Tuesday Top News Executive Summary

Media Editors:  Above the Fold

SEMANTICS: Legal status of “Dreamers” comes down to arcane, procedural case at Supreme Court: Did Mr. Trump and his aides check all the correct procedural boxes when they announced the phaseout? (The Washington Times)

LAWLESSNESS: 2020 Democrats plan deportation freeze: “The result would basically be open borders” (The Washington Free Beacon)

Government, Politics, & Heartland

POOR PROGNOSIS: Google gathering healthcare data on millions of Americans with secret “Project Nightingale” (National Review)

INTERESTING GIVEN THE LEFT’S SKEWED VIEW OF “SCIENCE”: EPA to limit science used to write public health rules (The New York Times)

BOGUS LAWSUIT: The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to block a lawsuit brought by parents of children killed in the Sandy Hook school shooting against Remington, the firearms manufacturer that made the AR-15 rifle used in the shooting. (National Review)

NO JURISDICTION: Judge dismisses Trump lawsuit over New York tax returns (Fox News)THE WANING POWER OF UNIONS: Education unions in Oregon and Washington report sharp declines in membership and revenue (The Washington Free Beacon)


ESCALATION: Israel hit by rockets from Gaza after airstrike kills Islamic Jihad leader (NBC News)

BARGAINING CHIP: Turkey’s Erdogan warns that it can release ISIS prisoners back to Europe as lawmakers seek to have Erdogan’s White House invitation rescinded (Fox News)

Closing Arguments

POLICY: Three reforms Congress can build on to get the budget under control (The Heritage Foundation)

POLICY: Four feminist lies that are making women miserable (The Federalist)

HUMOR: Church that believes exactly what the world believes not sure why no one bothers coming to church anymore (The Babylon Bee)  

~The Patriot Post


John Bolton testimony could be a game changer

By ADAM PETERS{dailychristiannews.com } ~ House Democrats have gotten a number of witnesses to testify in impeachment related hearings. However, they’ve set their sights on the biggest name so far: former National Security Adviser John Bolton… Washington Examiner  chief political correspondent Byron York recently spoke to Fox News’ Martha MacCallum about what Bolton’s testimony would mean. “The other witnesses, there were people listening on the call. There were people in the State Department, you know, they know about things from their peripheral positions, but they don’t really get you inside the White House,” York said. “And John Bolton would do that.” Bolton joined the Trump administration in April of 2018, having previously served under President Reagan and both Bushes. He was known to be a foreign policy hawk and a strong supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a war that President Trump frequently criticized during the 2016 campaign. On  September 10, 2019, Trump announced that he had told Bolton his “services are no longer needed” as the two had experienced “many” disagreements. Bolton contradicted this account in a tweet of his own, stating that he offered to resign on September 9, with Trump replying, “Let’s talk about it tomorrow.” That claim was repeated to members of the media. Following his departure, Trump accused Bolton of “holding me back” and said his own views were “far stronger” than Bolton’s had been. Still, regardless of whatever hostility that may exist between the two, getting Bolton to testify would involve clearing a large hurdle. “I will say, if anything is covered by executive privilege, it would be the president’s private conversations with his national security adviser about issues of foreign policy and national security,” York explained. “This is confidential advice the president is receiving from a top aide in an area in which the Constitution gives the president a lot of powers.” According to York, Democrats have an electoral interest in hurrying the process along. “There’s another problem here, which is that Democrats are racing the clock with their 2020 presidential race,” York said. “Six candidates in the Democratic race right now are members of the Senate who, if there were a trial, they’d be basically chained to their desk in Washington.” York noted that Bolton hasn’t ruled out testifying.  https://www.dailychristiannews.com/john-bolton-testimony-could-be-a-game-changer/   

Kevin McCarthy -vs- Maria Bartiromo – “this is a calculated coup orchestrated by scumbag-Adam Schiff”

by sundance{theconservativetreehouse.com } ~ House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the ongoing details within the legislative impeachment process… As part of his remarks Leader McCarthy states: “this is a calculated coup orchestrated by scubag-Adam Schiff”… Sometimes we get so far into the weeds we forget to evaluate our location. The minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives has just stated the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is “orchestrating a coup” against the sitting President of the United States of America…  And, McCarthy is correct. After church services today I happened to have a conversation with an independent voter. During our discussion I mentioned that if you take the current Democrat argument without rebuttal; and then overlay their acknowledged level of hardened Trump support; the political left is trying to disenfranchise approximately 40 percent of the population of the U.S. What exactly do the Democrats expect that 40 percent to do? Do they think 140 million people will just sit down and shut up? Have the politicians in DC really thought about an outcome where they are visible, clearly visible, removing a sitting U.S. President for no constitutional reason?.https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/11/10/sunday-talks-kevin-mccarthy-vs-maria-bartiromo-this-is-a-calculated-coup-orchestrated-by-adam-schiff/  

VIDEO:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56_eGxaghVI&feature=emb_title

This Judge Is NUTS-Rules Trump Admin Must Provide Mental Health Services To Illegals

by Jeff Dunetz and Alicia Luke{lidblog.com } ~ A federal judge in California ruled this week that the government must provide mental health services to illegals… who have undergone trauma because of being separated by the Trump administration. The ruling said the Trump administration could be held accountable for the psychological effects of its hard-line immigration policies, The NYT reports. Was the same mental health service provided when Barack scumbag/liar-nObama separated children from their families at the border? Nope! A federal judge in California earlier this week ruled that the Trump administration must provide mental health services to thousands of migrant parents and children separated at the U.S.-Mexico border, according to a report. Judge John Kronstadt of the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles said that under the “state-created danger” doctrine, the federal government is liable for inflicting psychological trauma on those families separated between 2017 and 2018, the New York Times reported. A group of migrant families filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in September, arguing that they suffered “life-altering” trauma that would “continue to affect their mental and emotional well-being for years to come.” Several plaintiffs claimed that for months parents were not given clear information about the whereabouts of their children and were unable to communicate with them on a regular basis. Tuesday’s decision said these services would include mental health screenings, psychological counseling and possibly other forms of long-term treatment. Our government did not create this danger. The migrants did by trying to illegally invade our country. These leftist federal judges are the greatest threat to our republic…  https://lidblog.com/mental-health-illegals/    

Megyn Kelly revealed one impeachment bombshell that will leave you speechless

by patriotpulse.net ~ Megyn Kelly suddenly found herself in the middle of the impeachment drama. A relationship from her past revealed a key connection to one of the major players in the impeachment witch hunt… That’s when Megyn Kelly dropped one impeachment bombshell that will leave you speechless. When it became public that the alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella retained attorney Mark Zaid, many Trump supporters claimed this was proof enough that Ciaramella was a politically-motivated hack. Megyn Kelly defended Zaid, noting the two attended the same law school and she had known him for years and that Zaid was a straight shooter. But that all collapsed when Zaid’s tweets from January 2017 surfaced when he declared a coup was in motion and that it would end in impeachment. Kelly changed her tune and declared that Zaid was in fact a partisan actor out to get Trump. Ciaramella’s background as a leftist ideologue that launched numerous campaigns to impeach Trump — he stands accused of leaking Trump’s May 2017 meeting with Russians in the Oval Office which led to the FBI investigating Trump for being a Russian asset — as well as Zaid’s tweets make it clear Zaid spent years casting about for a mole inside the Trump administration to complete the coup Zaid said was in motion back in January 2017.  https://patriotpulse.net/megyn-kelly-revealed-one-impeachment-bombshell-that-will-leave-you-speechless/#gf_1198  

California Dems’ Private Prison Conundrum

by Yuichiro Kakutani {freebeacon.com } ~  As California moves forward with a plan to phase out private prisons in eight years, state Democrats have no plan for how to deal with the 1,600 inmates housed in such facilities… Governor scumbag-Gavin Newsom signed a law last month that will abolish all private prisons by 2028. One of the bill’s supporters, California representative Mike Levin, admitted to constituents that California policymakers “don’t know” how the state will accommodate the hundreds of prisoners who currently live in private prisons. “We’re going to have to write a letter to figure out exactly how this is going to be implemented, but those facilities, I believe, will close,” Levin said at an October town hall. “I wonder what happens to the 1,500 people there right now. We are in a bit of uncharted territory to this because we just passed this law.” Levin’s concession is symbolic of the larger tension between the two competing goals that California’s prison system must now pursue. On the one hand, the new private prison ban will force the state to close private facilities, lowering the system’s inmate capacity. On the other hand, abolishing private prisons might return the state to dangerous levels of overcrowding that former Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy said was a “serious constitutional violation.” Alexandra Wilkes, a spokesperson for prison industry advocacy group Day 1 Alliance, said Democrats lack any plan to house the inmates incarcerated at private prisons.”There is no plan to our knowledge,” she said. “There is no plan to address the overcrowding and all the issues that come with that. This is a knee jerk emotional decision that is not rooted in public policy. It is rooted in making activists happy.”…  https://freebeacon.com/issues/california-dems-private-prison-conundrum/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=8e3cbe91d7-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_11_10_08_37_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-8e3cbe91d7-45611665   

scumbag-Schiff’s Committee Published Name Of Alleged Whistleblower Last Week

By Madeline Osburn{thefederalist.com } ~ Last Wednesday, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), chaired by Democratic Rep. scumbag-Adam Schiff, published the unredacted name of a man alleged to be the so-called whistleblower… who helped launch impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump. During HPSCI testimony, William Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, was asked by a staff lawyer on the committee whether the name Eric Ciaramella was familiar to him.“Does a person by the name of Eric Ciaramella ring a bell for you?” asked Steve Castor, a committee staff counsel asked Taylor during a deposition on October 22. “It doesn’t,” Taylor responded. “So, to your knowledge, you never had any communications with somebody by that name?” “Correct,” Taylor said. The transcript of that exchange, which was not redacted, was published and publicly released by scumbag-Schiff’s committee last Wednesday. On October 30, Real Clear Investigations published a lengthy article alleging that Ciaramella was the official who filed a formal complaint against Trump on August 12. “Ciaramella pronounced char-a-MEL-ah left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media,” Real Clear Investigations reported in October. “He has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.” In September, The New York Times all but outed the alleged whistleblower, identifying him as a CIA employee and Ukraine expert who had been detailed to the White House by former scumbag/liar-nObama CIA director scumbag/commie-John Brennan…https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/10/schiffs-committee-published-name-of-alleged-whistleblower-last-week/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=eedec7d775-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-eedec7d775-83771801   

Stop Blaming the One Percent

Michael Swartz:  It’s been a popular theory for decades, gaining steam over the last few years with the Occupy Wall Street movement and through the presidential campaigns of commie-Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth dinky/liar-Warren: The wealthy take more than their share and, as a consequence, exert excessive control on government, making the problem of income and wealth inequality even worse.

Recently, however, Chris Edwards and Ryan Bourne, who both write for the libertarian-leaning CATO Institute, made a punching bag out of the Sanders/Warren theory of income and wealth inequality being bad. Instead, they counter with the facts: The problem isn’t nearly as bad as leftist hype portrays, hasn’t increased at nearly the pace many believe is occurring, and to the extent it exists is made worse by the very types of programs and philosophies favored by the socialist Left.In his analysis of the Cato findings, the Washington Examiner’s Brad Polumbo adds, “Clearly, commie-Sanders’ socialist proposals would just make economic inequality worse. In fact, that’s what has happened in some of the countries he often points to as examples.”The lengthy white paper by the Cato’s economist duo points to six different reasons the socialist axiom of wealth inequality doesn’t hold water, beginning with the inaccurate assumptions of economist Thomas Piketty, whose error-riddled book Capital in the Twenty-First Century is heralded as a bible by those who subscribe to the inequality theory. The Cato pair point out that Piketty and his cohorts missed a significant piece of the puzzle by relying so much on data from income-tax returns. This misses up to 40% of real income, argue Edwards and Bourne. Also missing: the “wealth” individuals hold with their Social Security and Medicare benefits — benefits that do more for the less well-to-do than the wealthy. Yet Social Security and Medicare also sustain the problem because they serve as a disincentive for those who need to save for retirement.Another root cause of wealth inequality is a problem most acknowledge, but few take concrete steps to address: cronyism in government. While Edwards and Bourne acknowledge the problem is far worse in other nations where graft is king, the prospect of rent-seeking and other techniques to artificially expand markets and limit competition contribute to the inequality, even in America.But the best and most cheering reason the “income inequality” crowd is all wet: Wealth in our nation is generally earned, not inherited. Only a small fraction of the “one percent” inherited their fortunes; instead, the large majority made their wealth by working hard and taking the risk to start a small business, creating their own market in many cases. Contrary to popular belief, those who inherited their wealth eventually fall off the “wealthiest people” charts because many huge fortunes are split several ways, and seldom do heirs have the drive to start again on building a fortune.So rather than leveling the playing field at a low level of prosperity by taxing the wealthy until it hurts, perhaps the better approach is doing our best to encourage entrepreneurship and allowing more value to be added to our resources, such as through fair trade. While that doesn’t make for a system leftists would consider fair, we have no doubt there are many fortunes to be made in America — that is, unless Elizabeth dinky/liar-Warren, commie-Bernie Sanders, and a host of other Democrats would take over and make being wealthy akin to committing a crime. We already have the public shaming of wealthy people as society succumbs to the mantra that all rich people are evil, ignoring that those pillars of society often make the nonprofit world go ‘round. Wealth creation is the right model, not a stunted system built on envy fomented by wealthy Democrats.  ~The Patriot Post



Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *