Tuesday PM ~ thefrontpagecover

~ Featuring ~  
commie-Sanders, dinky-Warren Vie for 
'King of the Free-Stuff Mountain'
Jordan Candler  
Michael Flynn Was Not “Unmasked” – Evidence Flynn Was Under Active, FISC Authorized, Surveillance
hq4hdsyBzfv6l5E5zodbD6Qq2cU3nAaiZM0YrfLxhMcKecAGkxKJD_qgFC9yEbrMJl7Z2y1zl-MWXaVpBF8bgNTlJvQHL7bcXulLnpA4pqLIdh94Ya1Op3q3gRObO8-gPJ9An6HU=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710xby sundance
theconservativetreehouse.com } ~ The official media account of how the intelligence community gained the transcript of incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn talking to Ambassador Sergey Kisliyak on December 29th, 2016... surrounds “incidental collection” as a result of contact with an agent of a foreign power. Meaning the Flynn call was picked up as the U.S. intelligence apparatus was conducting surveillance on Russian Ambassador Kisliyak. If this version of events were accurate (it’s not), it would fall under FISA-702 collection: the lawful monitoring of a foreign agent (Kislyak) who has contact with a U.S. person (Flynn). In order to review the identity of the U.S. person, a process called ‘unmasking’, a 702 submission must be made. That submission, the unmasking, leaves a paper/electronic trail. In a 2017 congressional hearing, Senator Lindsey Graham asks Deputy Attorney General backstabber-Sally Yates and former DNI scumbag-James Clapper about this process.However, in the two years following this testimony, there was nothing that would deliver the answer as to: who unmasked General Michael Flynn? The reason is simple, Flynn wasn’t unmasked – because he was under FISC authorized active surveillance.  Here’s how we know...  https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/06/24/michael-flynn-was-not-unmasked-evidence-flynn-was-under-active-fisc-authorized-surveillance/  
Whose Side is Germany On?
59XAkCVnc4QIBn21MaEEAkoprviQecgIBf8FT8cc6AHxEzFXJu9aSV1z8eBIVoRW3nsd9_sqfrTxm6AEf2HH1MC3e1BsPWyEJXqlVhOG9HIx0RL0kx26fSfT4cKyaHYz6WDzNe8WVhUbGbmfHAn4bBdfmYkGQV26MK1gmdmASW_CR8Rhoex5neo=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710xby Joseph Puder
frontpagemag.com } ~ Since WWII, the U.S. has protected West Germany with American troops and its nuclear umbrella against the Soviet Union’s expansionist ambitions... Germany was considered a western ally that would side with its U.S. protector when facing an Iranian radical terrorist regime with nuclear ambitions. In recent years however, the German government seems to prefer dealing with Iran, rather than join with the U.S. Currently, many in the Berlin government believe that the U.S., not Iran, is escalating the current tension between Washington and Tehran. Germany’s obstructionism vis-a-vis U.S. efforts to restrain the leading state sponsor of global terrorism – Iran, had prompted U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to cancel a visit to Germany last month. According to the German weekly Der Spiegel, “The Americans are currently escalating their conflict with Tehran - with unpredictable consequences for their allies in Europe.” To some in the German government it appears that Iran’s deliberate direct or indirect hand in attacking oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman is of no consequence. Similarly, Iran’s pushing Hamas to fire rockets at Israel’s southern towns to kill Israeli civilians last month, is not a problem for the Germans. Jurgen Tritten, a Green Party member of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the German Parliament, commented that “The U.S. appears to be looking for a pretext to escalate the conflict with Iran.” He added, “The claim that Iran is planning an attack against the U.S. smacks of a Tonkin incident.” A reference to the Gulf of Tonkin Congressional Resolution, enacted on August 10, 1964, which gave President Lyndon B. Johnson authorization without a formal declaration of war, to use military force in Southeast Asia, and Vietnam in particular.  Unlike the Iran appeasement mode displayed by the German government and Jurgen Tritten, the U.S. is sending an aircraft carrier strike force and Air Force bombers to the Middle East, not to threaten war with Iran but rather the opposite, to deter the radical Iranian regime from continuing its provocative actions against U.S interests that might lead to a war, including attempts to seize U.S. naval vessels. In January 2016, the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) captured two U.S. naval vessels and held 10 U.S. sailors hostage. John Bolton, U.S. national security adviser pointed out that sending the carrier task force is “a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on U.S. interests or those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.” The Iranian regime has made a mockery out of the Iran Nuclear Deal or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), by preventing intrusive inspections in Iranian Military facilities, and the development of long-range ballistic missiles that can reach Israel, and Europe, and ultimately the U.S. It is no longer hard to gauge the extent of Iran’s nuclear development. In April 2018, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed that Israeli intelligence had acquired tens of thousands of files which proved that Iran had lied about its nuclear weapons program. The files proved that Iran is secretly continuing its nuclear program under the nose of international inspectors. Netanyahu said, “We have known for years that Iran had a secret nuclear weapons program called Project Amad. We can now prove that Project Amad was a comprehensive program to design, build, and test nuclear weapons. We can also prove that Iran is secretly storing Project Amad materials to use at a time of its choice to develop nuclear weapons.” It is interesting that Germany, and German officials such as Jurgen Tritten are concerned about the U.S. deterrent actions but have expressed little concern about Iran’s cheating on the nuclear deal...   https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274086/whose-side-germany-joseph-puder  
Iran's Asymmetric Order of Battle
qs403mBgi6iAO9myIKimBQPLIn2icJtervLpcEMAVArkSPLkq-3hN4QYNuDqWxA1ljuQTtqnGzc=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=by Seth Frantzman
meforum.org } ~ Iran showcased its impressive military capabilities on Thursday by downing a sophisticated US drone... It says it used its "3rd Khordad" system, which is supposed to replicate the S-300's capabilities. Iran has also been highlighting other defense capabilities recently, including precision ballistic missiles, rockets, drones, submarines, limpet mines and cruise missiles. Tehran's defense technology is impressive. Most of its neighbors have not developed their own indigenous weapons systems, nor are they particularly innovative when it comes to using the technologies they do have, which are supplied by the US and Western powers. This leads to the question, if war breaks out between the US and Iran, and their respective allies, how will Iran and its proxies stack up? When we look at how Iran and its allies have waged war in the past, it is clear Iran doesn't wage massive wars. Iran has a regular army and navy, called Artesh and navy. These armed forces are potentially quite large in a country of 80 million. It has 530,000 men under arms, but according to the Middle East Institute, they are poorly equipped. Since Iran's last land war was its 1980-1988 conflict with Iraq, it is "hard to provide an accurate assessment of their real fighting capabilities." The war with Iraq saw Iran use human wave attacks on a battlefield that sometimes resembled more World War I than a war of maneuver and technology. Even though Saddam Hussein's army fought the Iranians to a standstill, it was no match for the US military in the 1991 Gulf War and it was easily destroyed. Iran doesn't spend much on its army. Around $16 billion in 2017, compared to an Israeli defense budget of up to $19b. Saudi Arabia plows through $76b., and the Americans spend $600b. This then tells us Iran's conventional army is no match for the US in a real war. But Iran doesn't fight large conventional wars. Its strategy is based on its alliance system involving the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its affiliates, allies and proxies, including Houthi rebels in Yemen, Iraqi paramilitaries, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Gaza...  https://www.meforum.org/58802/how-us-and-allies-stack-up-to-iran-in-war?utm_source=Middle+East+Forum&utm_campaign=f67be78293-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_06_24_08_40&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_086cfd423c-f67be78293-33703665&mc_cid=f67be78293&mc_eid=f33b9e6c12  
House Democrats Spread ‘Lies’ About 
Climate Change And Hurricanes, Scientist Says
by Michael Bastasch
dailycaller.com } ~ House Democrats’ climate change hearing is based on “inaccurate” information that’s “not in accord with current science or consensus,” according to a scientist... A Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee will hold a hearing Tuesday on natural disaster policy “in the wake of climate change.” However, Democrats are under fire for making claims on the hearing’s webpage that don’t line up with the facts. Atmospheric scientist Ryan Maue, a hurricane expert, tweeted that the Democrats’ hearing “spreads lies” about the scientific consensus on climate change and hurricanes. The House subcommittee is chaired by California Rep. Harley Rouda and includes Green New Deal champion New York Rep. commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a member. Maue pointed out that major scientific assessments cast doubt on claims global warming is increasing hurricane frequency or intensity. “This is not in accord with current science or consensus anywhere = fraud,” Maue said of House Democrats’ climate claims, which relies on information on information posted online by environmental activists. Maue took issue with Democrats’ claim that “due to climate change, ‘the number of hurricanes that reach Categories 4 and 5 in strength has roughly doubled’ since the 1970s” — a claim that doesn’t line up with scientific assessments  from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other organizations.  NOAA, for example, says the rising trend in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the North Atlantic is based on data that’s “not reliable for trend calculations, until they have been further assessed for data homogeneity problems, such as those due to changing observing practices.”...
Presidents of War
EAHKFfLfNMbzh32sDkFhHZymjhPO9HGGHCAYvV8Z7RWYc5jK5CgQJH-7VL0lgJTyt2ukE3IawLwZa7_8TRBDXOj7ietqF9WVcwMq_w18ODq6GXNAHYGhXijNkOoOCYM88rYNcFQA9_RA_Sj8dN6ld9i7uf-embhPvNg=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710xby Michael Beschloss  
independent.org } ~ The American constitutional project was an attempt to deal with the fundamental paradox of government—any government strong enough to protect the rights of citizens is also strong enough to undermine those rights... War poses an especially unique challenge to constraining Leviathan since war making tends to increase the scope and scale of state power over almost all aspects of citizens’ lives. To check the state’s warmaking powers, the American Founders designed a set of checks and balances through a separation of powers. The legislative branch was empowered to declare war, and the executive branch was empowered to serve as the commander in chief once war is declared. As Michael Beschloss’s new book Presidents of War clearly demonstrates, this system has failed. As he notes in the opening pages, “[D]uring the past two centuries, Presidents, step by step, have disrupted the Founders’ design,” with the result that “the life and death of much of the human race has now come to depend on the character of a single person who happens to be the President of the United States”. To provide insight into this process of constitutional erosion, Beschloss examines eight presidents and the wars they oversaw. His sample includes James Madison and the War of 1812, James Polk and the Mexican-American War, Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, William McKinley and the Spanish-American War, Woodrow Wilson and World War I, Franklin Roosevelt and World War II, Harry Truman and the Korean War, and Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War. These cases offer insight into three general correlates of war in societies with mature, constitutionally constrained governments. First, war making is associated with expansions in the scope of state power and the trampling of civil liberties. Beschloss provides numerous examples of this correlate across instances of war. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and authorized the use of military tribunals to try citizens. Wilson implemented loyalty tests and lobbied Congress for an espionage bill, resulting in the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, to punish disloyalty and language that demonstrated contempt for America. Roosevelt authorized the internment of Japanese Americans, secretly gave J. Edgar Hoover the power to engage in illegal wiretapping of domestic “enemies,” and ordered military tribunals for eight German prisoners, two of whom were naturalized Americans. In his constant search for domestic Communists, Johnson authorized the CIA to violate its charter by engaging in illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens and infiltrating targeted groups. As this nonexhaustive list illustrates, war making has consistently been a means for the state to ignore constitutional constraints and trample on the civil liberties of the domestic populace. Second, war making is correlated with executive deception. Historically, this deception has taken on various forms and occurred to varying degrees. As Beschloss documents, presidents have repeatedly lied to Congress and to the American public about the pretext for war, the costs of war, and the status of ongoing wars. He traces war-related deception back to James Madison and the War of 1812, noting that “if later Americans loathed a lack of candor and forthrightness in their wartime Presidents, they would be justified to point an accusing finger at Madison for setting expectations too low”. Various forms of deception played a key role in initiating and perpetuating wars in several other cases. In at least one instance—World War I—deception was formally institutionalized through a dedicated propaganda apparatus when President Woodrow Wilson authorized the Committee on Public Information to proactively influence public opinion in support of the war effort. In general, war making has historically been correlated with half-truths, outright lies, and systematic secrecy by those in power to advance their goals...   http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=1405  
commie-Sanders, dinky-Warren Vie for 'King of the Free-Stuff Mountain'
Jordan Candler:  According to a national polling average from RealClearPolitics, loose lips liar-Joe Biden is currently in first place among Democrat presidential candidates, with 31.9% approval. Directly beneath him sits Sen. commie-Bernie Sanders, who has mustered 15% support. But closing in is Sen. Elizabeth dinky-Warren, whose 11.9% backing is up from 7.5% on June 5. Meanwhile, the first Democrat presidential debate is this coming Wednesday. So what better time is there for commie-Sanders to reassure voters of his “free stuff” bona fides?

commie-Sanders is conjuring up a scheme “that would eliminate all $1.6 trillion of American student debt,” according to Fox News, which adds, “The proposal package also includes making public universities, community colleges and trade schools tuition-free.” Recall that Warren recently outlined her own scheme. As the Associated Press explains, “The key difference is that Warren’s plan considers the income of the borrowers, canceling $50,000 in debt for those earning less than $100,000 per year and affecting an estimated 42 million people in the U.S.” In other words, Sanders is attempting to one-up his colleague, who is a legitimate threat, if polling is to be believed.

This is clearly frustrating Sanders, who still believes the Democrat Party overlords are conspiring against him. Last week, Politico ran a headline titled, “Centrists are coming around to Elizabeth dinky-Warren as an alternative to commie-Bernie Sanders,” to which commie-Sanders responded, “The cat is out of the bag. The corporate wing of the Democratic Party is publicly ‘anybody but commie-Bernie.’”

Of course, “commie-Sanders reportedly plans to pay for the lofty proposal with a tax on Wall Street, which his campaign says will generate more than $2 trillion over 10 years,” Fox News notes. Right. Just like students loans were predicted to be “profitable.”

As we reported last month, “In 2017, the CBO … stated that the government-managed student-loan program would garner a respectable $114 billion in revenue over the ensuing 10 years. Then, in 2018, that revenue estimate nosedived to just $8.7 billion. … Now, the CBO is calculating a $31 billion deficit over the next 10 years. A Bloomberg Government report parsed this development as ‘a shift from past CBO forecasts that the government would profit from the program.’ That’s not merely a shift. That’s a deviation of epic proportions.”

This is par for the course when it comes to government-funded programs. Regardless of whether commie-Sanders’s or Warren’s plans prevail, the fact of the matter is that student-loan forgiveness is a nonstarter. As Frank J. Fleming aptly notes, “The problem is that college costs have skyrocketed versus inflation due to government interference in loans, and the solution people are proposing is to have the government pay off those loans, giving colleges even less incentive to cut costs. There would be no student debt crisis if colleges hadn’t been fueled into an inflation of costs. If you’re talking about loans and nothing about making colleges reduce costs, despite all you posturing about caring about students, you are … making things worse.”  ~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