Saturday AM ~ thefrontpagecover

~ Featuring ~
Lynching Hypocrisy
Nate Jackson  
Don't be Surprised, Trump Will 
Recognize a Sovereign Kurdish State
{ } ~ The media has gone ballistic, attacking US President Donald Trump over his decision to allow Turkey to take control of Syrian lands occupied by the Kurds... Few people really understand Donald Trump. He’s not like any other president. He thinks outside the box. How is it possible that a president who is so strong on defense and patriotism would make such a decision unless he knows something we don’t know?  When President Trump traveled to Jerusalem on its 50th anniversary, he was greeted by 220 massive billboards which I had installed. They read, “Trump make Israel great.” The president is a friend of Zion. I’ve heard it said many times: “Why did you do that? He’s not recognizing Jerusalem.” I just smiled, and responded, “You don’t know Donald Trump.” I believe that the president has a plan to recognize Kurdish sovereignty and statehood. Many have called him “Cyrus,” after the Mede, Cyrus the Great. The Kurdish people are descendants of the ancient Medes. The wise men who brought gifts to honor the birth of Jesus were also Medes. I believe the president has a gift for them. The Kurdistan Regional Government in Erbil held an independence referendum in September, with 92.7% of the 3.3 million votes cast in favor of secession. Voter turnout was just over 72%. The Kurds in Erbil carried flags to show their support prior to the vote. The central government in Baghdad does not want Iraqi Kurdistan to secede. This has resulted in limits being instituted on the Kurds, i.e., Baghdad taking control of the region’s airspace, as well as authority at border crossings connecting Iraqi Kurdistan to neighboring countries. President Trump loves to say “Merry Christmas,” so don’t be surprised if he announces a Christmas gift for the Kurds. A sovereign Kurdish state on Iran’s border, coupled with US military might, would be checkmate – not only to Iran but also to the Iraqi government, which has treated America with such disdain. There’s no question in my mind that Trump has no respect for Erdogan. If you recall, it was the president who threatened Turkey’s economy because it refused to release American pastor Andrew Brunson. There’s absolutely no love lost between the Turks and the Sunni Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia, or between Turkey and Israel. I believe that President Trump has given Turkey what they wanted before he recognizes a sovereign Kurdish state. Evangelicals elected Donald Trump by a landslide – because they get him, and he gets them. When he makes this decision, the passion among Evangelicals will be greater than on the Fourth of July. The same can be said for the State of Israel: He understands that nations need to be free.
Hume fact-checks Napolitano claim GOP 
changed impeachment rules: ‘I just 
spoke to backstabber-Boehner’
by Frieda Powers
{ } ~ Brit Hume countered an argument by Fox News commentator Andrew Napolitano who said Republicans have themselves to thank for the impeachment rules they are denouncing... The Fox News senior political analyst took issue with Napolitano’s claim that Republicans are to blame for the current rules on impeachment, as he was asserting during an appearance on “Fox & Friends. ”Napolitano essentially blamed former House Speaker backstabber-John Boehner for the current House rules which Republicans are decrying that allow closed-door hearings in impeachment proceedings. “I read the House rules,” Napolitano said.“And as frustrating as it may be to have these hearings going on behind closed doors, the hearings for which Congressman scumbag-Schiff is presiding, they are consistent with the rules,” he added, pointing to House Republicans in 2015 who made the changes when they were in the majority during the scumbag/liar-nObama administration.  “They can’t change the rules. They follow the rules. And when were the rules written last? In January of 2015. And who signed them? backstabber-John Boehner. And who enacted them? A Republican majority,” Napolitano explained. He further argued that closed-door interviews are consistent with the rules since what is transpiring now is not actually the impeachment hearings. “I know this is going to sound weird. These are not the impeachment hearings. The impeachment hearings have to be held in public by the House Judiciary Committee,” he said. “This is the initial interview of witnesses to see what they have to say, to determine whether or not they are even worthy of presenting evidence of impeachment.” But Hume soon punched a hole in his Fox News colleague’s narrative, citing backstabber-Boehner himself in the fact-check. “I just spoke to backstabber-John Boehner who told me that the only rules change he made was to allow committee chairmen to issue subpoenas on their own authority without committee votes,” he tweeted, adding that “no changes” were made to impeachment rules as Napolitano claimed...   
Chuck scumbag-Schumer is wrong and 
no law gives the Ukraine whisteblower 
the right to anonymity
by Eddie Scarry
{ } ~ Can someone please tell Senate Minority Leader Charles scumbag-Schumer that no, the anonymity of the “whistleblower” in the Ukraine controversy is not “protected by law.”... It’s not. At best, it’s an open question unsettled by any policy or court ruling. But it’s certainly not a matter of settled law. scumbag-Schumer nonetheless proceeded to push that lie in a letter he sent Monday to the acting national intelligence director and the intelligence community inspector general. “I am writing to ask what specific steps you are taking to protect the security of the intelligence community whistleblower,” wrote scumbag-Schumer. It later continued to say that President Trump had “incorrectly stated that he has a right to ‘confront’ the whistleblower, and has said that he is ‘trying to find out’ the whistleblower’s identity — notwithstanding the fact that the whistleblower anonymity is protected by law.” I don’t know why scumbag-Schumer’s letter has the word “confront” in quotes, given that Trump does not appear to have ever used it. He has said “meet my accuser.” But in any event, it’s a misconception that there’s any law protecting the anonymity of any career government employee who decides to accuse the president of abusing his power. The Whistleblower Protection Act and the later changes that enhanced it do nothing more than shield a federal employee from demotion, termination, or disciplinary action by superiors if he discloses information about waste and abuse or a violation of law within the government. I'll use the pronoun “he” because the New York Times knows who it is and has done the same thing. Even the lawyer representing the guy who complained about Trump’s call to Ukraine has admitted that the protections he has amount to little more than prayer. “If Trump wants to destroy this person’s life,” attorney Bradley P. Moss told the Washington Post in a late September  report, “there’s not a lot to stop him right now.”...   
Rep. McCarthy Says It Took Only 90 Seconds
To Destroy scumbag-Schiff's
Star Witness Testimony
By C. Douglas Golden 
{ } ~ If you wanted to know why House Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi, Rep. scumbag-Adam Schiff and the Democrats wanted an impeachment inquiry that wasn’t actually voted on by the full House... and didn’t actually contain any of the norms that any other impeachment inquiry had — open hearings, subpoena power for everyone — Tuesday should have provided the goods. From all accounts, Ukrainian envoy William Taylor’s testimony was a brutal hit for Donald Trump and his administration. Most media outlets seemed to take it as prima facie evidence of a quid pro quo. “An Envoy’s Damning Account of Trump’s Ukraine Pressure and Its Consequences,” The New York Times’  headline declared. The Times had Taylor’s opening statement. It mentioned all of the high points, at least as far as they were concerned: the fact that he said that military aid was being held up unless the Ukrainians agreed to investigations into Burisma and a dodgy theory about the DNC email hack originating from Ukraine, the fact that Taylor claimed there were “two channels of U.S. policymaking and implementation, one regular and one highly irregular” in Ukraine, the fact that the latter channel was run by presidential attorney  Rudolph Giuliani.“Mr. Taylor’s vivid depiction illustrated the differences between the impeachment inquiry against Mr. Trump and the ones that consumed Presidents Richard M. Nixon and scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton. While the Watergate and Monica Lewinsky cover-ups involved the integrity of America’s democracy and system of justice, the Ukraine scandal also extends to matters of life and death, as well as geopolitics on a grand scale,” The Times reported. “Mr. Taylor’s testimony could make it harder for Republicans to brush off Mr. Trump’s actions as unimportant or distorted by partisan rivals. Defending Ukraine against Russian encroachment, much like defending the United States’ Kurdish allies against Turkey, has been a high priority for many Republicans, who complained that President Barack scumbag/liar-nObama did not stand up to Moscow aggressively enough.” This was smoking gun-type stuff, at least from the sound of things. And The Times was hardly alone here. The thing is, though, nobody had actually listened to the testimony, particularly any questions that were asked of the former diplomat. And, given the strictures of the closed-door hearings, there’s a limited amount of stuff that could be discussed. That’s rather important when you consider the fact that the House minority leader says that Texas GOP Rep. John Ratcliffe was able to “destroy” Taylor’s narrative of a quid pro quo “in 90 seconds.”Appearing on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show on Tuesday night after Taylor’s testimony, California Republican Rep. Kevin McCarthy said that the media’s narrative didn’t match what actually happened in the hearing earlier in the day. “scumbag-Adam Schiff won’t let us talk about what happened,” McCarthy  said on “The Ingraham Angle.” “There is no quid pro quo.” But, as the House minority leader noted, there’s literally no way for a transcript to escape the watchful eye of scumbag-Schiff or the Democrats...
Will Iran Move From Small Nuke Violations 
to The Countdown to A Bomb?
{ } ~ The problem with deadlines is that they force you either to act or look weak due to inaction... Will Iran’s expected November deadline and expected new violation of the 2015 nuclear deal finally lead to speeding up the countdown toward Tehran breaking out to a nuclear weapon and a possible Israeli or US preemptive strike?  Iran’s three previous deadlines for the US to remove the sanctions against it and three recent minor violations of the deal have failed to pressure the US, Israel, the Saudis and most of the West into submitting to its positions. The Islamic Republic wants the deal to remain as is. In contrast, the other parties want a combination of extending the nuclear limits beyond the mid-2020s, new limits on Iran’s hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East and new limits on its ballistic missile program. Will the first week of November be just one more marker in a slow-motion deterioration in the US-Iran nuclear standoff, where both sides are still trying to minimize any major escalation? Or will the cool and low-grade conflict finally explode into a full-fledged hot conflict? As usual, the devil is in the details. After the Islamic Republic’s September violation of the nuclear deal, there was speculation that Iran would finally up its uranium enrichment to the 20% level. Many top experts say that this would be a game changer. Enrichment to the 20% level could cut Tehran’s timeline to a nuclear bomb from 12 months to six months. That kind of a moving of the goalposts would likely lead to at least getting preemptive strike options ready. Another major escalation that could cut the timeline all the way down to six months would be if Iran were to reinstall and start operating most of its IR-2m centrifuges for enriching uranium. Its standard IR-1 centrifuges are much less efficient. Iran’s increasingly aggressive behavior since its September deadline appears to indicate desperation and a greater readiness to let the standoff spin out of control. It ordered or spearheaded an audacious and massive multifaceted attack on Saudi oil fields...  
'Laura Loomer for Congress'
by Michelle Malkin
{ } ~ The Beltway swamp is clogged with miserable crapweasels: smug incumbents, status quo lemmings, Constitution infringers of all flavors, Silicon Valley lackeys, jihad apologists, open borders freaks and, oh... that Trump-deranged lurker, Mitt "Pierre Delecto" rino-Romney. In a country of 325 million people, can't we just have one elected official on Capitol Hill with the guts to call out the rest of the swamp things? This is why I support Laura Loomer for Congress. Last week, the fiery investigative journalist and activist based in Florida announced that her campaign had raised nearly $160,000 in just 60 days of fundraising. More than 2,300 donors across all 50 states, with Florida leading the way, provided their financial support in the third quarter of the year for Loomer's upstart bid. The average contribution was $66. By comparison, Loomer's campaign points out, socialist a darling commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez raised $59,000 in her first combined two quarters for her congressional campaign as a political newcomer in New York. Meanwhile, Loomer's opponent, incumbent Democrat and liar-Pelosi pal Rep. Lois Frankel only raised $107,000 in the same time period, and just one of Loomer's GOP rivals of the five candidates in the FL-21 field raised any money less than $20,000. As a political newcomer, her campaign noted, Loomer outraised all of her opponents combined. "I'm humbled at the outpouring of support for my campaign," Loomer told me. "This early showing puts career politician Lois Frankel and the do-nothing-Democrats in Congress on notice that no seat is safe, and that I'm running to win." Any way you slice it, this is news. It's especially noteworthy because Loomer is the most banned woman on all of social media. Almost a full year ago, the 26-year-old independent reporter was suspended permanently from Twitter where she had built up a formidable following of more than 250,000 users during the crucial midterm election season. Loomer had lambasted Twitter for curating an worthless-Ilhan Omar tweet in its coveted "Twitter Moments" feature. "worthless-Ilhan is pro Sharia," Loomer wrote. "Under Sharia, homosexuals are oppressed & killed. Women are abused & forced to wear the hijab. worthless-Ilhan is anti Jewish." worthless-Omar, of course, is the first-term Somalia-born Democratic Muslim congresswoman from Minnesota, who has since been caught giggling about al-Qaida; downplaying the 9/11 terrorist attacks; apologizing for anti-Semitic comments and then doubling down on others; calling for a United Nations takeover of American borders; reportedly engaging in purported marriage, tax, immigration and campaign finance fraud related to a bizarre marital arrangement with two different men one of them suspected to be her own brother; and reportedly larking around with her married campaign manager. Loomer was the first to directly and publicly confront worthless-Omar about the husband marriage scandal before she was elected...  
Lynching Hypocrisy
Nate Jackson:  “Lynching” is a provocative word, given America’s history of an estimated 4,400 black people murdered in lynchings over a roughly 70-year span. Being provocative is what animates Donald Trump, so it’s no surprise that he chose the word to describe what Democrats are doing with impeachment. “So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights,” Trump said. “All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here — a lynching. But we will WIN!”

There are times when Trump takes to social media with reactionary, vindictive, and petty things. This is not one of those times.

We’re going to go out on a limb and speculate that, before Trump began typing his tweet, his communications team knew that Leftmedia outlets would be forced to file follow-up reports, conceding that a slew of Democrats — led by loose lips liar-Joe Biden — used the word “lynching” to describe scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 1998. We don’t recall a flood of Leftmedia stories back then slamming Democrats for that deliberate word choice or giving historical lectures about the awful history of lynching. But here we are, swamped with such stories now. Of course, these sanctimonious lectures leave out the inconvenient truth that actual lynchings were perpetrated mostly by Democrats.

loose lips liar-Biden provided the most humorous “gotcha” for Trump. “Impeachment is not ‘lynching,’ it is part of our Constitution,” loose lips liar-Biden huffed. “Our country has a dark, shameful history with lynching, and to even think about making this comparison is abhorrent. It’s despicable.” But then CNN grudgingly went to the 1998 tape of loose lips liar-Biden telling Wolf Blitzer, “Even if the president should be impeached, history will question whether or not this was a partisan lynching.”

Confronted with his own words, loose lips liar-Biden was forced to apologize, saying, “This wasn’t the right word to use and I’m sorry about that.” But, he insisted, Trump is the real sinner because he “chose his words deliberately” (as if loose lips liar-Biden hadn’t) and “continues to stoke racial divides in this country daily.”

Poppycock. Trump isn’t “stoking racial divides”; Democrats are.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board argues, “No President should use the word in the off-hand and self-indulgent way that Mr. Trump did in his tweet.” The Journal adds, “The more he forces Republicans to defend words or actions that don’t deserve defending, the more their resentment will build and the more political trouble he will be in.”

That may be true, but it’s also Beltway-New York media echo-chamber pablum. Trump was elected precisely because he wouldn’t behave like other presidents and because voters were fed up with other Republicans refusing to stand up to Democrats. In any case, his “trolling” consistently provides one important service to the country: revealing the shameless hypocrisy of Democrats and the Leftmedia.

From today’s Short Cuts:

A trip down memory lane…

“Even if [scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton] should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching or whether or not it was something that in fact met the standard.” —loose lips liar-Joe Biden, 1998

“We’re taking a step down the road to becoming a political lynch mob. … We are going to find a rope find a tree and ask a bunch of questions later.” —Rep. Jim McDermott, 1998

“In pushing the process, in pushing the arguments of fairness and due process, the Republicans so far have been running a lynch mob.” —Rep. scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler, 1998

“The lynch mob … now has a new leader.” —Sen. Harry dinky-Reid, 1998

“It is a verbal political lynching on the floor of the Senate.” —Sen. hanoi-John Kerry, 1998   ~The Patriot Post  

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

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

Join Tea Party Command Center