Monday Noon ~ thefrontpagecover

TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~ 
 lowlife-KamalaCare — 
If You Can Fool 'Em Once…
FXwOCiqckT-lOADEGUlXMEGnLg1rNa76biIcYB_V7uiEXZLMB9LMaU_5fpE7NyDnMqTrLFFONQYOj-WSjQJynBR3hgarnbWWToqeiF_gkybO8ee5b9zsVbZaiLj1WzN5W2J9p726hvAxRRc2anOSfCEgpR5fdRW65REfhdk=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
Michael Swartz  
AGHnzvDgAIc_dkrUO59jF21LrUmiQ79dA3RIshU-YlAdfSFPOhc54BmJs1OTRtvnrEX-cCbeiMVXdurlydL03p7YzXsWg_6cAavWTIOYU1PogQU4ftAjtXM=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
.
How Natural Gas Exports 
Are Giving America a Key Edge
bsl1SYiZwTo-a-S6RJuaTv4eb9_BOH0C-7aZdSOrqQf5_xfZbPtKzl1vDk503X6ah9qOIUA4PaB-IMIFs3XcZlKfZDqpsMQeoDciKFxThDmFS6uVFWXUgqzF=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
by Nicolas Loris
dailysignal.com } ~  According to a new report published by the International Energy Agency, the United States could become the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas as soon as 2024... Growing U.S. liquefied natural gas trade builds the domestic industrial sector and supports our national security interests abroad by providing America’s allies with more energy choice and freedom. Natural gas is primarily methane, which has a very low density. To ship natural gas, exporters cool it until it reaches minus-260 degrees Fahrenheit. This process liquefies the gas, which allows for safe and efficient transportation. Importers then turn the liquefied natural gas back to gas form and transport it via pipeline for consumption. Natural gas has numerous applications in the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors. Half of all U.S. homes use natural gas for heating and cooling, and natural gas supplies 31% of the overall primary energy demand in the U.S. The first liquefied natural gas production facility was built in West Virginia in 1912, and the first liquefaction and regasification centers were constructed during World War II in Ohio. The United States first began exporting liquefied natural gas internationally from Alaska to Japan in the late 1960s. Before the shale revolution, it appeared as though the U.S. would become a massive natural gas importer. In fact, the most recent export terminal built in Louisiana in 2008 was originally constructed as an import terminal. However, smart extraction technologies created an economic boom and catapulted the U.S. to be the world’s largest natural gas producer for more than a decade. Last year, the U.S. produced more natural gas than the entire Middle East combined. The industry is expected to support 3 million jobs by next year. This new energy market will also contribute $62 billion in federal and state tax revenues in gas-producing states...  https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/07/29/how-natural-gas-exports-are-giving-america-a-key-edge/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=theinsider&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWlRnMFpqSXlPREV5TlRsaiIsInQiOiJzeCtXSTJiZ1hEeGE3NGxUOWhGZnFkdlorOEVsZ3JZMTlIWkxUeHVqcWpSeWJDdnFVMVB0TWFrb0REYWhOc1VBTnUwVW81ZXlKTmZKS3p6RHJDZ0t2ZFViOEtjSlZ1RkhhcXVXbTdzaFRiODdqcmZmb1I1bmYzYkpLQ2ZzR2JOSSJ9  
.
NASA discovers possibly habitable 
super-Earth 31 light-years away
Cwu7bO9Du6zERvHA4GGdr3KOL9UZYoBQ9KydPb5mKCMH7Eh5iSywf7-DnmeQEsIs4GYfu98MUnhICgnmgVQV4tG3pMb1vi--GLSUmgRGbsUCqxEMc3p7ofViAXy5Iw=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
by timesofisrael.com ~ NASA’s exoplanet-hunting telescope, the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), has discovered a new solar system with at least three new planets... including one that has shown potential for being habitable, the American space administration announced. The three planets were discovered orbiting GJ 357, a red dwarf — a small and cooling star — 31 light-years away, relatively close in space terms, said Rafael Luque of Spain’s Institute of Astrophysics in the Canary Islands, the lead researcher in the discovery team. The star is “about one-third the sun’s mass and size and about 40 percent cooler than our star,” NASA said. The TESS cameras “caught the star dimming slightly every 3.9 days, revealing the presence of a transiting exoplanet — a world beyond our solar system — that passes across the face of its star during every orbit and briefly dims the star’s light,” NASA added. The planet known as GJ 357d — the furthest away from the star — was particularly intriguing as researchers estimate it could be habitable. The other two, GJ 357b and GJ 357c are deemed too hot. Signs of habitability in any planet include a rocky terrain, a size similar to Earth and a distance from their sun — the temperate “Goldilocks” zone neither too close nor too far — that allows the right temperature for liquid water, a key requirement for life. Given its distance from its star, similar to that of Mars to our sun, researchers estimate the planet has temperatures of -53 degrees Celsius (-63.4 Fahrenheit), Luque told AFP. “That seems a little cold at first,” he said...
.
More Than 160 Envviromental Defenders Were 
Killed in 2018 and Many Others labeled 
Terrorist and Criminals
hDs6sxZnb3M46-vYjS4I8Ga09aGWn_0tYZ2Y6HbSHUDFTcptjc0jsvcVngQhkZV1ezOirHyDIjkUY4SKV8Tf_Pn7Zax_ZFYOw6xaMsZhnHj69KqEOPGmVGt09BLF0h0oOsLOKfs4Z-8BcGe_zRWx6Hlq1vr5UhEMJuSpCtqmgtlz14sDXpHJW_MQOUnS-y9fyahORwcHSN8JBXLw=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, U.N. special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples  
by Alleen Brown
theintercept.com } ~ Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples, was disturbed to learn that her name had been included on a list of “terrorists”... allegedly affiliated with the Communist Party of the Philippines and its armed wing, the New People’s Army. Authoritarian President Rodrigo Duterte had imposed martial law on the island of Mindanao in May 2017, when ISIS sympathizers  attacked the predominantly Muslim city Marawi. By October, ISIS had been ousted, but martial law remained in place. Tauli-Corpuz, who is Filipina and a member of the Indigenous Kankanaey Igorot people, saw the emergency suspension of rights transform into a tool to go after the Indigenous Lumad people, who have stood in the way of Duterte’s industrial priorities in the region, including agribusiness, coal extraction, and gold mining. In the two months after the ISIS conflict ended, the military’s harassment and violence  reportedly displaced 2,500 Lumad people. Tauli-Corpuz and Cecilia Jimenez-Damary, the U.N. special rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced people, released a statement  that December demanding that the Philippine government halt all human rights abuses against the Lumad, including killings and violent attacks carried out by members of the armed forces, and bring those responsible to account. A few months later, the Duterte administration placed Tauli-Corpuz on a list of 600 so-called terrorists as part of a petition filed in court seeking to declare the Communist Party and its armed wing as terrorist organizations. Human Rights Watch declared the petition a “virtual hit list,” citing the “long history  in the Philippines of the state security forces and pro-government militias assassinating people labeled as NPA members or supporters.” Fearing for her safety, Tauli-Corpuz left the country. As she saw it, Duterte was once again using anti-terrorism rhetoric to attack the Lumad people and obtain access to their territory — this time by undermining a key international protector...
.
Louisiana Shouldn’t Force Its Lawyers 
to Pay for Speech They Don’t Support  
UlmEeVHwX1TncyghHBgcSYgCDPgFOEuLPkaM2udR2sXQ9XupCk2N5q63VPcrELcAHURtK0UzJTd-uaiQ5AaYDjnB0hyNq7iSehB8Ek0lx37SirH9AO0rzdEIme4s0NLinhc_dweY156XJKFcp0-HUL8GxA=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
By Jacob Huebert, James Baehr, and Dane S. Ciolino
pelicaninstitute.org } ~ The First Amendment guarantees every American’s freedom of speech and freedom of association. That means we all get to choose what we will and won’t say, and what groups we will and won’t join... It also means we all get to decide to what political groups we will and won’t give our money. At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work. But, in Louisiana and 29 other states, some people—those who practice law—are being denied their rights  not to speak, not to associate with a group against their will and not to pay for others’ political advocacy. In these states, the government forces lawyers to join and pay dues to bar associations to be allowed to pursue their chosen profession. The bar associations these lawyers are forced to join and pay aren’t government regulatory bodies; they don’t just make sure attorneys are qualified and behave ethically, as one might expect. Instead, they’re trade associations, and all too often they use members’ mandatory dues to advocate for and against public policies, which may or may not have anything to do with the practice of law. This means lawyers in these states are being forced to pay for other people’s political and ideological speech—something the First Amendment virtually never allows. For example, Louisiana’s mandatory bar association has used members’ dues to advocate for removal of “free enterprise” education from the state’s high school curriculum requirements. It’s also taken positions on a wide variety of other controversial issues ranging from the death penalty to drug policy to social issues. Many Louisiana lawyers might disagree with positions the bar takes—but they have to pay to promote the bar’s views anyway, if they want to continue earning their living by practicing law. There’s no excuse for this. Today, at least 18 states regulate lawyers without forcing them to join a bar association or pay for other people’s politics. Louisiana and all the other states could—and should—do so as well. Randy Boudreaux is one New Orleans lawyer who doesn’t want to pay for a bar association’s political advocacy—but has no choice. Today, lawyers from the Pelican Institute and the Goldwater Institute joined with New Orleans ethics lawyer and professor Dane S. Ciolino to file a federal lawsuit for Boudreaux. In the lawsuit, they argue that forcing Boudreaux to join and pay dues to the Louisiana State Bar Association violates his basic First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. Last year, in Janus v. AFSCME, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibits governments from making their employees pay union fees—which inevitably fund unions’ political speech—just to keep their jobs. By the same reasoning, Boudreaux’s lawsuit says, lawyers shouldn’t be forced to pay for bar associations’ speech just to do their jobs...
.
Setting the Record Straight on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
by heritageaction.com } ~ The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 962) is non-controversial legislation that would require that appropriate medical care be given to any infant who survived an attempted abortion... and that the infant be transported and admitted to a hospital. Health care practitioners who violate these requirements would be subject to criminal penalties. Below are some of the common claims on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and responses: Despite inadequate federal abortion reporting statistics, there are official recorded instances of infants being born-alive after attempted abortions. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), between 2003 and 2014, there were at least 143 babies born alive after a failed abortion procedure across the United States. The CDC also notes that this number is likely underestimated  because of unclear terminology and a lack of understanding about spontaneous abortions. In addition to the CDC’s findings, several states report that babies are born alive after botched abortions. In 2017, Florida reported that 11 infants were born alive following an abortion, and six were born alive in 2018. Arizona reported that 10 fetuses or embryos were born alive after an abortion in 2017 and Minnesota reported that three babies were born alive following an abortion in 2017. As Heritage Foundation Research Associate Melanie Israel says, “This problem is not hypothetical: It is a matter of public record, both in the United States and abroad, that babies are born alive following attempted abortions.” Current law does not adequately protect infants born alive after a failed abortion. Although President George W. Bush signed the Born-Alive Infant Survivors Protection Act into law in 2002, which recognized that all babies born alive are “persons," the law does not provide adequate protections for these babies or establish specific requirements of care on practitioners. The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act of 2019 would require that health care practitioners “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of a child” born alive following an abortion as the practitioner “would render to any other child born alive” and establishes criminal penalties fines and/or imprisonment for failure to comply. Dr. Gosnell is in prison for actively committing murder snipping spinal cords, etc. The Born Alive legislation is necessary because it is meant to address the “passive” act of simply denying care to a baby born alive after a botched abortion...
.
AGHnzvDgAIc_dkrUO59jF21LrUmiQ79dA3RIshU-YlAdfSFPOhc54BmJs1OTRtvnrEX-cCbeiMVXdurlydL03p7YzXsWg_6cAavWTIOYU1PogQU4ftAjtXM=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
.
lowlife-KamalaCare — If You Can Fool 
'Em Once…
FXwOCiqckT-lOADEGUlXMEGnLg1rNa76biIcYB_V7uiEXZLMB9LMaU_5fpE7NyDnMqTrLFFONQYOj-WSjQJynBR3hgarnbWWToqeiF_gkybO8ee5b9zsVbZaiLj1WzN5W2J9p726hvAxRRc2anOSfCEgpR5fdRW65REfhdk=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
Michael Swartz:  A decade ago, America was promised that its health care system would vastly improve if we only elected Barack scumbag/liar-nObama and embraced his ideas. “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” he vowed, and voters trained to blame their insurance companies for a made-up health care “crisis”  fell for that infernal lie. Now, with scumbag/liar-nObama’s former vice president leading the pack for the 2020 Democrat presidential nomination, many of loose lips liar-Joe Biden’s competitors are claiming that the Affordable Care Act he helped enact and called a “big f—kin’ deal” isn’t doing enough to alleviate the problems of cost and coverage.

To that end, California Senator lowlife-Kamala Harris — who hasn’t been afraid to mix it up with loose lips liar-Biden in the Democrat debates — is sure she has the winning compromise between the status quo and the rapid push for a single-payer system.

As lowlife-Harris wrote this week, “When we pass my plan, all Americans will immediately have the ability to buy into Medicare. This is similar to the immediate, introductory buy-in provided in Senator [commie-Bernie] Sanders’ Medicare for All bill. Right away, it will lower costs and give us a baseline plan as we transition to Medicare for All.”

Continued lowlife-Harris, “Second, we will set up an expanded Medicare system, with a 10-year phase-in period. During this transition, we will automatically enroll newborns and the uninsured into this new and improved Medicare system, give all doctors time to get into the system, and provide a commonsense path for employers, employees, the underinsured, and others on federally-designated programs, such as Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act exchanges, to transition. This will expand the number of insured Americans and create a new viable public system that guarantees universal coverage at a lower cost. Expanding the transition window will also lower the overall cost of the program.”

Having a 10-year transition period is interesting, particularly because it assumes a two-term presidency or a successor willing to follow through on her plan. But the question remains whether lengthening the transition will save money or not. Needless to say, analysts are  dubious about that prospect. “Extending the single-payer transition period to ten years,” explains health care expert Christopher Jacobs in The Federalist, “will keep most of the program’s costs ‘off the books’ and hidden from the public until after her proposal makes it on to the statute books.”

Weren’t we already told to pass some expansive health care proposal so we could see what was in it?

lowlife-Harris asserts that private insurance will have a role in her plan — provided companies “play by our rules,” though “if not, they have to get out.” While supporters are optimistic that insurers will embrace the idea, it’s a safe bet that those already in the game will do their level best to have the rules written to benefit them at the expense of possible competition. It may, however, become a case of who becomes the last easy meal for the crocodile. After all, what private company can compete with the ultra-deep pockets of the federal government? National Review contributor Pradheep Shanker called lowlife-Harris’s proposal a “public option on steroids.”

However, it’s also an evolution of sorts from her original position farther to the left. Back in January, the shape-shifting Harris was in favor of eliminating insurance companies. Apparently, though, her polling found tepid support for a single-payer “Medicare for All” program and caused her to flip-flop on the issue. Yet to borrow another infamous Medicare-related phrase, there’s no doubt that lowlife-Harris and her cohorts would like private insurance to “wither on the vine.” scumbag/liar-nObamaCare was just the start of that process, not an ending.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64699?mailing_id=4459&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4459&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