Saturday PM ~ thefrontpagecover

.hIN8-LixPp40uzlYYPVBNPiGIUZt6E9IrtByOnlFeW1-wDHugoEddioZ4s6vzZ4SpnySKldXXOzeOhOWaUExrbDpSZe5mp0_BTJsgsAitxs4jeDT5civZrwRtsTkYh0N3r_sEAcw866uL-dPjJH_6wjzQ31ELdivZbUvNSEuRBQ=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
Democrats Embrace 'Principled' Totalitarianism
bo8n9WubhpnNjWPyhT9fW_yqc1B0FKb7N2NUbcUFNvL0kPKzQV9ZZDZOwf57AYkzUuseKeE9EyM4IphCpn5Bow-enPTz6hqAMg8WH7ACtMh19SC_ngLIJbztmeieo1pm-yaZbEHQwip1padjMuf1zB9NUx4Wa7gaOC-kYRE=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
Arnold Ahler  
fYhHLkJDI2yvon4s6zFOhNh8lx7PjKsKI1eHkOxgMDK9HASp-j1B4jJftdBsa0sJ4MWGUNqyxJbJTlfRo7kCbLWMXX-R2uk1rvb0zUIwWismElA8gtmBSL5w0puPIKdG2H6YfSsQnc87wgOiYqsTqY4icMU4kLYfRMiZl9GA6ro=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
.
Did Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch 
Lie to Congress?
JBYqX1U2OTlhaSdEn5n9s_J-Xgf94bAqPcBDbStJYknk6-S_k6Mh1OcUhq0DE5egJZ7-Yw-sIKENdbxfgPA33xqJ3kwhpiyuGTk4ccrmVLe0I5lG3P-HquPXJhxdqt-I_CpnfiK9Xks3H_D_LTs7nNZOrqk4sxhNAvSb93Sg8zeZFtrcs-xGJWVipcwSmQ=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
by wiredconservative.com ~ During sworn testimony in November’s impeachment hearings before the House Intelligence Committee, former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch made an astounding claim... She believed that she was the victim of a smear campaign led by President Trump and his allies. In May of 2019, Yovanovitch was recalled by Trump as Ambassador to Ukraine because she blocked a probe into loose lips liar-Joe and Hunter Biden over their potential corruption and, specifically, for bad-mouthing the president. During her impeachment hearing testimony, Yovanovitch claimed that multiple people lied about her. She claimed she never provided a list to Ukranian Special Prosecutor Lutsenko of Ukrainians suspected of being corrupt but that she did not want them prosecuted. Here’s the list of people Yovanovitch claims have lied about her. President Trump...Rudy Guiliani (Trump’s lawyer)...Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman (Guiliani’s associates)...Yuriy Lutsenko, Ukrainian Prosecutor-General.  She specifically called the allegation a “fabrication.” Yovanovitch’s testimony is one of the key pieces to the Democrat’s rush to impeachment. House Intelligence Committee member Rep. scumbag-Eric Swalwell (D-CA) falsely stated during his five-minute statement that firing an Ambassador is an impeachable offense. Lutsenko Claims to Have Proof Yovanovitch Lied to Congress. In an explosive interview with One America News, Lutsenko accused Yovanovitch of lying to Congress. She also had a “do not prosecute” list in hopes of protecting specific people from allegations of corruption...
.
Trump slams Wray’s response to FISA 
report, says he’ll ‘never be able to fix the FBI’
TXU5FvnvKLTsZoODdZCwHQ56elqnuqp35UZ0n3_5Oaxrramk4Y5GHtxZh016-fbuasEhd7_cG8m77xW-QxkesXz1t5MIFY-XKKC95zb0LG4Vv0HWu020FCpIRmNAp5563D0JZAg7arr1D8bcLQw-SaoDW5tUlhxdWBTVQH0iXPFi2AbYdChB8ZXMyjQkOt_joQ1HRbQF9j8OwSh9wWwssjhmbw=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
By Ronn Blitzer
{ foxnews.com } ~ President Trump blasted FBI Director Christopher Wray on Tuesday morning over his response to the Justice Department inspector general's report on the origins of the FBI's Russia investigation... and use of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The IG report found that while there were a significant number of concerns regarding the FBI's practices in obtaining the FISA warrant and other aspects of the probe, there was no evidence of political bias or impropriety regarding their motives in the investigation. Wray has accepted these findings, but Trump signaled Tuesday he doesn't think Wray is taking the concerns seriously enough. "I don’t know what report current Director of the FBI Christopher Wray was reading, but it sure wasn’t the one given to me. With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI, which is badly broken despite having some of the greatest men & women working there!" he tweeted. In an ABC interview, Wray highlighted the IG report's conclusion that there was no political bias or improper motive behind the FBI's launching of the Russia probe, stating, "I think it's important that the inspector general found that in this particular instance the investigation was opened with appropriate predication and authorization." When asked if he had any evidence that the FBI unfairly targeted Trump's campaign, Wray said, "I don't," and appeared to take offense to the notion that the FBI is part of a "deep state." "I think that's the kind of label that is a disservice to the 37,000 men and women who work at the FBI who I think tackle their jobs with professionalism, with rigor, with objectivity, with courage ... so that's not a term I would ever use to describe our workforce and I think it's an affront to them,” he said. At the same time, Wray acknowledged the bureau errors cited in the IG report. In an interview with The Associated Press, Wray said the report identified problems that are "unacceptable and unrepresentative of who we are as an institution." He said the FBI would make changes to how it handles confidential informants, how it applies for warrants from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, how it conducts briefings on foreign influence for presidential nominees and how it structures sensitive investigations like the 2016 Russia probe. He said he has also reinstated ethics training. "I am very committed to the FBI being agile in its tackling of foreign threats," Wray said. "But I believe you can be agile and still scrupulously follow our rules, policies and processes." This followed a letter to Inspector General Michael Horowitz, in which Wray said, "the FBI accepts the Report’s findings and embraces the need for thoughtful, meaningful remedial action." While the IG report went into great detail regarding the FBI's failures during the Russia probe, the conclusion that there was no political bias runs contrary to Trump's theory that scumbag/liar-nObama administration officials were unfairly targeting his campaign...
.
Trump wins Supreme Court review 
of three cases against him
Gne5IplrovfsC3ReOf0e5h7O4HNrsLNOFW-lIXMOXCiqSc3ZE5IUeUJlVKLNn3uFzDQA8H9HwdhAA611TuGvKRjlAtjWmPVXTxMEXPtIECmARPDUsA=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
by SHARYL ATTKISSON
{ sharylattkisson.com } ~ The Supreme Court has accepted three cases involving President Trump in a decision announced Friday. President Trump’s attorney Jay Sekulow responded by stating, “We are pleased.”... Two of the cases, Trump v. Deutsche Bank and Trump v. Mazars, involve whether Congress can obtain Trump’s financial records from his accounting firm. Another case, Trump v. Vance addresses presidential immunity from investigation. Trump v. Deutsche Bank also concerns this issue. Even before Trump was elected, some Democrats announced a plan to challenge him in court at every opportunity. In October 2016, Benjamin Wittes, founder of a left-wing liberal blog called “Lawfare” — as in the “use of law as a weapon of conflict” — wrote, “What if Trump wins? We need an insurance policy against the unthinkable: Donald Trump’s actually winning the Presidency.” Wittes wrote that his vision of an “insurance policy” would rely on a “Coalition of All Democratic Forces” to challenge and obstruct Trump, using the courts as a “tool” and Congress as “a partner or tool.” He also mentioned impeachment — two weeks before Trump is elected. Wittes has acknowledged being a good friend of fired FBI Director scumbag-James Comey. He spoke to a New York Times reporter about scumbag-Comey’s interactions with President Trump right after Robert Mueller‘s appointment as special counsel. That plan to use the courts to challenge Trump at every turn seems to have been well executed. However, when numerous cases have reached the Supreme Court, President Trump has often ended up the victor. We are pleased that the Supreme Court granted review of the President’s three pending cases. Jay Sekulow, Trump attorney  Analysts consider it a positive sign for Trump that the Supreme Court will consider the cases. The Justices could have passed up that opportunity and let lower court rulings against Trump stay in place. It doesn’t mean by any stretch, though, that Trump has won the cases. They will be formally argued in the Spring. On the other hand, at least one analyst says the high Court’s decision to accept the cases for consideration is already a momentous one. On Fox News’s Sean Hannity program, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said it means Trump has a legitimate case to make when he argues that– due to Constitutional separation of powers– the executive branch is not bound by the subpoenas of Congress, the legislative branch. “The Congress should immediately remove the ‘Obstruction of Congress’ article of impeachment,” said Dershowitz. “It’s over.”
.
Detroit Sued Over Voter Roll Irregularities, 
Including Thousands of Deceased 
Registered Voters
3JOD6mhdb43I3nIXkvMcfCVsZkahDIvpuT1eJqPv0btWbkqmSJqw5Z6HcCcHcFhtXDcISWttFIy8KJ-ZEiVucfDfsryLzKrhPH_MmzXV6OVJqN4H_g=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
by Joe Schoffstall 
{ freebeacon.com } ~ The city of Detroit has been hit with a lawsuit alleging numerous voter registration irregularities including thousands of dead people on its voter rolls, according to a complaint... The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), an Indiana-based group that litigates to protect election integrity, filed the complaint Wednesday to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Janice Winfrey, Detroit's city clerk, and George Azzouz, Detroit's director of elections, are named as defendants. The suit alleges that Detroit's voter rolls contain more than 2,500 deceased individuals, nearly 5,000 voters who appear more than once, and 511,786 registered voters in the city where only 479,267 individuals are eligible to vote. The lawsuit comes less than one year out from the 2020 elections in a state that President Donald Trump carried by just 10,704 votes over scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton. Past reports showed voter machine irregularities in the city when 37 percent of its precincts in 2016 registered more votes than the number of voters tallied in polling stations. The city of Detroit was overwhelmingly carried by scumbag/liar-Clinton. "If the Russians or others are indeed coming in 2020, this is how we fight back early. Election integrity requires that we review voting assets and intentionally seek opportunities to harden them," Logan Churchwell, PILF's communications director, told the Washington Free Beacon. "When the Foundation hand-delivered these list maintenance leads, they were brushed aside by Detroit. This behavior is precisely what saboteurs rely on before they begin their work." Laura Cox, chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, called on Detroit's city clerk to be replaced following PILF's findings. "When thousands of dead people are registered to vote and there are more people registered than are eligible to vote in the city of Detroit either someone is trying to commit fraud or there is gross incompetence within the Detroit city clerk's office," Cox said. "Either way Janice Winfrey has shown she is unable to do her job as Detroit city clerk. It's time for Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to replace her partisan friend on the Election Modernization Advisory Committee with someone who knows how to run a modern election operation." All Secretary of State need to act upon this.  https://freebeacon.com/issues/detroit-sued-over-voter-roll-irregularities-including-thousands-of-deceased-registered-to-vote/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=fbceb76e94-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_13_11_23_COPY_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-fbceb76e94-45611665   
We Deliver for Who? USPS Financial Woes 
Continue; Congressional Reform Unlikely.
ug7SN1m64d2kHCIjUWCPWijx_C9aKguyNYvN4aDgzuWMlUIUevIVH0Q9kjod9ZTlPCgmi-67PlnUEJI4st0Jf5gwP1k=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
By Kevin R. Kosar
{ realclearpolicy.com } ~ About $8.8 billion — that is how much the U.S. Postal Service lost in the past year. That is an eye-popping number. The agency is also carrying $11 billion in debt and has more than $120 billion in funded pension and health liabilities... To be sure, some of that deficit is due to actuarial factor. For example, USPS’s workers’ compensation charge was $3.5 billion last year — much higher than usual due to a change in the way this expense is computed. But even if one wipes away this expense and other “uncontrollable costs,” the U.S. Postal Service still lost $3.4 billion.The USPS’s plight is existential. Mail volume has dropped nearly 30% since 2008. The demand for paper mail has plunged, and the private sector is eating the postal worker’s lunch. As USPS notes in its latest financial filing: “We compete for our business in many different market segments. A wide variety of communications media compete for the same types of transactions and communications that are conducted using our services. These channels include, but are not limited to, newspapers, telecommunications, television, email, social networking and electronic funds transfers. The package and express delivery businesses are highly competitive, with both national and local Competitors. The most significant competitive factor for First-Class Mail is digital communication, including electronic mail, as well as other digital technologies such as online bill payment and presentment. For Marketing Mail, digital forms of advertising including digital mobile advertising and social media are the most significant forms of competition. The primary competitors of our Shipping and Packages services are FedEx Corporation and United Parcel Service, Inc., as well as other national, regional and local delivery companies and crowdsourced carriers. We see additional competition coming from existing customers, such as Amazon.com, Inc., that are testing and in some cases implementing ‘last-mile’ services. Our Shipping and Packages business competes on the basis of the breadth of our service network, convenience, reliability and economy of the service provided.”...
.
Preaching a Conspiracy Theory
by Allen C. Guelzo
{ city-journal.org } ~ There is one sense in which the 1619 Project’s attempt to rewrite U.S. history in the image of slavery is right: America’s founding was like nothing else seen in the history of human societies... But not because of slavery. Instead, it was because the American republic modeled itself on the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century by trying to find a natural order in human politics, rather than fall back upon the artificial and irrational hierarchies that governed how the ancients had understood both the physical and political universes. Our Declaration of Independence stated as a self-evident truth of nature that “all men are created equal”; our Constitution prohibited all titles of nobility and required virtually all offices to be matters of public election rather than inheritance or class. The American republic would be a theater of those who, like Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, could be “self-made men,” and the solutions to the problems of their day would be generated by a host of voluntary associations, working from the bottom up, rather than through government, from the top down. Yet, nature is not always kind or predictable, and neither is the path of the republic. The temptation has always existed to slide back into the comfortable abyss of hierarchy, whether it be the racial hierarchy of slaveholders in the Civil War or the newer hierarchies of bureaucracy and socialism. It is that temptation to backsliding which the 1619 Project wants to insist is the real story; but this is like taking the stage crew out from behind the curtain and insisting that they’re the real musical. So, let us speak of slavery. The American republic inherited slavery from the British empire, in much the same way that it inherited its fiscal poverty, its lack of manufacturing capability, and its primitive infrastructure. We expected to overcome all of these in time. And we would have dealt the same way with slavery, too. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Gouverneur Morris attacked slavery wholesale as “a nefarious institution” which had “the curse of heaven . . . where it prevailed.” But the expectation of the Founders was that slavery was a dying institution. So, the Convention turned a blind eye to slavery, even as it insisted that turning that blind eye was not meant, as James Madison said, “to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.” They were, of course, wrong. The explosion of Britain’s Industrial Revolution, built on the production of cotton textiles and the invention of the cotton gin, turned slave-based cotton agriculture into a roaring inferno of profitability. Profitability first erased shame and then stimulated angry self-justifications; and instead of painlessly winking out, slavery had to be exterminated by the force of civil war before it could strangle the life of the republic itself. Even then, we botched the eradication of slavery’s racial legacy through a badly designed Reconstruction. We have paid the price for that ever since...
.
fYhHLkJDI2yvon4s6zFOhNh8lx7PjKsKI1eHkOxgMDK9HASp-j1B4jJftdBsa0sJ4MWGUNqyxJbJTlfRo7kCbLWMXX-R2uk1rvb0zUIwWismElA8gtmBSL5w0puPIKdG2H6YfSsQnc87wgOiYqsTqY4icMU4kLYfRMiZl9GA6ro=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
.
Democrats Embrace 'Principled' Totalitarianism
bo8n9WubhpnNjWPyhT9fW_yqc1B0FKb7N2NUbcUFNvL0kPKzQV9ZZDZOwf57AYkzUuseKeE9EyM4IphCpn5Bow-enPTz6hqAMg8WH7ACtMh19SC_ngLIJbztmeieo1pm-yaZbEHQwip1padjMuf1zB9NUx4Wa7gaOC-kYRE=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
Arnold Ahlert:  Last week, a conservative website ran another one of those “gotcha” columns highlighting Democrat hypocrisy. The subject was Bernie Sanders and the gotcha part was the fact that the same socialist/Marxist who now champions amnesty for illegal aliens opposed it 2007, along with a guest-worker program.

Such columns are exasperating because they miss the larger point: Democrats may be hypocrites, but hypocrisy is a byproduct of the one and only “principle” that animates their entire agenda: the acquisition and maintenance of power — by any means necessary. Thus, if Sanders surmises the path to power means taking a tough stance on illegal immigration in 2007, and a polar opposite, open-border approach 12 years later, that is not hypocrisy. It is consistency based on that singular principle.

Moreover, those same Democrats can rest assured the mainstream media will have their backs: Republicans “flip flop.” Democrats “evolve.”

Orchestrated evolution, a.k.a. incrementalism, is an integral part of the Democrat agenda. For example, it’s easy to remember a time when the assertion that a man could be a women, or vice versa, simply by declaring it to be so — utterly irrespective of biological or chromosomal reality — was seen as the psychological deficiency or pernicious nonsense it truly is.

Now, gender “fluidity” has become an integral part of public school curriculums across the nation, a judge remains agnostic regarding the chemical castration of a seven-year-old boy, double-mastectomies are performed on healthy 13-year-old girls, and biological males are dominating women’s sports. Moreover, anyone who opposes that agenda is a bigot or “phobic.”

Most Americans see the radicalism driving that agenda. What they don’t see is the Democrats’ larger agenda: If reality itself can be determined solely by self-identification, then two plus two can equal five, and the entirety of totalitarianism illuminated by George Orwell’s 1984 becomes possible.

College campuses are one of the Left’s primary breeding grounds for such ambitions. “The key to understanding what is happening on campuses, and increasingly in society as a whole, is to discard your bourgeois notions of reason and the presumption of good faith,” writes  columnist Kurt Schlichter, who adds that evidence and intellectual consistency are irrelevant because leftists “are not engaged in argument. Rather, they simply assert whatever nonsense they believe will increase their own power.”

By any means necessary.

Perhaps nothing illuminated this dynamic better than the two-part impeachment “inquiry” conducted by Democrats, where a “whistleblower” first deemed integral to the entire procedure was jettisoned in favor of a generalized “quid pro quo,” which became collusion, then bribery, all of which was ultimately formalized as obstruction of Congress and abuse of power.

How disingenuous are Democrats? Last Saturday, the House Judiciary Committee released a report that contained an astonishing assertion. “The question is not whether the President’s conduct could have resulted from permissible motives,” it states. “It is whether the President’s real reasons, the ones in his mind at the time, were legitimate.”

Translation: “thoughtcrime” is grounds for impeachment.

So is second-hand “testimony” wholly undermined by the simplest of questions. At the House Intelligence Committee hearing run by scumbag/;iar-Adam Schiff (D-CA), Chris Stewart (R-UT) asked former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch if she had any knowledge about the president accepting bribes or engaging in criminal activity. She said she did not.

At at the second hearing, conducted by the House Judiciary Committee and run by scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Matt Gaetz (R-FL) asked all the witnesses present to raise their hands if they had “personal knowledge of a single material fact in the scumbag/liar-Schiff report.” Not a single hand was raised.

In a nation with an uncorrupted education system, that would have been the end of the impeachment fiasco. In this one, four academics, three of whom were transparently political, were bought into offer “testimony” — consisting solely of their opinions — as to why Trump should be impeached. And while the media focused on an intemperate remark made by Stanford Law School professor Pam Karlan regarding Trump’s teenage son, Barron, the woman who claimed she had to cross the street to avoid walking past Trump International Hotel said something far more illuminating.  She insisted  conservatives are spread across the country “perhaps because they don’t even want to be around themselves.”

Again in a better nation, Americans might wonder how someone making such wholly condescending generalizations is allowed to train future lawyers. In this one, Karlan will continue having a hand in turning out social justice warriors masquerading as attorneys of law.

She is also Exhibit A regarding what Democrats consider one of the fundamentals for imposing their totalitarian agenda: credentialism. Perhaps nothing took a bigger beating in the 2016 election than the idea that credentials should be the sole determinant regarding who should occupy the Oval Office. Thus, when a trash-talking businessman/TV host bested a former first lady, senator, and secretary of state, credentialism was repudiated. Americans were no longer interested in abiding “experts” who are anything but, yet still see themselves as “saviors of the planet and as shapers of mankind in their own image,” as Angelo Codevilla, former staff member of the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence, so eloquently observed.

Since these self-aggrandizing saviors can’t take their fury out directly on the electorate who voted for Trump, Trump himself becomes the target of those whose determination to “fundamentally transform” America remains imperiled unless he — and his “deplorable” supporters — are thoroughly repudiated.

The next step on the road to totalitarianism? Permanent instability. “From now on, impeachment can be used against any first-term president with a record of success,” Victor Davis Hanson warns. “It will be used solely as a political strategy by the opposition party that controls the House to weaken a president’s reelection chances — possibly in the interest of some of the very House, or Senate, members who as presidential candidates will sit in judgment of the accused president.”

Hanson believe Democrats will “live to rue” such a development. That is highly doubtful, considering they are up against a largely spineless GOP that has never  demonstrated the same level of determination as their Democrat rivals. Thus, the notion that Republicans would begin calling for impeachment on Inauguration Day, like Democrats and their media apparatchiks did with Trump, is a pipe dream.

Can the march toward totalitarianism be blunted? Winston Churchill once stated, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing — after they’ve tried everything else.” Transgenderism, which represents the apex of progressive demands for ideological “purity,” suggests we’ve reached that point. Moreover, spending one’s entire life wondering if a single “intemperate” moment can cost one a career, or engender social ostracism — exactly like the system the Chinese Communist government is imposing on its own people next year — is thoroughly exhausting.

Here’s hoping the 2020 election demonstrates how exhausted Americans truly are.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67325?mailing_id=4730&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4730&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

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