~ Featuring ~
loose lips liar-Joe Biden is
a Hypocrite on Ukraine
 Marc A. Thiessen 
The case for identifying the whistleblower
by } ~ The identity of the person who filed the intelligence community whistleblower complaint that sparked the drive to impeach President Trump remains a secret... Democrats leading the impeachment campaign say his or her identity for brevity, the whistleblower will hereafter be referred to as "he" must remain closely guarded. Advocates of whistleblower laws, such as Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, agree. The New York Times came under heavy criticism when it reported that the whistleblower is a CIA officer. "Any decision to report any perceived identifying information of the whistleblower is deeply concerning and reckless, as it can place the individual in harm's way," Andrew Bakaj, the whistleblower's lawyer, told the Times. "The whistleblower has a right to anonymity." Does he? And does that right outweigh the rights of the public to know salient facts in a proceeding designed to lead to the impeachment and removal of the president? The answer to the first question is yes, the whistleblower does have a right to anonymity. But the answer to the second question is no, that right does not outweigh other rights in an impeachment battle. Here are three reasons the whistleblower should be publicly identified: 1. The public has a right to know. There is no higher public concern than a debate that could lead to the president's removal. Simply put, everything should be public, because the public should be aware of everything that figures into the process. The whistle has not been blown on a mid-level bureaucrat using a government credit card for personal expenses. The whistleblower has accused the president of serious wrongdoing, and in doing so, has set off a proceeding of the highest public concern on Capitol Hill. 2. The whistleblower set the terms of the debate. In his Aug. 12 complaint, he laid out the accusation that Democrats would later wholly adopt in the effort to remove the president. "I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election," the whistleblower wrote. "Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid." 3. He's not Deep Throat. The most famous anonymous source in all of journalism is Deep Throat, the man who gave Washington Post  reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein a number of leads in the paper's Watergate reporting. Woodward and Bernstein agreed not to reveal Deep Throat's identity, an arrangement that lasted for decades until 2005, when Mark Felt, who was a top FBI official during Watergate, revealed that he was the source. The whistleblower is not a similar case. He has gone through official channels to accuse the president, working with a team of attorneys to produce a polished legal document outlining Trump's alleged wrongdoing. Journalists have not made any agreement to keep his identity a secret...
The Lights Are Out in California, 
And That Was the Plan All Along 
By Chuck DeVore
{ } ~ The power is out in Northern California. More than 1 million Californians are now without electricity, one of modern life’s essentials that is frequently taken for granted... The blackout was done on purpose—to prevent sparks from powerlines that could ignite deadly wildfires. Before planned blackouts are through in two or three days, as many as 3 million Californians may go without power. On the surface, the blackout and its causes are simple to understand. But the deeper causes are complicated, span decades of public policy, and dozens of overlapping unintended—and intended—consequences of decisions, both related and unrelated. The wind in Northern California is blowing in from dry Nevada, as it often does this time of year. It’s called the “Diablo wind.” In Southern California, the comparable current blowing in from the Mojave Desert is known as the “Santa Ana winds.” In both cases, as the wind rises above California’s mountain spine, then descends, it compresses and heats up. Forests, chaparral and brush, dry this time of year in California’s Mediterranean climate, are primed for wildfires. This Isn’t Climate Change.  Michael Wara, Stanford University’s director of climate and energy policy, warns, “We are having to adapt to new circumstances brought about by climate change.” He estimates that this week’s blackout could cost the state as much as $2.6 billion in lost economic activity. Politicians, journalists, and some scientists repeat a common refrain: California is getting hotter and drier because of climate change. They ignore the fact that annual precipitation totals over the past 100 years show no statistically meaningful trend... Thats bull, it's not climate change. This weather change has been going on for decades.
No, We’re Not Selling Out the Syrian Kurds. But 
We Should Mediate Their Conflict With Turkey
by James Phillips
{ } ~ Caught up in a conflict between long-standing NATO ally Turkey and a recently engaged Kurdish tactical partner in Syria, the Trump administration has accommodated the legitimate security interests of Turkey... by staging a partial pullback of U.S. special operations forces in northeastern Syria. It did so to get out of the way of a Turkish intervention launched Wednesday. Although critics of the Trump administration have rushed to denounce the decision as a “sellout” of the Syrian Kurds, that’s not true. Washington received no payoff from Ankara for stepping aside, and is not “abandoning the Kurds,” as many critics contend.  
Washington’s ad hoc partnership with Syrian Kurds never included a commitment to help them fight Turkey, only to fight the Islamic State, the terrorist army also known as ISIS. The United States still supports Syrian Kurds against ISIS, just as it supports Iraqi Kurds and the Iraqi government against ISIS. But Washington has remained neutral with regard to Turkey’s complaints about the threats Syrian Kurds pose to Turkey. To be more specific, the Pentagon continues to support the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces against ISIS. It has declined, however, to work with the largest Kurdish armed faction within the those forces, the People’s Protection Units (YPG in its Kurdish acronym) to resist the Turkish intervention. In geopolitical terms, that’s a logical and necessary decision. Trump Warns Turkey’s President: President Donald Trump on Oct. 7 warned Turkey against going “off limits” in Syria, and has threatened to apply economic sanctions if Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ignores the warning. The president doubled down on the sanctions threat Friday by authorizing the Treasury Department to prepare “significant sanctions” against Turkey, if necessary. That’s a far cry from giving Ankara a “green light,” as some critics contend...
Ukraine Prosecutor Says Amb. Yovanovitch Obstructed Crime Evidence From
Reaching AG Barr
by Jeff Dunetz 
{ } ~ Today, Friday, October 11 former US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch will testify to scumbag-Adam Schiff’s Democratic Party hit squad about Rudy Giuliani’s attempts to get evidence of Ukraine Interference with the 2016 election and the Hunter Biden scandal... As scumbag-Shiff’s team doesn’t care about the truth, it is doubtful they will ask her about the Senior Ukrainian prosecutor’s charge that  Ambassador Yovanovitch prevented him from presenting evidence of Democratic Party and Hunter Biden wrongdoing to AG Barr.  Ambassador Yovanovitch is a career diplomat since 1986 who was appointed by former President scumbag/liar-nObama to be the US representative to Ukraine in August 2016 and was removed by the present administration fired in late May of 2019. Kostiantyn Kulyk deputy director of Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s International Legal Cooperation Dept. told John Solomon in April that for a year he’s been blocked from getting visas for himself and a team of senior law enforcement officials to go to the U.S. to deliver evidence of Democratic party wrongdoing during the 2016 election to the DOJ. The senior prosecutor said he never was able to make the trip because the visas were blocked by the U.S. Ambassador. Per Prosecutor Kulyk: We were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States,” Kulyk told me in a wide-ranging interview. “However, the U.S. ambassador blocked us from obtaining a visa. She didn’t explicitly deny our visa, but also didn’t give it to us.” One focus of Ukrainian investigators, Kulyk said, has been money spirited unlawfully out of Ukraine and moved to the United States by businessmen friendly to the prior, pro-Russia regime of Viktor Yanukovych. Ukrainian businessmen “authorized payments for lobbying efforts directed at the U.S. government,” he told me. “In addition, these payments were made from funds that were acquired during the money-laundering operation. We have information that a U.S. company was involved in these payments.” That company is tied to one or more prominent Democrats, Ukrainian officials insist. In another instance, he said, Ukrainian authorities gathered evidence that money paid to an American Democrat allegedly was hidden by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) during the 2016 election under pressure from U.S. officials. “In the course of this investigation, we found that there was a situation during which influence was exerted on the NABU, so that the name of the American would not be mentioned,” he said. As we reported in late March, the former Ukranian Government is known for being very corrupt, and that includes the head of the  NABU  Artem Sytnyk. A prosecutor other than Kulyk is investigating Sytnyk for trying to help scumbag/liar-Hillary to win the 2016 election, which was initially reported two years ago by Politico...  
Judge Blocks Trump Rule That Could Deny
Visas and Green Cards to Immigrants on Welfare
By Bradley Evans 
{ } ~ A federal judge in New York issued a temporary injunction Friday against a Trump administration immigration rule... that will prevent the rule from taking effect Tuesday as originally planned. Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York issued the ruling, according to The New York Times. The rule, announced by the Trump administration  in August, would allow the government to turn away green card and visa applicants based on their use of benefits such as Medicaid and food stamps, CNN reported at the time. Other “negative factors” the government could consider under the rule include being unemployed and lacking proficiency in English, according to The Times. According to a White House news release, the rule was designed to “help ensure that if aliens want to enter or remain in the United States they must support themselves, and not rely on public benefit.” In his ruling, Daniels argued that were the rule to go into effect, those potentially affected could suffer “irreparable harm,” The Times reported. The inclusion of English proficiency as a standard for accepting applicants was among Daniels’ reasons for issuing the injunction.“It is simply offensive to contend that English proficiency is a valid predictor of self-sufficiency,” he wrote. “The rule is simply a new agency policy of exclusion in search of a justification,” Daniels said. “It is repugnant to the American Dream of the opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upward mobility.” Ken Cuccinelli, President Donald Trump’s acting director of Citizenship and Immigration Services, addressed similar claims of “repugnance” in an August interview with NPR. Just days after the announcement of the new rule, Cuccinelli defended the administration. He argued that it “doesn’t seem like too much to ask, as we open our doors currently to more than a million new people a year, that they not become a burden on an already, frankly, overburdened and bankrupt welfare system.”...
San Francisco’s False Solution
by Erica Sandberg
{ } ~ San Francisco’s radical Left has a peculiar partner in Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff. As a backer of Proposition C, he joined the Coalition on Homelessness to strong-arm high-revenue businesses into supporting bloated city government departments to address the city’s homeless problem... Companies earning gross receipts over $50 million now pay an additional tax on the excess, with rates ranging from 0.175 percent to 0.69 percent. It will garner the city between $250 and $300 million, doubling its current budget for homeless services to half a billion dollars annually. Prop C, dubbed the “Our City, Our Home Fund,” passed in November of 2018 with 61 percent of the vote. Since then it’s been hotly contested. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has sued the city. “Approval for special taxes needs a two-thirds majority, so it’s now in the appeals process,” says senior staff attorney Laura Dougherty. “We need the clarity of the California Supreme court.” Meantime, the tax revenue is being collected, but the city is holding the funds until it gets the nod to spend them. If you believe that lack of funding is the cause of San Francisco’s homelessness problem, then the measure is a great idea. Fifty percent of the funding would go toward housing, 25 percent to mental health and addiction programs, 15 percent to people who are at risk of becoming homeless or have recently become so, and 10 percent to short-term “residential shelters and hygiene programs.” It won’t help. The plan is wildly expensive. After administrative costs are skimmed from the top, the remainder will be distributed among the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development, the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, and the Department of Public Health. Combined, these agencies employ hundreds of government workers, whose average compensation salary and benefits is $175,004. The city will then parcel out the rest to dozens of non-profit agencies, each with its own set of directors and employees. Just how much is left for those they purportedly serve remains to be seen, but chances are it won’t be enough... Round these homeless off the streets and send them to where they can be helped.  
loose lips liar-Joe Biden Is 
a Hypocrite on Ukraine
 Marc A. Thiessen

Former vice president loose lips liar-Joe Biden has said that in holding up vital military assistance to Ukraine, President Trump “used the power and resources of the United States to pressure a sovereign nation, a partner that is still under direct assault from Russia … to subvert the rule of law in the express hope of extracting a political favor.”

That’s rich. The aid in question is lethal military assistance that the swcumbag/liar-nObama/loose lips liar-Biden administration refused to give Ukraine.

In 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and began arming separatists in eastern Ukraine with tanks, armored vehicles and rocket launchers, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko came to Washington to plead for weapons to defend his country. In an impassioned address to a joint session of Congress — with loose lips liar-Biden sitting directly behind him — Poroshenko said his country appreciated the nonlethal assistance he was getting, but declared “one cannot win a war with blankets.”

The scumbag/liar-nObama/loose lips liar-Biden administration was unmoved. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time that “President Barack scumbag/liar-nObama stuck to his refusal to provide weapons or other lethal military gear to Ukraine, despite a passionate appeal Thursday for help in fighting pro-Russian rebels by Ukraine’s president.” Why? The administration feared that lethal aid would provoke Moscow.

So what did the administration give him? Instead of RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades), we provided MREs (meals ready to eat) — food rations. As one frustrated former Pentagon official put it at the time, “What kind of message does that send anyway? We are sending MREs while they are being invaded by an aggressor.”

Answer: a message of weakness.

When Trump took office, he delivered a message of strength. In December 2017, the new administration announced that the United States would send the lethal aid to Ukraine that Poroshenko requested and scumbag/liar-nObama and Biden refused — the sale of $47 million worth of Javelin antitank missiles. In May 2018, after Ukraine tested its new Javelin missiles, Poroshenko exulted on Twitter, “Finally this day has come!” and personally thanked Trump “for supporting Ukraine and adopting a decision to provide Javelin antitank missile systems.”

For loose lips liar-Biden to now attack Trump for a temporary delay in a new round of lethal military aid reeks of hypocrisy. It was on loose lips liar-Biden’s watch that the United States refused to deliver military aid at all. Yet the same vice president who sat there impassively while Ukraine’s president begged for weapons now dares to cite the Russian threat to Ukraine in castigating Trump? Talk about chutzpah.

And since loose lips liar-Biden raised the Russian threat, let’s recall that the scumbag/liar-nObama/loose lips liar-Biden administration bears much responsibility for the annexation of Crimea that necessitated the delivery of lethal aid to Ukraine in the first place. Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine came in the aftermath of the scumbag/liar-nObama/loose lips liar-Biden administration’s failure to enforce its red line against Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons by Syria. In March 2013, loose lips liar-Biden declared, “Because we recognize the great danger Assad’s chemical and biological arsenals pose to Israel and the United States, to the whole world, we’ve set a clear red line against the use or the transfer of those weapons.”

Assad responded by using chemical weapons on innocent civilians not once, but 16 times. And yet scumbag/liar-nObama and loose lips liar-Biden did nothing, failing to carry out even “unbelievably small” military strikes — a decision loose lips liar-Biden publicly defended. “We can easily say we should have bombed and gone in and taken out their air defense system,” loose lips liar-Biden said, “Well, you know, big nations can’t bluff.”

Bluff is what scumbag/liar-nObama and loose lips liar-Biden did — and Assad called their bluff. Not only that, they turned to Russia for a face-saving way out, letting Russian President Vladimir Putin broker a phony deal to have Syria disarm. It was one of the most embarrassing foreign policy debacles of the post-Cold War era. So it should come as no surprise that, when scumbag/liar-nObama threatened to impose costs on Putin if he invaded Ukraine, the Kremlin called his bluff, too. Putin knew scumbag/liar-nObama and loose lips liar-Biden did not have the will to stand up to him in Ukraine. And he was proved right when they refused to give Ukraine lethal aid for fear of further provoking him.

None of this excuses Trump’s delaying a new round of lethal military aid to Ukraine. But if this military assistance was as vital to countering the Russian threat as loose lips liar-Biden says, then it’s fair to ask: Why didn’t the United States provide it when loose lips liar-Biden was the scumbag/liar-nObama administration’s point man on Ukraine?  

~The Patriot Post  

Views: 6


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

Join Tea Party Command Center



Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester


Democrat Disaster! 53% Of Black Voters, 60% Of Other Minorities Say Liberal Media Trying To Help Democrats Impeach Trump

Thanks to President Donald Trump ALL Americans now know the mainstream fake-news media is an extension of the Democrat Party.

In a recent poll a majority of black voters and minority voters say the media is trying to help Democrats impeach President Trump.

And half of FOX News too, by the way.

CNS News reported:

Both black voters and other minority voters are more convinced than white voters that most reporters are trying to help impeach President Donald Trump, rather than report the news fairly – with a majority of each of the three groups holding that view – a new Rasmussen Reports survey reveals.

In the national voter survey, conducted November 12-13, 53% of all voters said most reporters are trying to help impeach Trump:

“When they write or talk about the impeachment effort, are most reporters trying to help impeach President Trump or block his impeachment? Or are most reporters simply interested in reporting the news in an unbiased manner?”:

“Help impeach President Trump”: 53%
“Block his impeachment”: 8%
Report “news in an unbiased an unbiased manner”: 32%

But, 53% of black voters and 60% of other minorities, compared to 51% of whites, said reporters are trying to get Trump rather than report the news fairly.

Tucker: 'Star' witnesses couldn't point to any high-crimes

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service