~ Featuring ~  
Dems Play the Victim While 
Making Light of 9/11
Thomas Gallatin  
NY: No Aid for Children of Deceased War Vets, 
We’re Giving it All to Illegals
by  New York Assembly Democrats left no doubt as to where their loyalties lie this week. Last week, Democrats approved a state budget that would allocate $27 million in aid to illegal immigrants who wish to attend college... But when Republicans tried to expand that aid for the children of dead or disabled military veterans? The Higher Education Committee, led by Manhattan Democrat Deborah Glick, blocked the bill, effectively telling voters that it is more important to give tuition aid to illegal aliens than to the families of those who have given their lives for our nation. Her committee voted 15 to 11 to put the bill on ice, forever cementing the Democrats’ warped view of their priorities. According to the New York Post, Glick lamely insisted that there was no futher money in the budget to help Gold Star families send their kids to college. After all, there’s already a “program that provides $2.7 million to 145” such families. Wonderful. Illegal immigrants only get ten times more assistance from the New York state legislature. That sounds right, eh?“Assemblywoman Glick should be ashamed of herself,” said State Sen. Robert Ortt, a Republican. “We set aside $27 million dollars for college for people that are here illegally. Apparently, $2.7 million is all that the families of soldiers who are killed, get. If you’re a child of a fallen soldier, you do not rank as high and you know that by the money.” Apparently getting a sense of how this situation looks, one Democratic assemblywoman decided to vote for the bill. Judy Griffin said she thinks Democrats will take a closer look at the proposal when the budget comes up for a vote again next year... The government should stop giving aid to NY until they get wise.   

Five arguments the 
dirty cop-Mueller report won't settle
by Byron York } ~ Attorney General William Barr has promised to release a redacted version of the dirty cop-Mueller repor tthis week. It will of course consume the political conversation for days... but even now it is clear that, as much as the report might be talked about, it will not settle the main arguments that have raged about the Trump-Russia affair for more than two years. Here are five debates that won't be resolved, no matter how much of the report Barr makes public: 1. Collusion. On the face of it, Barr's summary of dirty cop-Mueller's conclusion could not be clearer: The evidence gathered by the special prosecutor does not show that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to fix the 2016 election. Barr included two brief quotes from the dirty cop-Mueller report on collusion: "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities" and "the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference." So on the question: Will dirty cop-Mueller show that collusion occurred? The answer seems a pretty straightforward no. But that is not the end of it. Immediately upon the release of the Barr summary, some of the president's accusers began moving the goalposts. What dirty cop-Mueller really said was that the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no conspiracy or coordination. Maybe there will be evidence that shows collusion but does not meet that high legal standard. Or maybe dirty cop-Mueller said that the evidence did not establish that criminal collusion had taken place. Maybe there's some other sort of collusion that dirty cop-Mueller did find. And dirty cop-Mueller did not say, at least in the snippet of his report quoted by Barr, that there was no evidence whatsoever of conspiracy or coordination. So, maybe there is some evidence that shows some sort of collusion by some sort of standard that Trump's critics might adopt. 2. Obstruction. This is a guarantee: Some readers of the dirty cop-Mueller report will swear that it proves the president obstructed justice, while others will swear it proves he did not obstruct justice. dirty cop-Mueller himself has made sure that will happen by not making what Barr called a "traditional prosecutorial judgment" on the obstruction question. Why dirty cop-Mueller did that is not clear; perhaps it will be revealed when the report is released. Barr said dirty cop-Mueller "views as 'difficult issues' of law and fact concerning whether the president's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction."...  
Mark Meadows Expects Criminal 
Referrals In DOJ Watchdog’s Report  
by Chuck Ross } ~ North Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Meadows said Sunday that he expects the Justice Department’s inspector general to issue criminal referrals... as part of an investigation into the FBI’s possible abuse of the surveillance courts during the Trump-Russia probe. “We’re fully anticipating that the inspector general’s report will come out as Attorney General Barr said in the next four to six weeks, and I think it’s highly likely that we’ll see criminal referrals coming from them that will correspond with what Chairman Devin Nunes has already put forth,” Meadows said in an interview on Fox’s “Sunday Morning Futures. ”Attorney General William Barr told Congress on Tuesday that he expects Michael Horowitz, the inspector general, to issue a report in late May or June. On March 28, 2018, Horowitz opened an investigation into whether the FBI and Justice Department complied with legal requirements to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Meadows, a close ally of President Trump’s, said that he and Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan met earlier this week with Horowitz. Both have expressed confidence in Horowitz’s work, and have heightened expectations that the investigation will be favorable to Republicans. Meadows said that he believes that Horowitz’s report will also focus on FBI leaks to the media. The Republican claimed to have seen evidence that the bureau would leak information to the press and then use those stories to justify additional investigations...
The Left Officially Loses its Mind
by Jack Cashill } ~ This past Thursday night, Daily Wire writer Michael Knowles came to speak at the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC). A mob of thirty or so students and hangers-on heckled him... and one sprayed him with what proved to be a nontoxic substance. While the campus police wrestled the student to the ground, his or her or “hir” colleagues chanted the lethal and long since discredited mantra, “Hands up, don’t shoot.” For conservative speakers on college campuses, the disruption was business more or less as usual. What was not usual, at least not in this part of the world, was the “official” response. As quickly became clear, there are no “liberals” any more. Their young have cowed them here and elsewhere into a cringing, uncritical embrace of the progressive menu du jour. The missive UMKC chancellor Mauli Agrawal sent to the “campus community” after the event reads like a hostage letter. To describe Knowles’s views, Agrawal used the words “controversial,” “unpopular,” and “extreme.” Agrawal concluded his plea for civility by asking students “to stay true to our values in the face of provocation, and to respond to bias and intolerance with reason and courage.” If Rep. Ilhan “Some people did something” Omar had spoken on campus, Agrawal’s letter might have made some sense, but she didn’t. The speaker, Michael Knowles, is cut from the same cloth as his better-known colleague Ben Shapiro: young, sane, restrained, and very smart. The talk that tested campus values was titled, “Men Are Not Women.”...
Pulosi on 60 Minutes: AOC’s Socialist 
Views Are Not Democratic Party Views
by Jennie Taer } ~ Speaker Nancy Pulosi spoke to Lesley Stahl on ’60 Minutes’, she pushed back to the idea that commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and few others would be able to push the party to the left towards socialism... “That’s like five people,” Pulosi said. Here is the exchange between them on ’60 Minutes’ interview: Lesley Stahl: So you are contending with a group in Congress: Over here on the left flank are these self-described socialists, on the right, these moderates. And you yourself said that you’re the only one who can unify everybody. And the question is can you? Speaker Nancy Pulosi: By and large, whatever orientation they came to Congress with, they know that we have to hold the center. That we have to be m– go down the mainstream. Lesley Stahl: They know that– Speaker Nancy Pulosi: They do. Lesley Stahl: But it doesn’t look like that. It looks as if it– you’re– it’s fractured. She likes to minimizes the conflicts within her caucus. Between the moderates and the progressives. Lesley Stahl: You have these wings– commie-AOC, and her group on one side– Speaker Nancy Pulosi: That’s like five people...
Dems Play the Victim While Making Light of 9/11
Thomas Gallatin:  This past week provided a perfect example of leftists’ inability to argue the merits of an issue. All they do when challenged is cry oppression and racism.

On Tuesday, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) called out Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) for her demonstrably false statements regarding the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Crenshaw wrote, “First Member of Congress to ever describe terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11 as ‘some people who did something.’ Unbelievable.”

Though virtually all Crenshaw did was quote her, Omar responded by playing the victim, claiming that Crenshaw’s comments were “dangerous incitement, given the death threats I face. I hope leaders of both parties will join me in condemning it.” She then added, “My love and commitment to our country and that of my colleagues should never be in question. We are All Americans.”

But Crenshaw was having none of it, replying, “1. I never called you un-American. 2. I did not incite any violence against you. 3. You described an act of terrorism on American soil that killed thousands of innocent lives as ‘some people did something.’ It’s still unbelievable, as is your response here.”

Then America’s favorite socialist, Rep. commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), jumped to defend her fellow leftist, only to further expose her own profound ignorance by attacking Crenshaw, asking why he hasn’t done anything about terrorism. commie-AOC then ridiculously asserted that Crenshaw’s criticism of Omar was “an incitement of violence against progressive women of color.”

First, the notion that Crenshaw has not done anything about 9/11 terrorism is flat-out absurd. Memo to commie-AOC: There’s a reason he wears that eye patch, and it’s not because he’s trying to look like a pirate. He is a Navy SEAL, a decorated war hero who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and lost his eye while fighting jihadis in league with those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.

Second, calling out someone for their false, misleading, and offensive remarks is not an “incitement to violence.” To suggest such a thing is utterly despicable and logically indefensible. But this is what identity politics breeds — entitled narcissists who cry “racism” and “bigotry” whenever their absurdity is challenged and refuted.

That 3,000 Americans were murdered by bloodthirsty radical Islamic terrorists on 9/11is not merely “some people did something,” and the fact that Omar refuses to recognize this fact is not just offensive but downright appalling. The New York Post editorial board was spot on when writing, “Omar’s cavalier brushing off of the murder of thousands of innocents on 9/11 should shock all Americans, Muslims included.” Even if commie-AOC and Omar think their Melanin Score inoculates them from criticism.  

~The Patriot Post  

Views: 8


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 Al Goodwyn

Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

C o r o n a V i r u s

© 2020   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service