Thursday AM ~ thefrontpagecover

~ Featuring ~
Historians Rebuke '1619 Project'
Lewis Morris  
Impeachment Witness: scumbag/liar-nObama Refused To Give Evidence To Congress
{ } ~ Georgetown University professor Jonathan Turley said during Wednesday’s impeachment hearing that former President Barack scumbag/liar-nObama withheld information from Congress over the disastrous “Fast and Furious” program... Operation Fast and Furious was a program of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, overseen by former Attorney General scumbag-Eric Holder and the Department of Justice. scumbag-Holder allowed thousands of guns to be sold to the Mexican drug cartels by people illegally trafficking firearms. It resulted in the death of a federal agent, among others. Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, Turley was asked by ranking member Republican Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, if the House of Representatives is abusing its power “if we just say the facts don’t matter.” “I think so,” Turley responded. “Part of the problem is that to bring a couple of these Articles of Impeachment, you have to contradict the position of President scumbag/liar-nObama. President scumbag/liar-nObama withheld evidence from Congress in “Fast and Furious,” an investigation, a rather moronic program that led to the death of a federal agent. President scumbag/liar-nObama gave a sweeping argument that he was not only not going to give evidence to this body but that a court had absolutely no role in determining whether he could withhold the evidence.” After hearings before the House Intelligence Committee, led by its chairman, Democratic California Rep. scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff, the impeachment inquiry has moved to the judiciary committee under Democratic New York Rep. scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler.Nadler opened Wednesday’s testimony by stating “The facts before us are undisputed,” in reference to the claim that Trump has committed impeachable offenses. The proceedings have been sharply polarized, not only because of the divide between Republicans and Democrats, but by the testimony of the witnesses. Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan said Wednesday in her opening statement that she was “insulted” by Republican suggestions that she had not read all the impeachment testimony from previous witnesses.  
Judiciary Democrats Block Motion 
to Subpoena the ‘Whistleblower’
By Jim Hayek
{ } ~ Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday voted to block a motion to subpoena the “whistleblower,” whose complaint prompted Democrats to launch the impeachment inquiry... During the committee’s first impeachment inquiry hearing, Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA) moved to subpoena “the individual commonly referred to as the ‘whistleblower.’” After his motion, Chairman scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler (D-NY) gaveled him down and asked, “Do I hear a motion to table” — or postpone consideration of the motion to subpoena the “whistleblower.” A Democrat congresswoman then said, “I move to table the motion.” The vote fell predictably along party lines, with 24 Democrats voting to table the motion, and 17 Republicans voting against tabling it. House Democrats have not allowed the whistleblower to testify, despite his role in launching the impeachment inquiry. Democrats on the Judiciary Committee earlier in the hearing voted down another Republican motion to call House Intelligence Committee Chairman scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff to testify as part of the impeachment inquiry. Ranking Member Doug Collins (R-GA) made the motion to require the attendance and testimony of scumbag/liar-Schiff before the House Judiciary Committee, transmitting a letter requesting the same. House Intelligence Committee Republicans had requested scumbag/liar-Schiff testify during the initial phases of the impeachment inquiry, due to revelations the whistleblower who kickstarted the House Democrats’ launch of an impeachment inquiry went to scumbag/liar-Schiff’s committee before filing his complaint. The New York Times reported the whistleblower went to scumbag/liar-Schiff’s aide before filing a complaint, and that the aide instructed the whistleblower to obtain legal counsel and then file a formal complaint with the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG). The Times also reported that the aide passed on the “outlines” of the whistleblower’s complaint to scumbag/liar-Schiff...   
Dems’ Impeachment Trickery
uoW9CcZkTv034EEyqcgpyQkbXyRcLwCh6HHWDjvBH2FnDnJUtvE92uoHk1A7-hG98-5G_a10Nf_niqZDpLNHFD0ZzsE6okBGcszxTRi8yj3txCv3-E9hzQzmTEFoqFT2FtMC8D1UToyHEg=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710xby BETSY MCCAUGHEY
{ } ~ On Wednesday, House Judiciary Committee chairman scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) takes over as ringmaster for the ongoing impeachment show... He’s billing his opening act as an inquiry into the “historical and constitutional basis of impeachment” and “the Framers’ intent.” scumbag liar-Nadler claims he’ll be looking into what the Constitution’s authors meant by “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Don’t be fooled by scumbag liar-Nadler’s scholarly posturing. He isn’t planning a civics lesson. Democrats are hell-bent on impeaching Trump, so scumbag liar-Nadler has to rewrite American history and massage the meaning of the Constitution’s impeachment clause to fit the pile of non-evidence scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee has produced. Count on scumbag liar-Nadler to come loaded with a bag of legal tricks. Trick No. 1 is the bait and switch. Dems have already laid the bait. They swear they’re reluctant to drag the nation into impeachment, but their duty to defend the rule of law requires it. “Our job is to follow the facts” and “apply the law,” says committee member Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). “No one is above the law,” House Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi insists. Now get ready for the switch: At the hearing, Democrats and their hand-picked legal experts will argue that a president can be impeached without breaking a law. Suddenly impeachment isn’t about upholding the rule of law. The grounds are broader. Wide enough to drive a truck through. Why the switch? Because Dems don’t have the goods to show Trump has committed a crime, even after three years of the Mueller investigation, followed by scumbag/liar-Schiff’s televised spectacle. Expect more deceptive claims from scumbag liar-Nadler, including these: No. 2: The Framers wanted impeachment to apply broadly. Sorry, but the record is airtight on this one. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the Framers considered grounds for impeachment. On September 8, George Mason suggested that bribery and treason were too narrow and proposed adding “maladministration.” But James Madison objected, explaining that “so vague a term will be equivalent to” saying the president serves at the pleasure of the Congress. The Framers did not want to duplicate the British system, which made the executive dependent on Parliament. Mason’s idea was dropped, and the Framers instead agreed to the more specific term, “high crimes and misdemeanors,” in which “high” meant offenses committed while in high office, such as embezzling public funds. The Framers couldn’t specify federal law violations because there were no federal laws yet. But today, it’s hard for any citizen to steer clear of the tangled web of federal laws. Still the impeachers can’t find a law Trump’s broken. No. 3: Impeachment is political.  No. 4: Congress has a duty to impeach. No. 5: Trust left-wing law professors to decide what’s impeachable...  
'Not how an American president should be impeached': GOP witness Jonathan Turley 
to launch Trump defense
by Jerry Dunleavy
{ } ~ Jonathan Turley, the lone Republican legal expert selected for Wednesday’s impeachment hearing, will condemn the Democrat-led process. “This is not how an American president should be impeached,"... he will say, according to a copy of his prepared remarks obtained by the Washington Examiner. Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, will appear in front of the House Judiciary Committee alongside three Democrat-selected witnesses in its first Ukraine-related impeachment hearing. Turley will argue in his 53-page prepared remarks that the impeachment process, led mainly by the House Intelligence Committee, has been rushed and incomplete, based on assumptions, missing key witnesses, and fueled by anger. “I get it. You are mad. The president is mad. My Republican friends are mad. My wife is mad. My kids are mad. Even my dog is mad … and Luna is a golden doodle, and they are never mad. We are all mad, and where has it taken us?” Turley will say. “Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad, or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration?” Turley criticized Democrats, who for two years “have declared that criminal and impeachable acts were established for everything from treason to conspiracy to obstruction,” and yet “no action was taken to impeach” until “suddenly, just a few weeks ago, the House announced it would begin an impeachment inquiry and push for a final vote in just a matter of weeks.” During the July 25 phone call that led to an August whistleblower complaint spurring the impeachment proceedings, President Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky "to do us a favor" by looking into the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory  and allegations of Ukrainian election interference in 2016. Trump also urged Zelensky to investigate “the other thing,” referring to allegations of corruption related to loose lips liar-Joe and Hunter Biden.The former vice president is the front-runner in the Democratic primary to challenge Trump in 2020. Hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Ukraine were held up for weeks in what Democrats call a “quid pro quo.” Turley will note the military aid was eventually released and say the relatively small number of impeachment witnesses who spoke to the Intelligence Committee had largely second-hand information...  
scumbag liar-Jerrold Nadler Is Caught 
in His Own Quid Pro Quo
{ } ~ Life is interesting, isn’t it? And when the Democrats roll out “the Resistance,” their pathetic public corruption of our social contract, life also takes on aspects of shamefulness and hypocrisy... Take, for example, Act Two of their seasonal theatrical production, the Phantom of the Congress. We the audience now return from intermission to find scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff, the villain of Act One, missing and replaced by scumbag liar-Jerrold Nadler, who seems less despicable because, beneath the surface, he is oh-so-vulnerable, oh-so-compromised, and oh-so-neutered. We wonder what has transpired during the period that the intermission passed over: Legislation to reduce the cost of prescription drugs and to get control over health care? Passage of the USMCA Trade Agreement among Mexico, Canada, and the United States? Military funding authorizations? Nope. None of it. It turns out that the intermission happened in real time, like Jack Bauer’s 24  television series. And nothing happened during intermission. Meanwhile, the stage hands have changed the scenery from the House Intelligence Committee to the House Judiciary Committee, while borrowing some of the props from the previous scene, including the big leather chair. And now we find scumbag liar-Nadler presiding over the “judicious” contemplation of the Intelligence Committee Report, comprised of a scumbag/liar-Schiff-load of malarkey derived from hearings — some “star chamber” secret and some public — that were tailored to deny Republicans the right to call critical witnesses, interrupted and cut off Republicans sometimes mid-sentence, and ultimately defaulted to resting on hearsay, innuendo, guessing, and presumptions. None of that kind of secondhand guessing matters as evidence or testimony in a real justice system, only in a corrupt sham of a proceeding. Most Americans are not aware of a secret known only to a limited number of law academics and professors — and to those of their students who took good notes and remembered what they learned even after final exams. To wit: There is a legal principle known as the “legislative privilege.” Under that rule, any legislator can say in the Senate or in the House of Representatives any darned thing he or she feels like saying, and the law shields the legislator from being sued for defamation. Thus, Harry dinky-Reid can lie on the Senate floor and say that rino-Mitt Romney failed to pay his income taxes for 10 years, with dinky-Reid knowing full well that he is outright lying through his teeth, and rino-Romney cannot do a thing about it. In the same way, scumbag/liar-Schiff can lie all he likes while in the House chamber, and he cannot be sued. Same with all the others. Same in the Senate. Democrat senators can lie about Brett Kavanaugh at his confirmation hearings, and they cannot be sued. Even Blasey Ford could fry-whisper all her lies and cannot be sued based on what she testified in the Senate chamber. That’s the “legislative privilege,” and the protection applies to all who speak inside the House or Senate, even witnesses. Did you know that? Heckuva thing, no? In the same way that elected representatives can lie without consequence when they stay in their playground facility, they can also make corrupt and deviant rules without consequence. In a real court of law, for example, hearsay is inadmissible. There is a reason, and one does not need to be an attorney to understand this. In all your own life, did it ever happen that someone told you something bad about someone else the “target” behind that other person’s back, and then you reported it back to the targeted person or demanded that the targeted person take responsibility for the wrong he or she did — and then that person came back at you and said, “What in the world are you talking about?” And then you told the person what you had been told secondhand, and that targeted person not only denied it but also demanded that you and he together now go to the initial gossiper and confront him or her. And then you went back to the source, the original tale-bearer, with the targeted person standing alongside you, and the gossiper then suddenly said, “I never said that!”...   
Fox’s backstabber-Napolitano Calls Trump Impeachment Strategy ‘Very Unwise’
By Connor Mannion
{ } ~ Fox News analyst backstabber-Andrew Napolitano struck out at President Donald Trump’s decision to not send lawyers to an upcoming impeachment hearing... calling the move “very unwise.” “I am curious what you make of the fact that the president might want to skip out on this Judiciary Committee opening hearing and maybe others to follow, because it is essentially a Kangaroo court or it’s not fair,” Neil Cavuto said on Your World Monday. “The rules about which the president are complaining were written by a Republican House of Representatives in 2015. The president would be very unwise not to send lawyers there,” backstabber-Napolitano responded. “The Democrats are not doing anything that the Democrats did not do to Nixon or the Republicans didn’t do the scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton. But I think he makes a mistake when he refuses to participate. It is a valid vote by the House of Representatives that authorized this,” he continued. “He also loses the argument that it’s unfair if he doesn’t take the opportunity to participate himself.” backstabber-Napolitano again defended his belief that Trump’s actions have merited impeachment. “In my view, it is clearly impeachable because it involves two potential crimes,” backstabber-Napolitano said. “The crime of bribery … which is defined as the failure to do an official act, release the $391 million, until a favor comes your way: not conduct an investigation, announce the existence of an investigation of loose lips liar-Joe Biden. The other crime is asking for campaign aide from a foreign national. That’s a crime in and of itself, just asking.” “They are free to say that’s not an impeachable offense, but they are not free to say it didn’t happen, because the evidence that it happened is overwhelming,” he said.   
Historians Rebuke '1619 Project'
Lewis Morris:  Leftists have long relied on misinformation and propaganda to advance their agenda. They use outright lies and the rewriting of history to sway the young and impressionable to their cause because the facts are just not on their side.

True to form, earlier this year The New York Times, one of the Left’s most influential propaganda organs, gave us the 1619 Project, which seeks to “reframe” the year 1619 as the “true” founding of America in an attempt to cast America as fundamentally racist to its core.

What do leftists find so special about the year 1619? According to the Times, that’s when slavery was introduced in the New World. Fake news! Once again, leftists get it wrong. Some Native American tribes practiced slavery for centuries before that, and the Spanish enslaved Native Americans a hundred years earlier. But this isn’t about slavery itself. This is about making the claim that America was founded not for the cause of Liberty but to establish a slave-ocracy.

The project leans hard into identity politics at the core of the Democrat Party and the Left in general. Leftists often claim that every institution in modern America is inherently racist, from our schools to our economy, even the roads on which we drive. With the 1619 Project, the revisionists now equate these supposedly racist institutions with the slavery of America’s past so that they can say we haven’t changed, and nothing short of a “fundamental transformation of the United States” will save us. In other words, vote Democrat. (Just forget while you do that Democrats were the party of slavery and lynching.)

The 1619 project is a broadside attack on American history and how it is taught. Don’t be complacent about the reach of the New York Times just because its readership consists primarily of people who already believe the muck that it prints every day. Much of America’s print news media still takes its cues from the Times, reprinting its articles and often using the Times itself as a source for reporting. Worse, public schools across the country are encouraged to insert the 1619 Project into their already feeble American history curriculums. There are also regular features in the Sunday Times magazine, a website, a podcast, and other assorted 1619 propaganda.

Fortunately, many of America’s preeminent history scholars have spoken out against the 1619 Project for lacking context and being factually incorrect. Pulitzer Prize-winning author and Brown University professor  Gordon Wood points out, “Slavery existed for thousands of years without substantial criticism. And the first real anti-slave movement takes place in North America. And it’s a massive movement that is unprecedented in the history of the world.”

Fellow Pulitzer Prize-winning historian James McPherson, who has written extensively about the Civil War, said, “I think it lacks context. [It] lacks perspective on the entire course of slavery and how slavery began and how slavery in the United States was hardly unique.”

Award-winning writer James Oakes also criticized the 1619 Project. “These are really dangerous tropes. They’re not only ahistorical, they’re actually anti-historical.”

None of these historians were consulted for the 1619 Project, and Wood notes that he is unaware of any of his colleagues who were approached. That is because the 1619 Project is not a work of history, it is a political propaganda constructed by journalists and leftist opinion writers. The real goal of the 1619 project is nothing short of rewriting American history to tear down our institutions and convince young people to hate this country.   ~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