The Left Implodes Over A Weak Tax Plan (UPDATED)

GAY PATRIOT comments on the main idea that the Left are a bunch of babies with almost zero understanding of anything economic:

The tax “reform” bill the US Senate passed last night is pretty lame, actually. It keeps the current ridiculous progressive structure of seven separate tax rates. (The House reduced it to four, and the correct number ought to be one.) Susan Collins was bought off by retaining the mortgage interest deduction on vacation homes for millionaires. Freeloaders at the lower income brackets still pay nada. Some high income progressives from blue states are whining because some of their state and local taxes are no longer deductible. Sucks that you progressives in high tax blue states forgot to elect any Republican senators. 

There has also been a lot of howling from the “suddenly we’re concerned about the debt” progressive left that the bill will add $1.5 Trillion to the National Debt over ten years. That figure represents less than 3% of Government expenditures in that time period. Cut Government spending 3% (I’m sure we can get by on 97% of the Government). Problem solved.

It’s a lame bill. Really, the best part of the Senate Bill passing has been watching the histrionic meltdown on the Progressive Left. (But even that gets a little boring considering the progressive left has a histrionic meltdown at literally everything Donald Trump does.)

America died tonight. Economic suicide adopted to feed the insatiable greed of donors, who have been refusing to dole out $ to GOP until they got their tax cuts. Voters fooled by propaganda and tribal hatred. Millenials: move away if you can. USA is over. We killed it. – Kurt “Tentacle Pron” Eichenwald

The Republican Party is the enemy of the American people. The Senate just passed the Trump Tax Increase, 1:50am, enriching the 1% & concentrating wealth in the hands of the few. Capitalism & Fascism. The coup is underway. Make no mistake about it. EVERYONE OFF THE BENCH! 11/6/18! – Michael “I was relevant for a while in 2003” Moore

“While you slept last night Trump’s pedophile-coding GOP broke into your house and raped your children and their future in favor of the Republican’s biggest donors. They groped you too taking your Medicare, social security and Medicaid with them.” – Frank “No I’m Not a Drama Queen at All” Schaeffer

Is there any going back after this #TaxBillScam? To America? Does it matter now if Trump is impeached? There’s no America now. Not the one we knew. Sorry, feeling real despair this morning. – Patton “Who?” Oswalt

Oh, Patti, don’t feel so bad. There are lots of other countries you can move to. Have you considered Mexico? No Republicans there. Strict gun control, too. The Government is very progressive, taxes are very progressive, and economic activated is highly regulated. It’s a lot like California, come to think of it. But with fewer Mexicans……..

POWERLINE opines well with two RAMIREZ TOONS:

  • It is comical to see Democrats feigning outrage over the claim (likely false) that the GOP tax reform plan will add to the national debt. Talk about a head-snapping about face! Where was the Dems’ concern about debt when the Obama administration ran up $10 trillion of it?

UPDATE FROM GAYPATRIOT

….A remarkable thing happened over the weekend; Democrats rediscovered their concern about the national debt, state’s rights, and voter fraud.

The same Democrats who had no problem helping Barack Obama double the national debt to a mind-blowing $20 Trillion have attacked the Republican Senate’s limpwrist “tax reform” bill claiming it will add $1.5 Trillion to the national debt over ten years.

$1.5 Trillion represents less than 3% of Government spending over the next ten years. If that’s a problem, then, by all means, cut spending by 3%.

Democrats are also  suddenly hollering about “state’s rights” because Congress is looking to make concealed carry licenses valid across state lines; like driver’s licenses. (And, yes, most states require training and a background check before a concealed carry license is issued.) The Democrats have suddenly taken a position analogous to claiming Rosa Parks only had the right to sit in the front of the bus while she was in Alabama…..

 

The 2nd Amendment Explained

This post should be married to my other post regarding the 2nd Amendment,

The 2nd Amendment Was Only For Muskets.”

Here is the amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State:

  • A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As Founder, Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania — noted:

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

In other words, the comma in that Amendment  separates the clause… there are TWO part to this Amendment, and so it should read (The RPT version):

  • Since an organized force of volunteer citizens is necessary to defend our freedoms from tyranny within [a. federal vs. state | b. one’s own domicile] or (c.) foreign attack, the government shall in no way limit the People’s right to own and carry weapons for collective (a,c) or for sportsmanship or sustenance reasons as well as personal defense of private property guaranteed as a Natural Right (b).

In other words at the split in the sentence, what is reasonable to protect a state (tanks, bazookas, planes). And what is reasonable to protect a home and hunt with (pistols, semi-auto rifles/shotguns [like the AR], etc).

Here, Mark Levin explains these concepts to a caller to his radio show:

David French discusses some of the issues in his article in NATIONAL REVIEW discussing the original text of this Amendment:

…As Justice Scalia noted in his Heller decision, the amendment contains both a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause, a common feature at the time of drafting, does not limit the operative clause; rather, it explains its purpose.

The operative clause is, of course, clear: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” As Scalia correctly observed, every other time the original, un-amended Constitution or the Bill of Rights uses the phrase “right of the people,” the text “unambiguously refer[s] to individual rights.” Further, the language clearly indicates that the amendment wasn’t creating a new right but recognizing a pre-existing individual liberty — one that is referenced in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The language “shall not be infringed” indicates recognition, not creation.

But what about the prefatory clause? What does the a “well regulated militia” have to do with an individual right? Scalia explained well in Heller:

The Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right — unlike some other English rights — was codified in a written Constitution.

To believe that the Second Amendment is a collective right, Scalia concluded, is to believe that the authors of the Bill of Rights employed individualist language in order to protect the people’s right to take part in militia organizations over which the national government enjoys plenary power…

[….]

It is critical to remember that the Founding Fathers were Englishmen before they were Americans. When they began to sow the seeds of revolt against the British crown, they sought not to destroy all that had gone before but to protect rights that they believed they already possessed. Thus, when George III responded to unrest by attempting to disarm rebellious colonists, he “provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms,” Scalia wrote. (“Arms,” incidentally, did not mean only “muskets” but included any personal weapon that could be wielded by an individual, including but not limited to “musket and bayonet,” “side arms,” and “sabre, holster pistols, and carbine.”)

Justice Scalia understood this well:

By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” Other contemporary authorities concurred. Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

Writing in 1803, after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, St. George Tucker updated Blackstone’s Commentaries. In America, Tucker wrote, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed . . . and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.” The United States, he boasted, “may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty.”

[….]

One cannot analyze the Second Amendment without understanding its moral and philosophical underpinnings. Colonial America was a land populated by people who were both highly literate biblically and steeped in Lockean philosophy.

The biblical record sanctioning self-defense is clear. In Exodus 22, the Law of Moses permits a homeowner to kill even a mere thief who entered his home at night, and the books of Esther and Nehemiah celebrate the self-defense of the Jews against their lawless attackers. Nehemiah exhorted the Israelites to defend themselves: “Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes.” The oft-forgotten climax of the book of Esther is an act of bloody self-defense against a genocidal foe.

Nor did Jesus require his followers to surrender their lives — or the lives of spouses, children, or neighbors — in the face of armed attack. His disciples carried swords, and in one memorable passage in Luke 22, he declared there were circumstances in which the unarmed should arm themselves: “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Christ’s famous admonition in his Sermon the Mount to “turn the other cheek” in the face of a physical blow is not a command to surrender to deadly violence, and it certainly isn’t a command to surrender family members or neighbors to deadly violence.

In his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Locke described the right of self-defense as a “fundamental law of nature”:

Sec. 16. The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power. (Emphasis added.)

Moreover, Locke argues, these laws of nature were inseparable from the will of God:

The rules that they make for other men’s actions, must, as well as their own and other men’s actions, be conformable to the law of nature, i.e. to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it.

This right is so fundamental that it’s difficult to find even leftist writers who would deny a citizen the right to protect her own life….

(READ IT ALL!)

Here are a couple quotes by the men who knew the details of what they wrote:

  • Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.”
  • Patrick Henry said, “The great object is, that every man be armed.”
  • Richard Henry Lee wrote that, “to preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms.”
  • Thomas Paine noted, “[A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.”
  • Samuel Adams warned that: “The said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

(NRA)

More quotes from the Founding Fathers DEFINING the 2nd Amendment can be found at THE FEDERALIST PAPERS

Manafort May Be Jail-Bound?

THE HILL notes this about Paul Manfort’s possible involvement…

…Investigators were reportedly concerned that the intelligence included communications that Manafort may have encouraged the Russians to help influence the 2016 election, though two unnamed sources familiar with the matter cautioned that the evidence is not conclusive.

Manafort has emerged as a key figure in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

Mueller’s team has taken a series of aggressive actions against Manafort in recent months. In July, for example, the FBI conducted an early-morning raid of Manafort’s Alexandria, Va., home. Mueller has also subpoenaed the former campaign chairman’s personal spokesman and former attorney…

Manafort is tied to Clinton comrades (APRIL 13th!!!)…. and CLINTON CASH makes it clear the connections of Russia and Hillary are damning. Manafort may be in trouble! Mark Levin said he may go to jail as well. If you are friends with Clinton friends… trouble soon follows.

Dan Bongino Fills In for “The Great One,” Mark Levin

(8-25-2017)

This is the entire show minus breaks and a couple non-essential moments. I added a few short video clips to help make Bongino’s points. Likewise, I isolated two clips herein for easier listening, here:

Affirmative Action Discriminates Against Asian-Americans
The Southern Tweet Strategy Myth

Dan Bongino (www.bongino.com) did a great job for Mark!

For more of Dan Bongino’s stuff, see here:

Conservative Review
✦ Make sure to follow him on TWITTER.

A Coup Is Under Way ~ Levin

Mark Levin was called out on cable news about the language he uses. in describing no crime being named yet in any legal matter against the Trump administration. A grand jury is convened to see if a crime — clearly stated — is prosecuted. NOT to uncover a crime. Dumb! Maxine Waters makes the intentions of the socialist Left in Congress clear. That is, once Trump is impeached, Pence is next. This is why Charles Krauthammer said we are headed toward some Constitutional “choppy waters.”

The Democrats have already left the idea that there was collusion between the Trump admin and Russia (the mandate for Mueller), and are now merely looking into business dealings of the Trump children. Again, like with Clinton, like with Libby, someone will go to jail for not remembering 3-people in the room under oath when they said there were two.

And the Left just foams at the mouth… Pence is next.We are living in dangerous times of people not realizing the attack on our Constitutional form of government.

✦ Cannot use simple language on college campuses or you are deemed a racist (the Left’s way of saying they disagree with you);
✦ Cannot conduct an guest conduct an orchestra because a person is conservative and considered racist (the Left’s way of saying they disagree with you);
✦ Cannot run for office without being called a Nazi or Alt-Right (the Left’s way of saying they REALLY disagree with you);
✦ Cannot be placed into office without being called racist or alt-right (the Left’s way of saying they disagree with you);
✦ Cannot contribute money as a CEO to organizations that support traditional marriage, and are called a homophobe and racist (the Left’s way of saying they disagree with you);
✦ Cannot opt out of photographing weddings or baking goods for an specialized event, thus being called a homophobe and racist (the Left’s way of saying they disagree with you)…

In all those – and more – cases, you are banished from the campus, have the power of the state come after you, fired, fined, threatened to never be able to own a business again, have all business dealings looked into, etc., etc.

These are all tactics of the Left (insert name of any dictator or tyrant here) — many Democrats praise the leaks, just like in these totalitarian nations where if you had a dissenting you were told on to the state and consequences soon followed.

And people cheer it on.

The DOJ Cannot Indict a Sitting President

Mark Levin is the master at this stuff. He takes his legal knowledge to his radio show:

On his Monday radio program, Levin cited a DOJ memorandum from 2000 affirming the department’s position in 1973 that the Constitution does not allow the president to be criminally indicted. In 1973, the Office of Legal Counsel issued a memorandum stating that indictment proceedings would “unduly interfere in a direct or formal sense with the conduct of the Presidency,” as criminal proceedings would severely handicap the president from performing his “onerous” and “unique” duties under the Constitution, thereby short-circuiting the entire executive branch.

“A criminal proceeding against the president is in some respects necessarily political in a way that criminal proceedings against other civil officers would not be,” Levin read from the memorandum. “In this respect, it would be incongruous for a jury of only 12 to undertake the unavoidably political task of rendering judgment in a criminal proceeding against a sitting president.”

Levin explained that the memorandum is arguing that it is incredibly difficult for 12 people on a jury and a judge to leave politics out of a verdict on a legal matter involving the president.

(DAILY WIRE)

Soon after, Alan Dershowitz got the cue and he explained on FOX (http://tinyurl.com/y72l2ozl):

✦ “The Justice Department has twice ruled in a long extensive memo, which I just read this morning, for the second or third time, stating clearly that the president cannot be indicted, prosecuted, and tried while serving in office. The only mechanism the Constitution provides is that he could be impeached, and once impeached and removed from office, he can then be charged with a criminal trial. But a sitting president cannot — according to the Justice Department, be tried.” ~ Dershowitz (BREITBART)

It looks as though the Democrats are stuck in the mud a bit. But they will continue to hurl mud… it’s what they do:

 

Scalise Shooter A Radical Leftist (Eliminationist Rhetoric)

  • When you do nothing but call your opponents racists, Nazis, homophobes, Islamaphobes, Uncle Toms, xenophobes, sexists, etc. as a matter of course, you have zero right to be surprised when violence is used against the same opponents by the fringe. Rhetoric like that can never relieve the shooter of ultimate responsibility, but it lays the foundation for violence like what we saw today. There is a lot of screwiness on the “right” side of politics, these days. But it has NOT become violent. — Josh Charles

A few excerpts from James Hodgkinson’s (the shooter) letters, in his own words, via TWITCHY:

“As for my loving President Obama, I say when people look at the other side, the choice is obvious. I don’t want a president who won’t even keep his money in American banks. I don’t want a president who will lower taxes on the rich and raise them on the other 99 percent.”

“These men are trying to buy our country. You know they expect something for all this money. That something is that Mitt Romney and a Republican Congress won’t raise their taxes. We all know that the rich don’t pay enough taxes.”

“If the rich paid their fair share of taxes today, we wouldn’t be in this predicament. We need to vote all Republicans out of Congress. We need to demand Congress add 10 or more brackets to the existing tax code. We need 20 brackets to $20 million, and a 60 percent top marginal rate.”

“We can get our country back if we all vote the right way.”

[….]

“Let’s vote all Republicans out of Congress, and get this country back on track. We need 10 more tax brackets for income over $1 million, $2 million, $3 million, $4 million and $10 million.”

‘These guys are cheating everyone in this country while telling us all the time that they are broke when it is the super rich with all the money.’

[….]

“A strong middle class is what a country needs to prosper. The only thing that has trickled down in the last 30 years came from Mitt Romney’s dog.”

The Shooter of Rep. Steve Scalise is a radical Leftist. He was deeply involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement. He railed against the one-percent. Was a long-time fan of Bernie Sanders years before he ran for election. Mind you. the media has a role in egging people on that may have these radical tendencies. On my Facebook, I noted this:

  • If Republicans are “worse than terrorists”… why wouldn’t Leftists shoot them [us]? Yes, the Democrats (Bernie Sanders intimated this as well as others) say we are worse than ISIS due to rejecting the idea that mankind is driving in a significant manner climate change. The shooter had many posts on climate. I mean Democrats are seriously considering jailing Republicans for denying AGW (anthropogenic global warming).

These are some of the group the Shooter belonged to (BELLVILLE-NEWS DEMOCRAT):

  • “The Road to Hell is Paved with Republicans”
  • “Donald Trump is not my President”
  • “President Bernie Sanders”
  • “Illinois Berners United to Resist Trump”
  • “Boycott the Republican Party”
  • “Expose Republican Fraud”
  • “Terminate the Republican Party”

This shooter was also egged on by Democrat politicians (the following is adapted a bit from FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE):

…What made James Hodgkinson believe that stopping the repeal of ObamaCare was a matter of life and death? Or, as he put it, “Republicans Want to Deny Most All Americans Health Care”?

It was Bernie Sanders who claimed that “thousands of Americans would die” if Republicans repealed ObamaCare. “Families will go bankrupt. People will die,” Elizabeth Warren had tweeted.

James Hodgkinson was a big Bernie supporter. And he was a fan of Elizabeth Warren.

  • Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe — “People are going to lose lives.” Instead of trying to push gun control, he might have revisited his own rhetoric.
  • Congressman John Lewis claimed that the repeal would kill.
  • Congressman Ruben Gallego insisted that he didn’t have to be civil to Republicans because their “policies that are going to kill people”.

It’s a short step from accusing Republicans of killing people to suspending civility to wishing them dead.

[….]

And Democrat politicians were downright restrained compared to some of their media allies.

  • Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald wanted to see every Congressional Republican who voted for ObamaCare have a family member perish. “It should be their loved ones who die,” he ranted. “The goprs in congress didn’t just send out a tweet wishing for me to face my own death. They actually voted to do it. If people don’t give a damn about the consequences of what they do, they should face those consequences,” Eichenwald wrote in a statement. 

James Hodgkinson was a fan of the Rachel Maddow show. Eichenwald was an MSNBC contributor and his work had been touted by Rachel Maddow. 

Calls for violence against Republicans had become normalized. 

  • A few days before the attack, the Huffington Post ran a piece calling for executing Trump “and everyone assisting in his agenda”. It has since come down, but a similarly themed piece defending a “violent response” to President Trump is still up.
  • Julius Caesar reimagined as Trump and leftist activists as his heroic assassins made headlines. “Killing Republicans” in neighboring Brooklyn did not. 
  • “They should be lined up and shot,” Professor John Griffin posted of Republicans over the ObamaCare repeal. Professor Lars Maischak at Frenso State proposed “the execution of two Republicans for each deported immigrant.”

And it didn’t end after the shooting.

  • “If the shooter has a serious health condition then is taking potshots at the GOP house leadership considered self defense?” Malcolm Harris, a regular at the New Republic, whose work has appeared at the Washington Post and Salon, inquired.

[….]

  • “Noam Chomsky calls the Republican Party the Most Dangerous Organization in Human History!” was one of the messages on his Facebook page. According to Chomsky, appearing on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman, Republicans are committed “to the destruction of organized human life on Earth.” Forget health care. Republicans are actually trying to wipe out the species by denying Global Warming.

James Hodgkinson participated in the People’s Climate March. Its theme, like Chomsky’s, was that Trump and Republicans were a threat to the entire planet. 

If that’s true, shouldn’t someone save the planet by doing something about those Republicans?

Hodgkinson was taught by the left that all problems were reducible to Republican evil. He quoted Robert Reich, a Sanders Institute fellow, claiming that the poor economy was due to tax cuts for the rich. 

[….]

“Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co,” Hodgkinson ranted. Trump isn’t destroying our democracy. The leftists trying to bring him down are.

The left has whipped up an angry mob and promised them that if they scream and shout enough, President Trump will be forced out of office. They manufactured a crisis and now it’s exploding on them. If they can’t deliver a coup, there will be more shootings like this one. 

The Democrats are sleepwalking into a civil war. They want power, but like leftists from Russia to Cuba, they haven’t seriously contemplated the price that will have to paid for their bloody utopia.

In her “Resistance” video, former Attorney General Lynch spoke of blood, marching and dying….

(READ IT ALL!)

Mind you, Loretta Lynch was not calling for people to be violent… but if Sarah Palin was the reason (according to Democrat politicians and the media) for Gabby Giffords being shot because of rhetoric… here is Paul Krugman’s viewpoint:

When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen? 

Put me in the latter category.

It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event …

There isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.

And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right …

So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic? It’s really up to G.O.P. leaders. Will they accept the reality of what’s happening to America and take a stand against eliminationist rhetoric? Or will they try to dismiss the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual and go on as before?”

(DENNIS PRAGER)

…then why not in this case? IN other words, the Left (politicians, the media, the culture, entertainment) has an extreme amount and acts of violence against conservatives, Trump supporters, as well as violent language (rhetoric). Jared Loughner was not a “Righty,” but James T. Hodgkinson was a “Leftist.” Many of the recent violent acts in fact are by person’s from the Left:

  • Elliot Rodger (“UCSB” shooter): Fan of the left-wing political talk show, The Young Turks.
  • James von Brunn (Holocaust Memorial Museum shooter): von Brunn hated Rupert Murdoch, Fox News, George W. Bush and John McCain.
  • Nidal Hasan (Ft Hood Shooter): Reg¬istered Democrat and Muslim.
  • Aaron Alexis (Navy Yard shooter): black liberal/Obama voter.
  • Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech shooter): Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
  • James Holmes: the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occu¬py guy, progressive liberal, hated Christians.
  • Amy Bishop: the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
  • Andrew J. Stack (IRS bomber, flew plane into IRS building in Texas): Leftist Democrat, hated Bush and capitalism.
  • James J. Lee (who was the “green activist”): leftist took hostages at Discovery Channel – progressive liberal Democrat.
  • John Patrick Bedell: (Pentagon Shooter) registered Democrat, talked about economic justice.
  • Nkosi Thandiwe (Shooting spree targeting white ppl): Accepted “white priveledge.”
  • Floyd Corkins (LGBT Chic-Fil-A shooter): hated conservative and Christians.
  • Karl Pierson (school shooter): loved communism, self-avowed Keynesian, hated Adam Smith and supported gun-control.

(For a list of LEFT-WING murderers/killers, see this article.)

THANKFULLY, the shooter will be added to the “Failed assassins (whose politics we know)” column:

…Even I initially thought that whoever did it was either a Republican or some backwoods, tinfoil-hat-wearing pseudo-Libertarian. Now that it’s come out he is a Democrat/Independent, it’s no surprise; virtually every assassin or would-be assassin of American presidents, both Republican and Democrat, have been leftists (to the extent that their political views are known).

Successful assassins (whose politics we know):

  • John Wilkes Booth, a Democrat, shot and killed President Lincoln
  • Charles Guiteau, a member of the communist Oneida Community, shot and killed President Garfield
  • Leon Czolgosz, a leftist anarchist (similar to the useful idiots in the Occupy movement) shot and killed President McKinley
  • Lee Harvey Oswald, a communist, shot and killed President Kennedy.

Failed assassins (whose politics we know):

  • Severino Di Giovanni, a leftist anarchist, tried to bomb President-elect Hoover’s train
  • Giuseppe Zangara, a professed anti-capitalist, tried shooting President-elect Franklin Roosevelt
  • Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola, two Marxists, tried killing President Truman at the Blair House
  • Samuel Byck, who tried joining the leftist Black Panther group, attempted to kill President Nixon
  • Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, member of the Manson Family and also a hippie environmentalist, shot at President Ford
  • Sara Jane Moore tried to kill President Ford as well because, as she said, “the government had declared war on the Left.”
  • Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, a leftist connected to the Occupy movement, tried getting a one-in-a-billion shot at President Obama by firing a gun at the White House

The only individual whose political motivations can be deduced as coming from the right side of the political spectrum is Francisco Martin Duran, who claims he was “incited” by conservative talk-show host Chuck Baker, but also claimed that he was trying to save the world from an alien mist which was connected by an umbilical cord to another alien in the Colorado mountains. So there’s that….

(POLITICAL OUTCAST)

SEE MORE!

Mark Levin Fillets Susan [with a side of] Rice!

Mark Levin opens his show with a reading from Lee Smith’s (follow on Twitter) excellent TABLET article entitled, “Did the Obama Administration’s Abuse of Foreign-Intelligence Collection Start Before Trump?“. Later in the show Mark interview two specialists in this field: Fred Fleitz and Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer. Here is their short bio information…

  • FRED FLEITZ – Senior Vice President, Center for Security Policy, he is a national security expert, in the past he was an Central Intelligence Agency analyst. He is currently a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst, Chief of Staff to Ambassador John Bolton [BOOM!!], and Senior staff member, House Intelligence Committee. One can connect with Mr. Fleitz by visiting his website or following him on Twitter.
  • TONY SHAFFER – Is a Senior Fellow to the London Center for Policy Research (http://www.londoncenter.org/). He is a highly-experienced intelligence officer, and recipient of the Bronze Star, with 30 years of field and operational experience. Tony has commanded and directed several key operational intelligence organizations. These include Special Mission Task Force STRATUS IVY, that conducted direct support to DoD compartmented activities (OSD, SOCOM, JSOC, Army) which was focused on offensive information operations. In addition, he was in charge of Field Operating Base (FOB) Alpha, a joint DIA/CIA unit conducting classified collection and special operations support regarding terrorists just after the 9/11 attacks. (An extensive bio can be found here.) You can also follow Mr. Shaffer on Twitter.

Trump’s Media Inspired Green-Card Mayhem

Larry Elder pours over the Sunday shows and by doing so shows the green-Card issue is at worst a misunderstanding [purposefully or innocent] on the Press’ part – at best poorly communicated through proper channels via the Trump administration. What is clear however is that nothing in the bill itself requires the conclusions by the Left and the media. Here David French makes the point:

✦ The plain language of the order doesn’t apply to legal permanent residents of the U.S., and green-card holders have been through round after round of vetting and security checks. The administration should intervene, immediately, to stop misapplication. (National Review)

I include in this long audio/video Mark Levin’s impersonation of John McCain.

Trade, Taxes, and Executive Orders | Mark Levin (UPDATED)

(Originally posted on the 27th of January)

People warned the Democrats… “what would happen if a Republican does what your guy did?” Well…

Mark Levin gives us an Econ 101 class on tariffs and taxes. This is why the unions love this because it protects their jobs and not other businesses in the States. An interesting part of the call which I stitched to before the other segment is an article in the Wall Street Journal which notes that the reason car manufacturers build in Mexico is due to free-trade agreements:

  • Audi says that an array of free trade agreements favors Mexico over U.S. sites. Its not just the price of skilled labor that is attractive to Audi. If you think about a $50,000 car made in the U.S. that is then exported to Europe there is a 10% duty on that car. So that’s $5000 in duties that Audi is paying. When that same car is made in Mexico there is no duty. This means with an already concentrated area of auto manufactures in Mexico, low cost skilled labor and free trade agreements it is a huge win for Audi and it will be easy to do business. No reinventing the wheel or stepping out alone as the only auto manufacture, Audi is simply following suit.  (WSJ)

Not only will these Executive Orders (E.O.) worsen us in the long run (unless this administration has something else up their sleeve), it is the same thing we gripped about when Obama was President and Left leaning legal scholar, Jonathan Turley said was not what the office of President was intended for. Agreed.

What is interesting is the juxtaposition the Dems find themselves in regarding the E.O.’s. You see, you had many challenges to Obama’s E.O.’s and he holds the record for the most overturned by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in our history as a country. But they were brought to the court mainly by Republican Attorney Generals in a state[s] or a group — or a combination thereof. AND YES, many of these actions Trump is taking with his pen and paper are just as unconstitutional. However, in 2018 we find this:

  • The GOP will be defending just eight seats, while Democrats must fight for 23 — plus another two held by independents who caucus with Democrats. (THE HILL)

This means that since the Democrats know their constituents are already upset enough at them to switch parties… why would you rock the boat on some of these executive orders that they know their constituents like. Like the car manufactures/unions. What Democrat in their right mind would bring a case to SCOTUS to overturn something they wish they had did?

Or how bout’ the growing concern in the black community about jobs and the influx of illegal immigrants? You see, they type of people Trump is putting on the Court would vote AGAINST what Trump is doing. They are originalists, and so, the Democrats would certainly win these cases if brought before the conservative Court.

AGAIN… they also have to win in 2018. They are essentially protecting 25-seats… 10 of which are “red-state” seats.

So many of these E.O.’s Trump is writing could easily be overturned if moved forward by the Democrats. Right now however, doing so would be politically dangerous for them. For now at least.

Again, I emphatically agree with HOTAIRExecutive Orders Are Not The Way To Do Policy…Even Good Ones

President Donald Trump’s latest executive order is as good as executive orders come. Trump has banned executive appointees from becoming a lobbyist of the particular branch they served in for five years, plus several other restrictions.

“2. If, upon my departure from the Government, I am covered by the post-employment restrictions on communicating with employees of my former executive agency set forth in section 207(c) of title 18, United States Code, I agree that I will abide by those restrictions.

“3. In addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraphs 1 and 2, I also agree, upon leaving Government service, not to engage in lobbying activities with respect to any covered executive branch official or non-career Senior Executive Service appointee for the remainder of the Administration.

“4. I will not, at any time after the termination of my employment in the United States Government, engage in any activity on behalf of any foreign government or foreign political party which, were it undertaken on January 20, 2017, would require me to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.

“5. I will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations for the duration of my service as an appointee.

This is really good policy, and also delivers on Trump’s “drain the swamp,” rhetoric from the campaign. Ethics reform is something all governments should engage in, because it can increase transparency and keep cronyism from rearing its ugly head. It can possibly save the government money, and reduce the debt.

But there’s still a massive problem. Trump is doing this action through executive order, instead of letting it go through the legislative process. The Constitution is quite clear on which branch originally comes up with rules. From Article I, Section 8, Subsection 14 (emphasis mine):

  • The Congress shall have Power…To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

It’s Congress which develops the rules for government employees, not the president. Trump is acting as CEO of the government (which he’s not), meaning he’s so used to doing things his way, without having to have others sign off on his actions. He’s taking another page out of former President Barack Obama’s playbook, but promising he’ll do it right. ….

(H-T to REGGIE DUNLOP for the above)

What leftist is going to bring the above to the Court? This is how I described it on my Facebook:

Many of the economic one will be too far along to be challenged (like the pipelines for instance). There are 25-Dem seats up in 2018 (10-in red states). Only 7-GOP seats. What Democrats would challenge the E.O. putting tariffs on Mexico (something I hate but unions l-o-v-e). The Dems have already alienated their base… unions.

So I think even though these Democrats could challenge many of these — they are stuck between a rock and a voting booth. And let me also say, the people Trump is putting on the Supreme Court are originalists and would vote these down in a heart beat (bravo for Trump for putting forward such upstanding justices!)… but the cases have to make it there

In other words… if Trump were truly a dictator looking to split the branches of government… he would pick Justices who would support his Executive Orders.