21LrUmiQ79dA3RIshU-YlAdfSFPOhc54BmJs1OTRtvnrEX-cCbeiMVXdurlydL03p7YzXsWg_6cAavWTIOYU1PogQU4ftAjtXM=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
.
Lisa Page admitted scumbag/liar-nObama DOJ ordered stand-down on scumbag/liar-Clinton 
email prosecution, GOP rep says
LDvmv0POA4EqLih7jgTxGH-uMLoU4wYT8R31Zl4KQgYXrA0kMZCarYo_qY523tt6-bfSoljrnlQUmQqrTNq7J_lm6ilBYUuW6UGxcNVtXnaJgtPPwJv0Mz9haoBJDk2zRJxZwDwseAnR0rrCGksjDEi0z-j8xifJUCR2wQUHwtQMtvjAkMCtc5qLQtU6RPa1-QZpAGY0eX1asueFBBubcEiIQg=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
by Gregg Re  
{foxnews.com} ~ Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page admitted under questioning from Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe last summer... that "the FBI was ordered by the scumbag/liar-nObama DOJ not to consider charging scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information," the congressman alleged in a social media post late Tuesday, citing a newly unearthed transcript of Page's closed-door testimony. Page and since-fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, who were romantically involved, exchanged numerous anti-Trump text messages in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, and Republicans have long accused the bureau of political bias. But Page's testimony was perhaps the most salient evidence yet that the Justice Department improperly interfered with the FBI's supposedly independent conclusions on scumbag/liar-Clinton's criminal culpability, Ratcliffe alleged. "So let me if I can, I know I’m testing your memory," Ratcliffe began as he questioned Page under oath, according to a transcript excerpt he posted on Twitter. "But when you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to —" Page interrupted: "That is correct," as Ratcliffe finished his sentence, " -- bring a case based on that."The document dump was part of a major release by House Judiciary Committee Republicans, who on Tuesday released hundreds of pages of transcripts from last year's closed-door interview with Page, revealing new details about the bureau's controversial internal discussions regarding an “insurance policy” against then-candidate Donald Trump. Fox News has previously reviewed portions of Page's testimony... Won't you call this obstruction of justice from scumbag/liar-nObama.
.
Sen. Lindsey Graham Calls for a 
Special Counsel to Investigate FBI, DOJ
MRkzFyUd7XH0V3V3SzqVPZKp0AuGAP0tNidVYVzRyo_IDDCu0Vw-xsCRIuwgTxIoetVtfEPGPy5f39Qecn1618DZ-Fl9ReRdF8Xdyxaibq-Uw5ug5USzDn49HzgLR4Pqin8ImLrgIcEbx4sG=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710xby Janya Kan
{theepochtimes.com} ~ Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) took to the Senate Floor on March 14 to call for the appointment of a new special counsel... to investigate possible misconduct by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI. Graham made the remarks in response to a Democrat-backed resolution that passed in the House  unanimously earlier in the day, which calls for any final report in special counsel dirty cop-Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation to be made public. The South Carolina senator said the resolution should be amended before it is considered in the Senate. He summarized his proposed changes in a tweet on March 14, requesting that the “House-passed dirty cop-Mueller resolution should be amended to include the appointment of a Special Counsel to: *) Investigate alleged misconduct around the handling of the scumbag/liar-Clinton email investigation. *) Investigate the abuse of the FISA warrant process against Mr. Carter Page.”...
A Lesson in Socialism for 
commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
dzDAuftfi6rqexxdqBaPH-FrzVtaHjfZvKnR9siwHdMJwmrEknxuPSt2sBdIocL8cl5faYMSPERrlW-kBdli1crbtDuuT5fNq4FzxkKcn7yNIK0PthdeRbfkuQb31B844_RFhAjCEviPgbQJ37XpVxtWwsKJHHBUe7QZbeWq_xg=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710xby Steven Kessler
{americanthinker.com} ~ Newly elected congresswoman commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez now appears ubiquitously in the news. At the end of February, she made headlines in a dispute with Ivanka Trump... commie-Ocasio-Cortez's professional persona is a Millennial socialist who openly advocates for socialist policies. One of these socialist policies concerns the notion of a guaranteed income and jobs for all. She says: It's wrong that a vast majority of the country doesn't make a living wage. I think it's wrong that you can work 100 hours and not feed your kids. I think it's wrong that corporations like Walmart and Amazon can get paid by the government, essentially experience a wealth transfer from the public, for paying people less than a minimum wage. Ivanka Trump rebutted her position with the following rejoinder: I don't think most Americans in their heart want to be given something. I've spent a lot of time traveling around this country over the last four years. People want to work for what they get, so I think this idea of a guaranteed minimum is not something most people want. They want the ability to be able to secure a job. They want the ability to live in a country where there's the potential for upward mobility. commie-Ocasio-Cortez responded emphatically: "I can tell you that most people want to be paid enough to live. ... Imagine attacking a Jobs Guarantee by saying 'people prefer to earn money'" as quoted by Sullivan, 2019.  The important components of commie-Ocasio-Cortez's positions, as with socialism in general, all relate to labor. To understand why socialism is so heavily concerned with labor, we have to trace modern socialism back to its philosophical origin. The source of today's socialism emanates from the work and thought of Jean-Jacques Rousseau...
.
Ireland's Anti-Israel Drift: How 
Did It Come to This?
zaR_rgOcpM_HoFgOrdwY_C9N2i8PopSnIx3EznmQYr1aoEK5w1dZboNTYzTrPTk_4LGr6tmHZKOHCXpn2RxAuw-OVQ=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710xby Lawrence A. Franklin
{gatestoneinstitute.org} ~ Ireland's legislative lower house (Dáil) on January 29 approved a bill that would make it a crime for Irish citizens to import or sell any product produced by Israelis in areas located beyond the 1949 armistice lines... most of which, such as Jerusalem, were actually liberated by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War from their illegal occupation by Jordan in 1948-49, after Israel was attacked by five Arab armies who were literally hoping to crush it the day of its birth. In 1967, Egypt, presumably hoping to finish the job it had started in 1948, created a casus belli  (cause for war under international law) by announcing a blockade of Israel's access to the Red Sea via the Straits of Tiran. So, Ireland has actually turned history on its head: it has sided with the aggressors and demonized the victim, all under the self-righteous guise of moral preening. The proposed Irish law would ban goods produced by Israelis in the West Bank and East Jerusalem from being marketed in Ireland. The vote  was 78 in favor, 45 against, with three abstentions. The "Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018" received the backing of the government's two main opposition parties: Sinn Fein and Fianna Fáil. Sinn Fein is a long-time supporter of the Palestinian-led movement to try to destroy Israel by strangling it economically. The proposed law is opposed by the minority governing party, the Fine Gael. Previously approved by the upper house Senate in a 25 to 20 vote on 11 July 2018, the bill has yet to be signed into law by Ireland's Prime Minister. To date, the European Union (EU) has not weighed in on the bill's legality under current EU trade regulations. Ireland, as an EU member state, is subject to the EU's commercial rules. EU trade rules may prohibit Ireland's unilateral action, as an EU treaty requires common commercial policy for all member states...
Surprise! Mexican cartels actually
are terror groups
I0A-PHqSTfXzZY6hEszsq9Rhbz5yBBcgJob-QWkMO_DfZTChEQNK-B3ViWhtwbR5-DMOKE0d9lFfbNXIJI34OXxWiOQDVQ=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
by wnd.com:  A government watchdog has released a white paper urging President Trump to designate Mexican drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations... reports Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin. “Undoubtedly, Mexican drug cartels meet the U.S. government’s criteria for FTO designation,” said a report from report from Judicial Watch, “which requires organizations to be foreign, engage in terrorism or terrorist activity or possess the capability and intent to do so and pose a threat to U.S. nationals or U.S. national security.” The white paper from Judicial Watch follows on the heels of reports that the president is considering making the designations. “Mexico, unfortunately, has lost control of the cartels,” he said. “They’ve totally lost control of the cartels. Mexico last year had 42,000 deaths — murders — 42,000. It’s considered one of the most unsafe countries in the world.” The documentation outlines the “unique challenges and national security risks posed by Mexican Transitional Criminal Organizations and human trafficking.” “The threats require policy changes that include classifying Mexican TCOs as FTOs and a reassessment of Mexico under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), which requires countries to implement measures that address human trafficking in order to receive American aid. Mexico does not meet the minimum standards in several key areas, according to State Department documents obtained by Judicial Watch for the White Paper.”  Judicial Watch explained, “Mexican drug cartels are inherently foreign, routinely commit criminal acts within the statutory definition of terrorism and arguably represent a more immediate and ongoing threat to U.S. national security than any of the currently-designated FTOs on the State Department list...
.
AGHnzvDgAIc_dkrUO59jF21LrUmiQ79dA3RIshU-YlAdfSFPOhc54BmJs1OTRtvnrEX-cCbeiMVXdurlydL03p7YzXsWg_6cAavWTIOYU1PogQU4ftAjtXM=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
.
McConnell Considers the Next Nuclear Option
XIl4mILbARfqMDhMoC1x_OFY9O6cXHBpDk8X5MsH9GhrQnPY_TuXUtPnAz4nuVx13y0BG1nlFWU5rE4NlJqyXbFeqNPXWJouqpF3tSl-9k5_lAiTt-QTZdbgFNaNifNP143tDE9Corzpvj71JwQmq4jRJM7MJCbnd74-E3o=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
Brian Mark Weber:  For all their talk about bipartisanship and making government work, Democrats have put up one obstacle after another to prevent Republicans from filling important federal court vacancies. And they’re doing it because of (you guessed it) politics. Senate Minority Leader Chuck scumbag-Schumer (D-NY), for example, refused to work together with Republicans after the midterm elections to fill vacancies. Yet another problem is that any senator can hold up the process and force the Senate to engage in a lengthy debate on each nominee.

But isn’t this just politics as usual — or is there a uniquely concerted effort to block Trump’s court picks?

Just last year, The Heritage Foundation published a report  called The Left’s Obstruction of Qualified Trump Nominees is Yet Another Front in the War Against the President. One of the highlights is the stunning figure that in a little more than one year since Trump’s election, the Republican Senate was forced to take 106 cloture votes on executive and judicial nominations. These votes require a 60-vote majority to end debate on a nominee.

Compare this to the past 12 administrations combined during which only 20 of these votes occurred, according to Thomas Kipping of Heritage.

But now, finally, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and some of his GOP colleagues have had enough. Their plan is to expand the so-called “nuclear option” so as to greatly reduce the amount of time spent on debating nominees. All they have to do is change the Senate’s rules, which can be accomplished with a simple party-line vote.

Burgess Everett and Marianne Levine write at Politico that the plan would “shave debate time from 30 hours to just two hours for those judges and lower-level executive branch nominees.” They add, “Trump currently has 128 District Court vacancies to fill, and each one can take multiple days under current rules if any senator demands a delay; if Republicans change the rules, Trump could conceivably fill most of those over the next 20 months.”

But the Leftmedia know that the American public has a short memory, and they’re already blaming Republicans for threatening to change the historic traditions of the Senate. Of course, the Democrats had no problem tossing tradition aside when Nevada Senator Harry dinky-Reid was the majority leader back in 2013.

As Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey writes, “Reid buried the filibuster on all presidential appointments short of the Supreme Court on a rule change passed by simple majority vote, the first time that had ever been done after the start of a session of Congress. Reid and his fellow Democrats ignored the clear historical precedents to claim that they could accomplish this without consulting Republicans.” And Democrats did it after years of sanctimoniously professing their reverence for the filibuster.

There’s always a backstory in politics, and it usually reveals Democrats having already done exactly what they’re criticizing Republicans for thinking about doing. In fact, Sen. McConnell warned Reid and his fellow Democrats about deploying this “nuclear option” back in 2013: “I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you’ll regret this,” he told them. “And you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.”

If McConnell is going to make that threat a reality, now’s the time. Democrats are demanding the return of “blue slips” in exchange for working with Republicans to fill vacant seats in the judiciary. Once again, it was the Democrats who in 2013 broke with a longstanding Senate tradition of requiring both senators from a judicial nominee’s state to return blue slips indicating a favorable or unfavorable opinion. At the time, Democrats eliminated the slips for lower court nominees and then Republicans did the same last year for Supreme Court nominees. Even The New York Times opposes the practice of blue slips, which can hold up the process if senators refuse to return them.

For those worried about reducing time for debating the worthiness of potential judges, we have to wonder whether 30 hours of partisan squabbling is really needed to confirm these appointments. After all, the nominees are fully vetted after clearing the Judiciary Committee. At that point, senators already know how they’re going to vote and are actually more interested in making bold, dramatic speeches that end up on the evening news instead of engaging in philosophical debates with their colleagues.

Democrats always claim that elections have consequences, but they only honor their words when one of their own sits in the White House. Now that Republicans control the executive branch and the Senate, they need to play hardball. They need to fill those seats now to ensure a properly functioning and more constitutionally conservative judiciary.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/61797?mailing_id=4135&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4135&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body
E-mail me when people leave their comments –

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

Join Command Center