TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
Mr. Anonymous Exposes an Even Deeper State
by David Limbaugh 
.
Pompeo Rips hanoi-John Kerry
For ‘Undermining’ US Policy On Iran
by Saagar Enjeti
{ dailycaller.com } ~ Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused his predecessor, former Secretary of State hanoi-John Kerry, of attempting to undermine U.S. policy toward Iran... Pompeo called hanoi-Kerry’s admitted meetings with Iranian officials “unseemly and unprecedented,” adding that “it is beyond inappropriate.” The secretary of state relayed an anecdote of seeing hanoi-Kerry during a visit to Europe where he took part in a meeting with Iranian officials. “Actively undermining U.S. policy as a former Secretary of State is literally unheard of.” hanoi-Kerry admitted in a recent interview on Fox News that he met with Iranian officials on two or three different occasions in a bid to save the Iranian nuclear deal. The former secretary of state defended his actions saying that since President Donald Trump had not yet withdrawn from the agreement that he was free to work to bolster it. Trump attacked hanoi-Kerry after his admission. “hanoi-John Kerry had illegal meetings with the very hostile Iranian Regime, which can only serve to undercut our great work to the detriment of the American people,” Trump tweeted. “He told them to wait out the Trump Administration! Was he registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act? BAD!”...
.
Kavanaugh Classmate Named in Letter
Strongly Denies Allegations of Misconduct
by JOHN MCCORMACK
{ weeklystandard.com } ~ On Friday morning, The New Yorker's Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow reported on a letter alleging possible sexual misconduct by Brett Kavanaugh while he was a high-school student... According to the New Yorker: "The woman, who has asked not to be identified, first approached dummycrats-Democratic lawmakers in July, shortly after Trump nominated Kavanaugh. The allegation dates back to the early nineteen-eighties, when Kavanaugh was a high-school student at Georgetown Preparatory School, in Bethesda, Maryland, and the woman attended a nearby high school. In the letter, the woman alleged that, during an encounter at a party, Kavanaugh held her down, and that he attempted to force himself on her. She claimed in the letter that Kavanaugh and a classmate of his, both of whom had been drinking, turned up music that was playing in the room to conceal the sound of her protests, and that Kavanaugh covered her mouth with his hand. She was able to free herself. [...] In a statement, Kavanaugh said, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”  Kavanaugh’s classmate said of the woman’s allegation, “I have no recollection of that.” I asked Judge if he could recall any sort of rough-housing with a female student back in high school an incident that might have been interpreted differently by parties involved. "I can't. I can recall a lot of rough-housing with guys. It was an all-boys school, we would rough-house with each other," he said said. "I don't remember any of that stuff going on with girls." Judge says he still does not know the name of the woman who made the allegations. The Kavanaugh classmate quoted in the New Yorker is Mark Judge, a writer in Washington, D.C. Judge spoke to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Friday afternoon, strongly denying that any such incident ever occurred. "It's just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way," Judge told TWS.
.
Manafort Indictment Also Implicates Tony Podesta,
The liar-Clinton-Connected Superlobbyist
by Chuck Ross
{ dailycaller.com } ~ Two lobbying firms, including one owned by dummycrats-Democratic superlobbyist Tony Podesta... knowingly worked with Paul Manafort at the direction of the Ukrainian government, according to an indictment released Friday by the special counsel’s office. The indictment, which was released ahead of an expected plea deal for Manafort, the former chairman of President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, says that as a part of his “lobbying scheme,” Manafort solicited two lobbying firms in February 2012 to lobby on behalf of then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. “Various employees of Companies A and B understood that they were receiving direction from MANAFORT and President Yanukovych, not the Centre, which was not even operational when Companies A and B began lobbying for Ukraine,” reads the indictment. The Centre is a reference to the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a Brussels-based non-profit that the government says was used to support Yanukovych. Company A has been identified as Mercury Public Affairs, a lobbying shop operated by former Minnesota Republican Rep. Vin Weber. Company B has been identified as Podesta Group, the firm that Tony Podesta founded with his brother, John, the chairman of liar-Hillary Clinton’s campaign...
.
Avenatti should’ve known not to take on Tucker. But,
he should’ve never, EVER asked him if he watches porn
by Samantha Chang
{ bizpacreview.com } ~ Fox News’ Tucker Carlson decimated “Creepy Porn Lawyer” Michael Avenatti, the attorney for Stormy Daniels, by delivering an unforgettable knockout blow... when he remarked that watching Avenatti shamelessly promote himself on CNN is like watching “humiliation porn.” The exchange started when a defensive Avenatti veered off-topic and asked: “When’s the last time you saw porn?” That’s when Carlson retorted: “I’m into humiliation porn, that’s why I watch you on CNN.” The interview started with Tucker saying it was nice that he and Avenatti  whom he has repeatedly referred to as “Creepy Porn Lawyer” could finally talk in person after months of exchanging jabs on Twitter and on cable news.  Carlson kicked off by asking why Avenatti is exploiting Stormy Daniels, who was allegedly paid $130,000 for her 2006 one-night stand with Donald Trump, as BizPac Review reported.  That’s exponentially higher than the daily rate for female porn stars, who usually get paid $300 to $1,500 per scene. Most female porn stars make $100,000 to $200,000 a year, so sex worker Stormy Daniels raked in a year’s salary for her one-night stand with Trump back in 2006, long before he was in politics...
.
Stop Now, Linda Sarsour! Says Palestinian Rights Activist
by SHIREEN QUDOSI 
{ clarionproject.org } ~ At the 2018 Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention, Linda Sarsour’s call to dehumanize Israelis gave Americans another inside look at the hate on which Sarsour builds her platform... Last year, Sarsour, the Women’s March co-chair and darling of the political left, used her ISNA speech to call for jihad against President Trump — a message she backpedaled on quickly saying she was misunderstood. This year, assuming to speak for all Muslim Americans through one authoritarian message, Sarsour directed American Muslims not to humanize Israelis. Her message is dangerous to American Muslims, enough of whom are a vulnerable population group. Her message is also against the grain of human dignity and peace building. In short, Sarsour is the very problem she claims to challenge. She’s an angry, erratic public figure who is out of touch with the Palestinians she claims to champion. In this interview, Clarion Project’s national correspondent Shireen Qudosi speaks with Charlotte Littlewood, founding director of Become the Voice. After three years working for the British government in Prevent and Counter Extremism, she felt a far more grassroots and youth lead approach was required to make a real difference. Littlewood recently returned to the UK from Palestine, where she launched Become the Voice with a grassroots message-building program to help uplift the voices of Palestinian women. Through Littlewood, we learn of what Palestinians really want, and why Linda Sarsour’s message is deeply troubling for real peacemakers...
.
. 
Mr. Anonymous Exposes an Even Deeper State


by David Limbaugh

{ townhall.com } ~ If dummycrats-Democrats and resistance Republicans think they are going to depose President Trump or thwart his presidency by endlessly savaging him in the name of protecting the republic, they don't have any concept of the fierce resolve of his supporters.

The latest salvo in the resistance's efforts to nullify the will of the American electorate is an anonymous New York Times op-ed purportedly penned by a "senior official" in the Trump administration. This pretend super-patriot declares that Trump faces "a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader. ... The dilemma -- which he does not fully grasp -- is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. I would know. I am one of them."

Well, congratulations. But this sounds far more like a damning admission of an unelected, self-important saboteur than a persuasive indictment of the duly elected president. And FYI, Trump does fully grasp it. What do you think he's been shouting about for two years running?

The anonymous author assures us that he and his fellow guardians of the Constitution want the president to succeed. They even agree with much of his agenda. But, the author says, "the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic." These selfless servants "have vowed to do what they can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office."

Just how does President Trump represent such a dire threat to our democratic institutions -- an inflammatory but unsupported talking point of the resistance?

Here's the bill of particulars: "In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the 'enemy of the people,' President Trump's impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic." And what policy successes Trump has achieved "have come despite -- not because of -- the president's leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective."

It's obvious that dummycrats-Democrats and the Trump-obsessed and -hating media believe that by alleging frequently enough that Trump is combative toward the liberal media and a threat to our democratic institutions, they have made a compelling case.

The problem is that they never adduce any evidence. Trump didn't start the war with the liberal media. They have been relentlessly brutalizing him from the beginning. But even if Trump threw the first volley in this war of words, it is still simply that -- a war of words -- not a dire threat to the republic.

The liberal media are always unfair to Republicans, except those who act like dummycrats-Democrats, but they emit an especially toxic venom toward this president. I, for one, am delighted that Trump fights back, that he does not sit idly and passively take their abuse like many of his GOP predecessors. The liberal media's outrageously biased and dishonest coverage doesn't just offend Trump; it bothers many of us and is contrary to America's best interests.

But Trump has no power to shut down the media or limit their power on his own initiative and has not tried to. So enough hyperventilating that his harsh criticism of their despicable antics somehow threatens the Constitution.

Together, the conspiratorially united Trump attackers from the fifth column have just as much rhetorical power as the president, with his bully pulpit. They are just not used to Republican officials counter punching. They mistakenly believe they are sacrosanct and above criticism. But no one in his right mind would argue that the press itself, while historically occupying a watchdog position, should be above scrutiny themselves.

How about the author's charge that the president's impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic? Impulses? What does that mean? That is sheer obfuscation. Impulses are not a threat to the Constitution or the republic.

There is no question that President Trump has implemented aggressive policy changes in trade, but he couldn't have been more transparent about his intention to do so during the campaign, and he was elected on that basis. I consider myself a free trade advocate, too, but I don't see Trump's ultimate aim as protectionism as much as I see it as an effort to secure more favorable trade deals for the United States. Whether he has been or will be successful with that and whether it is wise policy are legitimate subjects for debate, but for Mr. Anonymous and his fellow coup-fantasists to contend that this somehow represents a threat to our democracy is egregiously absurd. It's more than just hyperbolic; it's flat-out wrong and inflammatorily dishonest.

It is also dishonest to imply that Trump's alleged anti-democratic impulses threaten the republic. He is not the one who has acted outside his constitutional authority, but I can cite you a dozen cases in which President scumbag/liar-nObama did. So don't act as if this president is a unique threat to our institutions. What he is a threat to is their notion of the ideal Republican -- one who will "reach across the aisle" and, in the name of civility and bipartisanship, surrender on major policy decisions.

Particularly objectionable is the writer's claim that Trump's policy successes have come despite the president's leadership style.

This is exactly wrong, and it's precisely why the whining author and his henchmen have no credibility and his cowardly missive will produce the opposite effect he intends.

One reason even former Trump skeptics have come to appreciate him is that they believe his successes most likely would not have come without his grit and determination to fight against a conglomeration of leftist politicians and institutions determined to thwart his agenda. Many in Trump's place would have long since rolled over and capitulated, and the country would be back on its way to scumbag/liar-nObama-style destruction, which is the type of threat that truly concerns those who believe in America as founded.

The author's concern over Trump's alleged preference for autocrats and dictators and his underappreciation of our allies is another deceptive sound bite suggesting that Trump would betray America's interests because he is enamored of the world's bad-boy power players and that he is gratuitously offending our allies. But this criticism doesn't square with Trump's policies, many of which are anything but favorable to Russia's strategic interests. And his criticism of Canada's Justin Trudeau came after Trudeau took a cheap shot at him on his way out of the nation. Why should Trudeau have gotten a pass for slamming Trump and his effort to secure fairer trade deals? The recent president infamous for betraying our allies Israel, sometimes Britain and coddling our enemies Iran was President scumbag/liar-nObama. Game, set, match.

I find it appalling that Mr. Anonymous boasts of undermining this president and galling that he actually shows himself to be the very type of threat to the republic he claims President Trump is. But we owe him our gratitude for vindicating our suspicions of a deeply entrenched resistance to this constitutionally elected chief executive.

Views: 17

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 Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

ALERT ALERT

OMG!! -> Government Now Wants To Seize Your Car For Going 5MPH Over The Limit

We’ve discussed this on and off for several years now. Civil asset forfeiture is a legal process that allows the government to seize assets and cash from citizens without any due process or judicial oversight.

You don’t even have to be charged with a crime. You are assumed guilty unless you can somehow prove your innocence.

Of course, not everyone has this ability… if you aren’t local, state, or federal law enforcement, this is called stealing, and you go to prison.

But the government is actually a bigger problem than common thieves.

A 2015 report showed that law enforcement used civil asset forfeiture to steal more from US residents than every thief, robber, and burglar in America combined.

About $4.5 BILLION worth of cash, cars, homes, and other property is taken by civil asset forfeiture each year – hundreds of millions more than common criminals steal.

And it happens at every level. Your local cop can use civil asset forfeiture just like your state trooper. And then any one of the armed agents of the US government—from the FBI to the Fish and Wildlife Service—can rob you for whatever reason they want.

This travesty continues to grow because the cops who take your stuff get to keep it. Police departments and government agencies around the country depend on civil asset forfeiture to boost their budgets.

Cops will literally keep some of the cars they take as squad cars. And they make a fortune auctioning off the houses, boats, and anything else they confiscate.

Obviously this gives cops an incentive to steal, whether or not they actually think the property was used in a crime, or acquired illegally. Remember, civil asset forfeiture adds billions every year to their bottom line.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case of civil asset forfeiture.

Tyson Timbs was convicted of selling a small amount of drugs to an undercover police officer. He was sentenced to house arrest, and paid about $1,200 in fines.

But then police used civil asset forfeiture to take his $42,000 Land Rover which Timbs purchased with money from a life insurance policy after his father died. The money did not come from selling drugs, or any other illegal activity.

Timbs sued, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court, because every lower court in Indiana said the forfeiture was perfectly legit.

The case revolves around whether or not the seizure of the Land Rover was an excessive fine under the 8th amendment, and whether or not this protection against excessive fines applies to state governments.

And the public got some crazy insight into the government’s position.

The Indiana Solicitor General was arguing in favor of civil asset forfeiture when Justice Stephen Breyer asked him a hypothetical.

Breyer asked, if a state needs revenue, could it force someone to forfeit their Bugatti, Mercedes, or Ferrari for speeding? Even if they were going just 5 miles per hour over the speed limit?

And the utterly appalling answer from the Indiana Solicitor General was, yes.

That’s right… the official government position is that they can steal any amount of your property in “connection” with any crime whatsoever, no matter how trivial the crime may be… even exceeding the speed limit by 5 miles per hour.

This is how overbearing and authoritarian the government has become in the land of the free.

This is how much power your local cop has… and the power only grows as you go to state, and federal officials.

If there is any solace in any of this, it is that the other Supreme Court Justices were reportedly laughing at this exchange.

The justices seemed incredulous that Indiana’s top lawyer was using such absurd assertions and flimsy reasoning in his arguments.

So, for now, we can keep our cars if we get pulled over for speeding. But that may not always be the case…

Depending on how this is ruled, it could pave the way for even more egregious abuses of power… or it could curb the practice, and reign in these thieves in uniforms.

Just understand where the government is coming from. These politicians, bureaucrats and officers think they can do whatever they want. Absolutely anything goes, with no limitation whatsoever.

And that makes it a little tough to feel like you really live in the land of the free.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service