Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

Rep. Matt Gaetz DROPS BOMB On Paul Ryan: Today Was the First Time I Heard Lawmakers Calling For It!

Say hello to Karma!

Published

on

Ever since Speaker of the House Paul Ryan announced that he was retiring from Congress the question remained about who would replace him. The obvious successor is Rep. Kevin McCarthy who is a part of the leadership and the apparent next in line. He has even been endorsed by Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana who also is a part of leadership. But growing concerns over establishment politics have been growing. As such, an increasing number of people have been calling for someone else. Rep. Jim Jordan is one who is being considered who many want to replace Speaker Ryan but not if the establishment has anything to say about it.

The Gateway Pundit reported,

“Rep. Matt Gaetz (R_FL) went on with Lou Dobbs on Wednesday and called out Speaker Paul Ryan for defending the deep state and refusing to defend Republican congressional investigators. Earlier today Paul Ryan defended the Obama FBI for spying on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.
This was unbelievable.

Rep. Matt Gaetz: There is no defense today for Paul Ryan siding with the FBI and Department of Justice against those of us in the Congress who are working for transparency and accountability… We need the Speaker to be an institutionalist of the Congress and not to be a defender of the Deep State… The silence from our very own Speaker is deafening. He needs to speak up. He needs to join us in a call for a second Special Counsel. And for goodness sakes, stop defending the FBI’s collection of intelligence on the Trump campaign when they refuse to give us the documents to show whether or not they broke the law… As you know I run in the conservative circles of the House. And I have never up to this point heard a single person talk removing Speaker Ryan from the speakership. Today for the first time I was hearing colleagues say, “Well if Speaker Ryan won’t stand with us in this fight over the essentials of our democracy, not weaponizing the intelligence community against a presidential campaign, do we need to look at other choices?” So I think that remains a lingering question.”

Trending: In Historic 9-0 Decision, Supreme Court Just Shredded Democrats – YUGE!!!!

While Roll Call reported,

“Before the House took last week off, members of the Intelligence Committee received a classified briefing on the ongoing Russia investigation. That briefing apparently included clarifying details on the FBI’s handling of the informant in Trump’s 2016 campaign. Both Ryan and Gowdy, who have now publicly defended the FBI’s actions, were at the meeting. Gaetz, a freshman from Florida, was not.

“Based on what I have seen, I don’t know what the FBI could have done or should have done other than run out a lead that someone loosely connected with the campaign was making assertions about Russia,” Gowdy said last week on CBS’ “This Morning.” “I would think you would want the FBI to find whether or not there was any validity to what those people were saying,” Gowdy said. Ryan backed Gowdy on Wednesday in response to a question at the GOP’s weekly leadership team press conference. “Chairman Gowdy’s initial assessment is accurate,” Ryan said. “I want to make sure that we run every lead down and make sure we get final answers to these questions.”

While many conservatives such as Rep. Gaetz are displeased with Speaker Ryan, so is Rep. Jim Jordan who is a prominent member of the House Freedom Caucus. Rumors have circulated on Capitol Hill that he has been lobbying fellow members and privately courting other members of Congress to support his bid to replace Speaker Ryan when he retires. However, some opponents have indicated that his lack of fundraising success in the past would not make him a good fit. Something that House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy has been very successful at.

Yet, some have continued to encourage Rep. Jordan, especially more conservative members of Congress. Several staffers, aides, lawmakers, and political strategists have indicated so to high profile news outlets like CNBC on the condition of anonymity. However, if this is true Rep. Jordan is not giving any indication of what he plans to do as he refused to return comments when reached out to regarding the issue. Yet in a separate interview, he told PBS that he would like to be a part of the conversation regarding the Speaker of the House position when it comes up.

Share if you agree that their needs to be a more conservative member of Congress as Speaker of the House.

Share if you believe that Rep. Matt Gaetz is correct about that.

Share if you think that Speaker Ryan should not be replaced by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

Share if you agree that Rep. Jim Jordan should be given a legitimate opportunity to replace Speaker Ryan.

Share if you believe that doing so would bring conservative leaders back to the party.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

Trump Abruptly Cancels Big Military Parade And Has A Better Plan Instead – Dems Will Be Livid

This is even better!

Right Wing News

Published

on

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by proven trustworthy military news source Task and Purpose.

Task and Purpose provides the following report on President Trump’s Military Parade cancellation and what he plans to do instead:

President Donald Trump has officially canceled his proposed military parade, originally scheduled for November 10, in a series of Friday morning tweets:

→The Department of Defense had previously announced on Thursday that the procession would be postponed until an undetermined date in 2019.

→ “The Department of Defense and White House have been planning a parade to honor America’s military veterans and commemorate the centennial of World War I,” Pentagon spokesman Col. Rob Manning said in a statement. “We originally targeted November 10, 2018 for this event but have now agreed to explore opportunities in 2019.”

→ The news came the same day that CNBC reported the estimated cost of the parade had ballooned by $80 million to a whopping $92 million. The proposed march would include approximately eight tanks and other armored vehicles such as Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Strykers and flyovers from a variety of military aircraft, all accompanying thousands of active-duty U.S. service members, per the report.

→ The CNBC report sparked frustration among veterans groups like the American Legion over the allocation of government money towards the procession through the streets of Washington, D.C. rather than other critical services for veterans.

→ “The American Legion appreciates that our President wants to show in a dramatic fashion our nation’s support for our troops,” American Legion National Commander Denise Rohan said in a statement. “However, until such time as we can celebrate victory in the War on Terrorism and bring our military home, we think the parade money would be better spent fully funding the Department of Veteran Affairs and giving our troops and their families the best care possible.”

Continue Reading

News

Immigrants Living On Taxpayer Dime Got Rude Awakening Thanks To Trump’s ‘New Rule’

Immigrants just got a harsh wake-up call from President Trump!

Published

on

A new rule is being cooked up by the Trump administration that will send a rude awakening to immigrants living on the taxpayer dime. Trump’s new rule brings up the “public charge” in what the New York Times stated was a law that was about 100-years-old but was reworked in 1999. President Donald Trump’s new rule, which is in the works, not in action, could affect up to 1 million people in New York alone.

It has to do with immigrants using resources for welfare benefits and being listed in the realm of being a “burden” on the funds.

The New York Times stated: “But a new rule in the works from the Trump administration would make it difficult, if not impossible, for immigrants who use those benefits to obtain green cards.

New York City officials estimated that at least a million people here could be hurt by this plan, warning that the children of immigrants seeking green cards would be most vulnerable.

That’s because if applicants use any welfare benefits, even for children who are United States citizens, that could indicate they would be a burden on government resources. “What feels deeply concerning,” said Bitta Mostofi, New York City’s commissioner of immigrant affairs, “is the impact on the welfare of children, period.”

The spin they put on it makes it seem like this will leave families without food and that President Trump is going after immigrant children. What it should really be looked at is a rule that helps people become more motivated to get jobs and provide food for their families on their own, not live on the government dole while other people work 60 hours a week just to have funds for the welfare of others taken out of their check via taxes.

There are two ways to look at their new possible rules. The liberals will say it’s an attack on children and immigrants. The people with more common sense will say it’s about time that people started working for themselves. That brings up the classic debate that many of the working class are tired of hearing about – taxes and welfare. People who work for a living don’t like seeing their money given to people who refuse to work for a living.

Being on welfare because you have to is one thing. Some people are unable to work and need help. That’s different and most Americans are happy to help in that scenario. When people are on tough times, then sometimes they need a little bit of help, and that’s acceptable and nothing to be ashamed of. However, there are people who milk the system and refuse to work and that needs to be stopped at all costs. Being on welfare because you purposely choose not to work is a bad thing and any president that we have should be inclined to get people off the couch and back to being productive.

Just for reference, the public charge fact sheet states:

“Introduction

“Public charge has been part of U.S. immigration law for more than 100 years as a ground of inadmissibility and deportation. An individual who is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible to the United States and ineligible to become a legal permanent resident. However, receiving public benefits does not automatically make an individual a public charge. This fact sheet provides information about public charge determinations to help noncitizens make informed choices about whether to apply for certain public benefits.

“Background

“Under Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an individual seeking admission to the United States or seeking to adjust status to permanent resident (obtaining a green card) is inadmissible if the individual “at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge.” If an individual is inadmissible, admission to the United States or adjustment of status will not be granted.

“Immigration and welfare laws have generated some concern about whether a noncitizen may face adverse immigration consequences for having received federal, state, or local public benefits. Some noncitizens and their families are eligible for public benefits – including disaster relief, treatment of communicable diseases, immunizations, and children’s nutrition and health care programs – without being found to be a public charge.

“Definition of Public Charge

“In determining inadmissibility, USCIS defines “public charge” as an individual who is likely to become “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). In determining whether an alien meets this definition for public charge inadmissibility, a number of factors are considered, including age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education, and skills. No single factor, other than the lack of an affidavit of support, if required, will determine whether an individual is a public charge.

“Benefits Subject to Public Charge Consideration

“USCIS guidance specifies that cash assistance for income maintenance includes Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and state or local cash assistance programs for income maintenance, often called “general assistance” programs. Acceptance of these forms of public cash assistance could make a noncitizen inadmissible as a public charge if all other criteria are met. However, the mere receipt of these benefits does not automatically make an individual inadmissible, ineligible to adjust status to lawful permanent resident, or deportable on public charge grounds. See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). Each determination is made on a case-by-case basis in the context of the totality of the circumstances.

“In addition, public assistance, including Medicaid, that is used to support aliens who reside in an institution for long-term care – such as a nursing home or mental health institution – may also be considered as an adverse factor in the totality of the circumstances for purposes of public charge determinations. Short-term institutionalization for rehabilitation is not subject to public charge consideration.

“Benefits Not Subject to Public Charge Consideration

“Under the agency guidance, non-cash benefits and special-purpose cash benefits that are not intended for income maintenance are not subject to public charge consideration. Such benefits include:

  • Medicaid and other health insurance and health services (including public assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases, use of health clinics, short-term rehabilitation services, prenatal care and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care
  • Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
  • Nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)- commonly referred to as Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs
  • Housing benefits
  • Child care services
  • Energy assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
  • Emergency disaster relief
  • Foster care and adoption assistance
  • Educational assistance (such as attending public school), including benefits under the Head Start Act and aid for elementary, secondary or higher education
  • Job training programs
  • In-kind, community-based programs, services or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter)
  • Non-cash benefits under TANF such as subsidized child care or transit subsidies
  • Cash payments that have been earned, such as Title II Social Security benefits, government pensions, and veterans’ benefits, and other forms of earned benefits
  • Unemployment compensation

“Some of the above programs may provide cash benefits, such as energy assistance, transportation or child care benefits provided under TANF or the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG), and one-time emergency payments under TANF. Since the purpose of such benefits is not for income maintenance, but rather to avoid the need for ongoing cash assistance for income maintenance, they are not subject to public charge consideration.

“Note: In general, lawful permanent residents who currently possess a “green card” cannot be denied U.S. citizenship for lawfully receiving any public benefits for which they are eligible.”

Continue Reading

Thanks for sharing!

We'd like to invite you to become a RWN insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend