~ Featuring ~
Dems & Leftmedia Fools to Preach 
Against GOP Tax Cuts 
by Political Editors
LOW IQ mad-Waters Lets TRUTH Slip –
{ } ~ AM Joy more closely resembled AM bitterness or hatred, with the bulldog mug of Joy Reid... and the unmistakable rants of mad-Maxine Waters following another wildly successful campaign rally by Donald Trump. It could have been worse, they could have had video of mad-Waters as well. She came on to fire back at President Trump for comments he made, particularly his accurate description of her as being “Low IQ.” mad-Waters doesn’t attempt to prove him wrong, so he’s likely got her number on that score, instead opting to dub President Trump with his own nickname of “Con Man Don.” As she’s busily firing off the insults and threats, mad-Waters makes a statement that actually goes to prove not only is she of a low intelligence quotient, but that she and her fellow corrupt Democrats are engaged in subversion of this President in their efforts to impeach him for reasons that still, after a year and a half haven’t been uncovered...    -
The Left’s Fake Anti-Semitism 
and its Real Anti-Semitism 
by Daniel Greenfield
{ } ~ After weeks of outrage at the close ties between top Democrats and Louis Farrakhan... the leader of an anti-Semitic hate group, the media finally condemned anti-Semitism by a top political official. President Trump and OMB Director Mick Mulvaney had referred to outgoing NEC Director Gary Cohn as a “globalist.” And “globalist,” according to Think Progress, the Huffington Post, Salon and Vox, is an “anti-Semitic slur.” Those are the same media outlets that had no problem using “globalist” as a slur when targeting Trump. The controversy over liar-nObama, Davis, scum-Keith Ellison, Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory has played out in the Jewish and conservative media. But no one in the mainstream media is willing to ask why liar-nObama, the No. 2 man at the DNC, the Congressional Black Caucus and the next generation of intersectional feminist leaders are comfortable hanging out with a racist who suggested that Jews use pot to make black men gay. But the media will only discuss anti-Semitism is when it serves its political agenda... 
The Islamic State is Far From Finished in Iraq 
by Amir Toumaj and Romany Shaker
{ } ~ Deadly attacks by the Islamic State are calling into question Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s declaration of a “final victory” over the so-called Caliphate... With national elections set for May, further attacks could threaten Abadi’s bid for a second term while benefiting pro-Iranian forces.  On February 18, the Islamic State claimed responsibility for an ambush near the city of Hawija, in Kirkuk province, which killed 27 members of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), or al-Hashd al-Shaabi in Arabic. A week later, Islamic State fighters killed two policemen and wounded another who were guarding the Khabbaz oil field near Kirkuk. The next day, an attempted suicide bombing injured three PMF fighters at the Kirkuk headquarters of Asaib Ahl al-Haq, an Iranian-backed Shiite militia that is now part of the PMF. Asaib Ahl al-Haq is under the effective control of the Quds Force, the external operations branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Asaib Ahl al-Haq played a lethal role in Iraq’s anti-U.S. insurgency, claiming 6,000 attacks against U.S. forces. It opened its first Kirkuk headquarters in October 2017... 
Red Flag Warning: States Confiscating 
Guns by Ignoring Fourth Amendment 
by Bob Adelmann 
{ } ~ An assortment of new restrictions on the Second Amendment in Florida also launched an attack on the Fourth Amendment, as well... As The New American noted last week, Florida’s new “red flag” law abrogates the Fourth Amendment on the way to violating the Second Amendment: Simply put, someone who thinks someone else might be a danger to himself or others can present his arguments to a judge who then, based upon those arguments, is free to decide whether the state police armed with guns and badges can forcibly remove privately and legally owned firearms from that person’s possession. The “red flag” provisions do not allow the person charged to defend himself or even to know who his accuser might be. Further, he must prove his innocence in order to get his confiscated firearms returned to him. He is “guilty until he proves himself innocent.” All in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”... 
Fifty Former Failed liar-nObama Administration
Foreign Policy “Experts” Form Think-Tank 
To Unite Against President Trump
by sundance
{ } ~ From the insufferable Iran deal… to the appeasement “Russian Reset”… to the Libya fiasco… to the rise of ISIS… to installing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt… to the explosion of terrorism in Yemen… to civil war in Syria… to the crisis in Ukraine… to the 2010 State Department apology tour (WikiLeaks cables scandal)… to their inability to stop North Korean nuclear ambitions and the rise of China as an influential power… there were/are zero foreign policy successes in eight years of the liar-nObama administration. There was not a single liar-nObama foreign policy initiative that had any success. Every single place where the prior administration put their attention, the results were complete failure, crisis, chaos and worse conditions in the aftermath. That’s the 2009-2017 reality.  Today it is discovered that fifty of the most well known liar-nObama foreign policy officials  have come together to form a think-tank group called “National Security Now“. Their singular mission is to be the “resistance” to the Trump administration’s foreign policy. You have to see the names to recognize how bad these people were at policy... 

Dems & Leftmedia Fools to Preach Against GOP Tax Cuts 

by Political Editors:  There’s no question Democrats and their Leftmedia propaganda outlets don’t like the Republican tax cuts, because it means government is taking less money from of hard-working Americans. And less money equates to less control. But they can’t state their genuine reason for objecting so they attempt to either belittle the amount of money Americans save from tax cuts as mere “crumbs” or decry them as “unpatriotic” as House Minority Leader Nancy Pulosi (D-CA) infamously expressed.

            She altered her stance a bit this week, saying, “Certainly, we love when people get a bonus, and if they get a raise. But if it is so small in comparison — if the choice was made for corporate America and the top 1% in our society, at the expense of working families, something is wrong with this picture.” Middle-class Americans keeping more of their own money while wealthier Americans keeping more of theirs is not anybody doing anything at the expense of anybody else.
            Even the Leftmedia has struggled in its attempt to paint the tax cuts as bad for Americans. Case in point, The New York Times recently ran an article that sought to use a hypothetical middle class couple’s tax return to show that they would actually end up paying thousands more in taxes under the new law. The Times article stated, “Bottom line … the family would owe $3,896 more in taxes under the new law.” Bad, right?
            Not so fast. The Times, relying on TurboTax vice president Bob Meighan’s calculations, missed a significant deduction, a deduction that University of Chicago law professor Daniel Hemel noticed. The Times failed to calculate a deduction for the hypothetical couple from the new law based on the description of the couple being “self-employed.” Hemel tweeted, “NYT has a really nice infographic explaining the ways in which the new tax law will play out on the 1040. Unfortunately, the bottom line conclusion — that Samuel & Felicity will owe $3,896 more in taxes under the new law — appears to be wrong. They’ll actually owe less.” The Times later admitted that it’s calculations were off and that its hypothetical couple would actually come out on top by $43. But that’s just mere “crumbs,” we’ve been told.
            The truth is Democrats’ decision to resist and take a stand against the GOP’s obviously beneficial tax cuts has proven to be a politically foolish stunt. It was spitting into the wind, only to have it blow back in their faces. However, admitting they were wrong may be an even more costly defeat, so they are stuck trying to convince the vast majority of taxpaying Americans not to believe that the growing numbers on their paychecks are a good thing.  ~The Patriot Pos

Views: 13


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

Join Tea Party Command Center



Reporter Kicked Out Of Michelle Obama
Conference For Violating ‘Black Girl Code’

The Black Entertainment Television channel recently hosted a conference in south Florida for black women known as “Leading Women Defined,” which featured a casual conversation between former first lady Michelle Obama and former senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

But according to the New York Post’s Page Six, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who was in attendance was booted from the remainder of the conference after she wrote an article about some of the comments Obama had made during the discussion.

Robin Givhan, a fashion critic and staff writer for The Washington Post, documented the highlights of the friendly chat between Obama and Jarrett.

Some of the highlights of the conversation included the former first lady’s thoughts on President Donald Trump’s inauguration as the Obamas prepared to leave the White House, the role she played during the 2008 election, her difficulty settling in as “the spouse” to the president, how she described her White House garden as a “subversive act” to garner trust with the public and her upcoming memoir. Of course Givhan also wrote about what Obama was wearing … after all, she is a fashion critic.

But following the publication of the article, according to Page Six, BET demanded Givhan leave the conference early amid claims that she had violated a “sacred space” by publishing the content of the conversation.

They also canceled a panel discussion that Givhan initially had been asked to moderate.

However, Page Six noted that BET’s claim that Obama’s discussion was “private” and not intended to be shared with anyone else outside the small gathering in attendance didn’t hold up to scrutiny given the fact that BET itself posted clips from the discussion on its site.

Furthermore, Jarrett also posted those clips on social media and told everyone to “tune in” to the network so they could hear what Obama had to say.

Shortly thereafter, the dispute descended into a sharp back-and-forth on social media between Givhan and others who were irked at what she had done, as can be seen on Givhan’s Twitter feed.

Several of her critics asserted that the conversation had been “off-the-record” — an assertion Givhan flatly denied — and one user claimed the reporter had “violated a sacred trust” between black women.

Another said what she had done was a “complete violation of journalistic ethics and Black girl code, all at once,” while still another asserted through a hashtag that Givhan was “#notoneofus,” as if she were being banished from the exclusive realm of accepted professional black women.

For their part, a BET representative told Page Six that Givhan had been “invited as a guest (not working press) to moderate a fashion panel,” and noted that her travel and lodging expenses had been paid for by the network.

“She was made aware that it was an intimate conversation in a sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship,” the rep added.

Neither Givhan nor representatives for Obama responded to requests for comment on the report from Page Six.

If the WaPo reporter really was instructed ahead of time that the conversation between Obama and Jarrett was “off the record” and a private affair, but published anyway, then BET was justified in booting her from the remainder of the conference — though the mean-spirited commentary she received on social media still crossed the line.

But if Givhan received no prior warning on the matter — and given the fact that BET itself published the conversation later — then this is just a major display of hypocrisy and unnecessary infighting.

What do you think?


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service