Who do the "moderates" and the progressives want us to vote for?

In much of the MSM we're being told that that it's almost immoral to vote for Donald Trump. So let's look at the choices we're faced with.

The Donald may well be a narcissist and a bully; someone who isn't a true conservative constitutionalist or Republican. He's an admitted influence peddler (briber) with government officials and other nations. Of course for daring to try in business he's had some spectacular failures. And yes, he's had a wandering eye. But like it or not, I favored Dr. Carson, he's the GOP nominee.

So who would liberals, progressives, and socialists have us conservatives, constitutionalists, and libertarians vote for? Considering the next president will appoint many federal judges, including two or three to the supreme Court, which saintly untainted morally scrupulous person do they demand we support?

Would it be a person who lionized the far Left socialist Saul Alinsky who wanted to tear down the USA? Someone who hid records about Whitewater? Someone who was dismissed for unethical conduct from the Democrat committee planning to impeach Nixon? A woman who had government agencies harass women who were molested and raped by her husband? Would it be a woman who lied about a man she may have had an affair with and who wound up a "suicide"? And what of the other myriad of deaths of political enemies or threats surrounding her and her husband? Would it be someone who stole government property from the White House and AF1 thinking she had a right to it? 

While in the government would it be a women who denied an ambassador's request for more security and even reduced it so as not to expose an illegal gun running operation to enemies of the US? Would it be a woman who stood by while a stand down order was given to rescue Americans under attack at a diplomatic mission? Would it be someone who lied about the cause of the attack on the mission and to the families of those who lost loved ones? Is it someone who has used her family's foundation as a pay to play doorway to government largess? Would it be someone who intentionally was grossly negligent, at best, in handling classified communications by using an unauthorized email server and lied under oath to Congress about it?

By the way, just what is racism? Is it saying that Mexico is sending not only poor, uneducated, and often criminal citizens from its own country but also from S. Central and South America by the trainloads and that it must be stopped? Is it saying that we should not allow people of certain groups whose religion Islam is actively hostile to Western values and system and whose regions are in turmoil? Is it saying that we should vet those coming into our country to see if they really want to become part of the Great American Experiment? Is saying that the first duty of our government as a sovereign nation is to protect our borders and the second duty to protect the right of citizens? Is that racial and ethnic bigotry? Or does open mindedness and morality demand open borders and national suicide?

In short, should we vote for a socialist pathological prevaricator, adulterer, rapist enabler, country-imperiling globalist TRAITOR?

Views: 28


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

Join Tea Party Command Center



Political Cartoons by Chip BokPolitical Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Angry Dem Impeachment ‘Witness’: Pam Karlan Donated Thousands To Hillary And Was On Clinton’s List For Potential SCOTUS Nomination

Image result for Pam Karlan

The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, kicked off its first impeachment circus Wednesday morning.

The four ‘witnesses’ testifying have never actually witnessed any of Trump’s dealings with Ukraine firsthand — the four witnesses are law professors offering legal analysis.

One of the witnesses the Dems rolled out is an angry Hillary Clinton donor who was on Crooked’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination.

No wonder why this unhinged, dowdy woman is so pissed off!

“Professor Pam Karlan donated thousands of dollars to Democrats and was on Hillary Clinton’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination. So she certainly has no vendetta against President Trump,” GOP Rep. Mark Walker said.

Congressman Walker also pointed out that Noah Feldman, the Dems first partisan witness in Wednesday’s hearing tweeted about impeaching Trump right after he was sworn in.

Rep. Mark Walker   RepMarkWalker

Meet Noah Feldman, House Democrats first partisan witness.

Look at the date of this tweet. He has been trying to get @realDonaldTrump impeached since 46 days into his presidency.

His reason? Trump criticized President Obama.

This is a sham impeachment with sham witnesses. https://twitter.com/NoahRFeldman/status/839185127494254592 

Noah Feldman @NoahRFeldman

Trump's wiretap tweets raise risk of impeachment http://bv.ms/2mY1ueX  via @BV

Rep. Mark Walker   RepMarkWalker

The next witness, Karlan, has donated thousands to Democrats and was on Hillary Clinton’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination.

So she certainly has no vendetta against @realDonaldTrump.

These witnesses are as serious as House Democrats impeachment case: not at all.

The entire sham show trial is stacked with partisan hacks who have wanted to impeach Trump from the moment he won in November of 2016.

Norm Eisen, the Democrats’ counsel who is blasting Trump and questioning witnesses in Wednesday’s show trial, tweeted about impeaching Trump before Donald Trump was even sworn into office!

Infantilization of Popular Culture

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service