TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
   dinky-Warren's Corrupt 'Anti-Corruption' Plan

Nate Jackson 
.
Wargaming the Electoral College: 
Trump's 2020 Game Plan Preview
By STEPHEN GREEN
{ pjmedia.com } ~ How can a nontraditional GOP candidate beat a well-known Democrat who seemed to have most of her electoral ducks in a row... that's the question we asked three years ago during the previous Wargaming the Electoral College series. As it turned out, the first winning scenario I explored for Trump, called "the northern route," turned out to be the one that won him the election. It was one of those But Only Donald Trump Can [Blank]™ victories. While the rest of the GOP contenders would have racked up huge wins in safe red states, Trump pitched his appeal at disaffected Democrats in the Rust Belt. If he didn't win Texas as big as Ted Cruz might have, so what? Trump carried Texas and Pennsylvania. If you're spent the last four years under a rock -- a rock without WiFi, for that matter -- you might think that Trump would play it safe in 2020, working to deny the Democrat nominee much chance of winning back PA, MI, or WI. But a couple of items from the last few days indicate that Trump will double down on 2016's winning formula, and try putting even more blue states into play next year. Before we get to that, most pundits will begin 2020. We'll call it the Conventional Wisdom Battlespace. But Trump doesn't hew much to the conventional wisdom, does he? Last week, Time's Brian Bennett delivered a look inside Trump's plan to flip even more blue states next year. The story begins in New Mexico, which hasn't been won by a Republican since George W. Bush in 2004 -- and even that was a very near thing. Nevertheless, Bennett reports that Team Trump "is planning to announce a state director and additional ground staff there in the coming weeks." The play is to "energize a slice of the state’s Hispanic voters" just big enough to turn it red. Jared Kushner told Time, "I can see us very aggressively playing in 18 swing states," as opposed to just 11 last time around...   https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/wargaming-the-electoral-college-tru...   
Lewandowski Mercilessly Mock Eric 'Nuke 
American Gun Owners' scumbag-Swalwell 
at Impeachment Hearing
By Cade Almond 
{ westernjournal.com } ~ Former Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski went after Democratic California Rep. scumbag-Eric Swalwell during Tuesday’s impeachment inquiry... Lewandowski mocked scumbag-Swalwell’s pitiful 2020 presidential bid, calling him “President scumbag-Swalwell” while responding to questions regarding President Trump’s alleged obstruction of justice. The former campaign manager was instructed by the White House not to reveal details about one-on-one conversations that were not made public in former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, which frustrated Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee. The ribbing only added to the frustration — and made the circus more bearable to watch. It started with scumbag-Swalwell asking Lewandowski to read what he apparently had written in the past regarding what Trump had allegedly dictated to him.This was not a question but a command, and Lewandowski jabbed scumbag-Swalwell when he suggested that the congressman read it himself. “President scumbag-Swalwell, I’m happy of what I’ve written, but you’re welcome to read it if you’d like,” Lewandowski said, obviously referencing the Democrat’s presidential campaign, which was, to be generous, absolutely pathetic. scumbag-Swalwell’s poll numbers peaked at around 1%, and he slunk out of the race July 8. That wasn’t all that Lewandowski had for him, though. “Have you ever put any words that the president asked you to write down before in a safe, or was this the first time you had done that?” scumbag-Swalwell said, pressing Lewandowski about his handling of notes. “I believe it’s my standard operating procedure when taking notes, Congressman,” Lewandowski replied. scumbag-Swalwell took the bait. “So every note that you take of the president you put in a safe?” he asked. “How big is that safe?”...   https://www.westernjournal.com/watch-lewandowski-mercilessly-mock-e...  
.
Majority of public want unity govt 
with no ultra-Orthodox parties  
By JEREMY SHARON  
{ jpost.com } ~ With political machinations and intrigues in full swing following Tuesday’s election, both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Blue and White leader Benny Gantz have said they want a national unity government... Netanyahu, however, said that he wants such a government to include his ultra-Orthodox and religious-Zionist allies, which Gantz and his party oppose. Support for a national unity government without the ultra-Orthodox parties is actually widespread, with some two-thirds of the Jewish Israeli public backing such a coalition, including half of all Likud voters. According to a poll conducted by the Smith Polling Institute in August, 64% of Israeli Jews favor excluding the ultra-Orthodox parties from the next government, with 36% opposed to such a notion. The question posed to those polled stated: “In most coalitions over the last decades, haredi ultra-Orthodox parties were part of coalition and enjoyed great influence in the realm of religion and state, including the current government. Do you support or oppose that the next coalition not include the haredi parties?” While 64% of the general public supported exclusion, this support was also reflected across the political spectrum. Some 51% of Likud voters backed excluding the ultra-Orthodox, as did 90% of Blue and White voters, 71% of Labor-Gesher voters, 94% of Yisrael Beytenu voters, 93% of Democratic Union voters, and 75% of undecideds.  Unsurprisingly, 92% of ultra-Orthodox voters opposed the idea, as did 67% of Yamina voters. The poll also asked whether voters would be more or less likely to vote for a party which “committed to the principles of religious freedom and equality” regarding civil marriage and divorce, public transportation on Shabbat, ultra-Orthodox army enlistment, and similar issues. Of those polled who described themselves as secular, 74% said it would make them more likely to vote for such a party, along with 70% of so-called “traditional” Israelis. The poll was conducted between August 6 and 11 on a sample of 753 adults, with a margin of error of 3.6%.  The same poll, and others, have also demonstrated strong support for liberalization of the interaction of religion and state in Israel. An August poll conducted by the NGO Hiddush found that 68% of the adult Jewish public in Israel supports the introduction of civil marriage, which would also provide state recognition of marriages performed by Reform and Conservative rabbis. Some 60% of Likud voters supported civil marriage in the poll, as well as massive majorities of voters for other secular parties...   https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Majority-of-public-want-unity-gov...   
Revealed - scumbag/liar-nObama’s 
Betrayal of SEAL Team Six  
by frontpagemag.com ~ Clare discusses: scumbag/liar-nObama’s Betrayal of SEAL Team Six, unveiling the treacherous administration with American blood on its hands.  
Part I: 9/11 Came From Riyadh & Tehran: 
Part 2: Osama Found Safe Haven in Iran Post 9-11: 
Part 3: John Bolton Out — and the Consequences, unveiling what’s at stake for U.S. national security. 
.
.
dinky-Warren's Corrupt 'Anti-Corruption' Plan

Nate Jackson:  Elizabeth dinky-Warren, who corruptly exploited her own bogus claims of Native American heritage to advance her academic career, has a plan to eradicate corruption from Washington. You might say she wants to borrow a popular refrain to “drain the swamp.”

dinky-Warren laments, “In 1958, the National Election Survey first asked Americans a simple question: Do you trust the government to do the right thing most of the time? That year, 73% of Americans said yes. In 2019, that number is just 17%. Five out of every six Americans do not trust their government to do the right thing. Why have so many people lost faith in government?”

The senator blames “right-wing politicians” for spending “a generation attacking the very idea of government,” before launching on her tired refrain about the “wealthy and the well-connected” — of which dinky-Warren herself is a prominent member. But we can think of two answers to her question that are intimately related. The first is this admonition from Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address: “A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”

The second is that the warning issued by James Madison, author of the Constitution we celebrate today, has come to pass: “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”

Why don’t Americans trust the government? Because it’s doing things poorly that it was never constitutionally empowered to do in the first place. Power, meet abuse. To say so is not “attacking government.” It’s advocating a limited and constitutional one.

Virtually the entire Democrat platform since, oh, about 1958 has been along the lines of the so-called “Great Society” — unconstitutional and failed welfare programs that “take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned,” only to give it to someone who didn’t earn it. Of course, Democrats really began traveling down the “progressive” road with Woodrow Wilson’s income-tax-funded administrative state and stomped on the accelerator with Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” socialism.

Naturally, dinky-Warren only doubles down on the Democrats’ top-down, government-control approach. Regulate this, outlaw that, tax the other thing. That’s why it’s almost comical that her plan echoes Barack scumbag/liar-nObama in its call for “big, structural change to fundamentally transform our government.” How is it fundamental change to do more of what government has spent the last century doing?

In all honesty, we do indeed need a fundamental transformation — one that returns the federal government to its proper, constitutionally limited role. That means things like prioritizing national defense while ceasing the income redistribution that consumes two-thirds of the $4 trillion budget and feeds the very lobbying problem Warren claims to want to eradicate. Warren and her fellow socialists demand even more redistribution programs that would only exacerbate the corruption they claim to want to solve.

But as a final thought, the Founders thought the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (i.e., lobbying) was important enough to place in the First Amendment. Yes, lobbyists can be corrupt, but no more so than the politicians and unelected bureaucrats crafting reams of rules dictating everything from what kind of light bulb we use to how much water our toilets flush. Warren’s plan to gut the First Amendment simply because she doesn’t want to hear from lobbyists who oppose such things isn’t removing corruption; it’s adding tyranny.


The late, great Charles Krauthammer wrote this of lobbyists in 2008:

Everyone knows the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. How many remember that, in addition, the First Amendment protects a fifth freedom — to lobby?

Of course it doesn’t use the word lobby. It calls it the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Lobbyists are people hired to do that for you, so that you can actually stay home with the kids and remain gainfully employed rather than spend your life in the corridors of Washington.

To hear the candidates in this presidential campaign, you’d think lobbying is just one notch below waterboarding, a black art practiced by the great malefactors of wealth to keep the middle class in a vise and loose upon the nation every manner of scourge: oil dependency, greenhouse gases, unpayable mortgages and those tiny entrees you get at French restaurants.

Lobbying is constitutionally protected, but that doesn’t mean we have to like it all. Let’s agree to frown upon bad lobbying, such as getting a tax break for a particular industry. Let’s agree to welcome good lobbying — the actual redress of a legitimate grievance — such as protecting your home from being turned to dust to make way for some urban development project. …

Good lobbying … is a cherished First Amendment right — necessary, like the others, to protect a free people against overbearing and potentially tyrannical government.  

~The Patriot Post

 

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65517?mailing_id=4534&utm_mediu...  

Views: 7

Comment

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

Join Tea Party Command Center

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

Political Cartoons by Michael RamirezPolitical Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

ALERT ALERT

YIKES!!! Chelsea Clinton Emphatically States A Person With A Beard And A Penis Can ‘Absolutely’ Identify As A Woman

  • The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification
  • In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons about transgender self-identification
  • Chelsea Clinton replied ‘yes’ emphatically when asked if someone with a beard and penis can ever be a woman
  • ‘It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently,’ Hillary said
  • Aitkenhead said Hillary became ‘uneasy’ when the question was asked while Chelsea shot a ‘furious stare’ at the journalist as her mother answered
  • Hillary added: ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw’

(Daily Mail) – It may appear Hillary and Chelsea Clinton always see eye-to-eye, but in a recent interview one topic cracked the facade of the like-minded mother-daughter power duo.

The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons if someone with a beard and a penis can ever be a woman, to which Chelsea replied emphatically, ‘Yes.’

However, as Aitkenhead describes it, Hillary looked ‘uneasy’, and blamed generational gaps for being less accepting.

‘Errr. I’m just learning about this,’ Hillary responded. ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw. It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently.’

The Clintons sat sown with Aitkenhead to promote the book they co-authored, The Book of Gutsy Women: Favorite Stories of Courage and Resilience.

The book features Danica Roem, the first trans woman elected to a U.S. state legislature.

According Aitkenhead’s account, she tells Hillary during the interview that many British feminists of Hillary’s generation have a problem with the idea that a ‘lesbian who doesn’t want to sleep with someone who has a penis is transphobic.’

Hillary nods in agreement, while Chelsea ‘stiffens and stares at me’, according to Aitkenhead.

The journalist then adds that many women of Hillary’s generation are uncomfortable with biological males sharing women’s bathrooms.

‘I would say that, absolutely,’ Hillary nods firmly. ‘Absolutely. Yes.’

That’s when Chelsea begins shooting a ‘furious stare’ at Aitkenhead, who points it out to her.

‘I’m a terrible actor’, Chelsea laughs.

Chelsea then says she is thrilled with the National Health Service’s decision to assign patients to single-sex wards according to the gender they identify as, instead of their biological make up.

‘How can you treat someone if you don’t recognize who they feel and know in their core they are?’ Chelsea says.

‘And I strongly support children being able to play on the sports teams that match their own gender identity,’ she adds. ‘I think we need to be doing everything we can to support kids in being whoever they know themselves to be and discovering who they are.’

At this point Hillary looks conflicted.

‘I think you’ve got to be sensitive to how difficult this is,’ Hillary says. ‘There are women who’d say [to a trans woman], ”You know what, you’ve never had the kind of life experiences that I’ve had. So I respect who you are, but don’t tell me you’re the same as me.” I hear that conversation all the time.’

Despite the clear tension in the room, the pair say they don’t argue about this topic.

But according to Aitkenhead, ‘I get the impression they don’t like to present anything less than a united front to the world.’

BONUS VIDEO

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service