Head-Lines and Tid-Bits:

Coming At You Fast And Hard

 

 

America’s So-Called Pro-2nd Amendment President…

 

Not Sounding So Pro-2nd Amendment…YOU WERE WARNED- YOU DIDN’T LISTEN

Anti-gun activist David Petraeus is under consideration for the position of Secretary of State in the Trump administration.

Although Petraeus seldom speaks publicly on domestic issues, he hates guns so much that he teamed up with anti-gun leader Mark Kelly and his wife, Gabrielle Giffords, to co-found the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense, an anti-gun organization devoted to “do[ing] more to prevent gun tragedies” by “urging lawmakers to toughen gun laws.” 

Not surprisingly, the Leftist media is elated that a gun-hater like Petraeus might be awarded the top Cabinet post by Trump.This is true even though Petraeus, in November 2012, resigned as CIA Director and pleaded guilty to leaking classified information to a biographer with whom he was having an extramarital affair.

But Petraeus’ “Clinton-like” disregard for American security is the least of his problems.

As Secretary of State, Petraeus would play a key role in deciding whether to remove the U.S. from the UN Arms Trade Treaty (UN ATT). This agreement would mandate gun registration, and would authorize comprehensive gun bans — all goals supported by Petraeus’ colleagues Kelly and Giffords.

Petraeus would effectively decide whether to push for ratification of the anti-gun UN Small Arms Treaty.

Finally, Petraeus would have jurisdiction over the international trade (ITAR) regulations. Under Clinton/Kerry “guidance,” these regulations have been expanded to outlaw gunsmithing. In addition, a gun technician who communicates “how-to” information about guns on the Internet (without purchasing a $2,250 State Department license) could be prosecuted and imprisoned.

You can read GOA’s comments against these anti-gun State Department regulations here.

If anti-gun Patraeus is nominated and confirmed, we can expect these policies to be continued and expanded. 

Donald Trump was elected with the broad support of members of the Second Amendment community. We believe it would be a huge mistake to begin his transition by putting an anti-gun activist in a position whether he could regulate and ban guns.

Please contact President-elect Donald Trump at info@donaldtrump.com. Ask him to reject the idea of nominating anti-gun activist David Patraeus to the post of Secretary of State. You can copy-and-paste the pre-written letter below to email Trump.

======

—– Copy-and-Paste this Letter to President-elect Donald Trump —–

Dear President-elect Trump:

I understand that anti-gun activist David Petraeus is under consideration for the position of Secretary of State in your administration.

But I agree with Gun Owners of America that Patraeus would be a disastrous choice.

Although Petraeus seldom speaks publicly on domestic issues, he hates guns so much that he teamed up with anti-gun leader Mark Kelly and his wife, Gabrielle Giffords, to co-found the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense, an anti-gun organization devoted to “do[ing] more to prevent gun tragedies” by “urging lawmakers to toughen gun laws.” 

Not surprisingly, the Leftist media is elated that a gun-hater like Petraeus might be awarded a top Cabinet post.  This is true even though Patraeus, in November 2012, resigned as CIA Director and pleaded guilty to leaking classified information to a biographer with whom he was having an extramarital affair.

But Petraeus’ “Clinton-like” disregard for American security is the least of his problems.

As Secretary of State, Petraeus would play a key role in deciding whether to remove the U.S. from the UN Arms Trade Treaty (UN ATT). This agreement would mandate gun registration, and would authorize comprehensive gun bans — all goals supported by Patraeus’ colleagues Kelly and Giffords.

Petraeus would effectively decide whether to push for ratification of the anti-gun UN Small Arms Treaty.

Finally, Petraeus would have jurisdiction over the international trade (ITAR) regulations.  Under Clinton/Kerry “guidance,” these regulations have been expanded to outlaw gunsmithing.  In addition, a gun technician who communicates “how-to” information about guns on the Internet (without purchasing a $2,250 State Department license) could be prosecuted and imprisoned.

You can read GOA’s comments against these anti-gun State Department regulations here.

If anti-gun Petraeus is nominated and confirmed, we can expect these policies to be continued and expanded.

Sir, you were elected with the broad support of members of the Second Amendment community.  We believe it would be a huge mistake to begin his transition by putting an anti-gun activist in a position whether he could regulate and ban guns.

Sincerely,

[YOUR NAME]

====================

SALVO 2.

 

THE “MONEY QUOTE”-

[TRUMP] hasn’t even been inaugurated and he’s already discussing what grounds he believes should REVOKE YOUR CITIZENSHIP. I get it. It’s just twitter. But try to think of it as I do. This is his stream of consciousness. His thoughts, unfiltered, for everyone to see. If that doesn’t frighten you, based on what you’ve already seen, plus today’s ridiculousness, then you deserve to be ruled.

*SOURCE*

HERE’S MORE FROM THE ARTICLE-

 

Stop Excusing Trump’s Mania By Saying He’s Just Trolling

Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

 

…I hope I don’t have to explain to our readers why we are in the business of protecting the freedom to be a prick, but God knows, Donald Trump should be allowed to be who he is, and therefore all those flag burning, hippie idiots that think they are being brave by setting a piece of cloth on fire should have theirs. It’s sort of the oldest cliche in the book. “I don’t agree with you, but I’ll die for your freedom to have your stupid opinion.”
The entire premise of #NeverTrump was doing what was right in spite of conventional wisdom, or party politics. His victory, as stunning as it was, was not a license for him to continue being an authoritarian on twitter with no repercussions simply because there are other things that also matter…

With that out of the way, let me also mention, that (just an idea) it might, maybe, possibly, should bother you that the president-elect hasn’t even been inaugurated and he’s already discussing what grounds he believes should REVOKE YOUR CITIZENSHIP.

I get it. It’s just twitter.

But try to think of it as I do. This is his stream of consciousness. His thoughts, unfiltered, for everyone to see.

If that doesn’t frighten you, based on what you’ve already seen, plus today’s ridiculousness, then you deserve to be ruled. 

================

SALVO 3.

Donald Trump Plays The Media, Again.

You can say one thing about President-elect Donald Trump, he knows how to make the political journalists jump. Trump sends out one tweet and they’re all scrambling to condemn him in as many words as possible. Never pausing for a moment to think about how their instant rejection merely amuses those who voted for him. It’s not just the Left that didn’t learn anything from the election. Trump is playing everyone for the fools they are.

Trump didn’t just defeat the MSM in this election, his win defied all conventional wisdom and upset the Poli-Sci apple cart for many on the right as well. When you read through all the think pieces today, keep that in mind. Trump’s voters and supporters have an understanding of who they voted for and why. They know who he is and it doesn’t matter. [NOTE: think about that. DT’s supporters KNOW who he is, so they say, and STILL don’t care. I don’t think DT’s supporters care enough to listen to facts and truth STRAIGHT FROM DT’s mouth, pen or Twitter storms.]

“His voters take him seriously but not literally, the media takes him literally but not seriously”. This quote has made the rounds, but I first read it in a story by Salena Zito. She was the reporter that CNN dubbed, the “One person who got it right”, it being the election. Zito nailed the heart of the Donald Trump campaign with this quote. Others would be wise to pay attention and not be as dismissive of Trump’s tactics…
…The guy who doesn’t care what the media thinks or says. He knows that by saying outlandish things via his twitter account, he will keep those who get paid to write about him for a living quite busy, meanwhile his supporters don’t care. Please see the previous quote, [“His voters take him seriously but not literally, the media takes him literally but not seriously”. ]repeat it, memorize it or it’s going to be an excruciating four years.

Trump: I could shoot somebody and not lose voters.

AMERICA’S PRESIDENT-ELECT: DT.

America, Your President

DT Tweet’s AGAIN

=====================

Nobody should be allowed to tweet this picture – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

==================================================

SALVO 4.

No, Conservatism Should Not Embrace Populism

Populism? No thanks.

I am not now, nor will I ever be, a populist. Evidently, that separates me from a growing number of commentators, including some conservatives, wistfully engaged in Washington’s latest fad: over-interpreting Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential election.

The normally sensible Mike Lee, Republican senator from Utah, took to our pages to plead the case of “principled populism” — which is akin to calling for a sober Bacchanalia. Not surprisingly, Senator Lee’s brief doesn’t get very far before strangling in its own illogic, as odes to populism inevitably do. The “characteristic weakness” of populism, he tells us, is the lack of “a coherent philosophy,” which inevitably makes its “proposals” (I’d have said “careenings”) “inconsistent” and “unserious.” Well, yes . . . that is because populism is inherently unprincipled, inconsistent, and unserious, such that arguing for “principled populism” is so much nonsense.

Lee, a very smart guy, is anything but nonsensical. He is clearly trying to exploit Trump’s supposed populist moment for conservative ends. In his telling, “principled populism” becomes a menu of conservative proposals “focused on solving the problems that face working Americans in a fracturing society and global economy.” I’m all for the menu, but that’s not “principled populism”; it’s conservatism — or, as Lee unnecessarily modifies it, “authentic conservatism.

To slip it into the trendy “populist” brand, Lee has to misdiagnose the “chief political weakness of conservatism,” which he takes to be the failure to perceive problems. To the contrary, conservatives are quite good at perceiving problems — especially problems demagogically manufactured into crises for the purpose of rationalizing populist solutions of the statist variety.In reality, the chief political weakness of conservatism is that modern Americans are conditioned to expect that government can — or must at least try to — solve all our problems. It is the lot of conservatives to resist ill-conceived solutions. Populism cannot change the fact that government is incapable of solving problems upstream of government — problems of culture and complexity that government amelioration efforts, however well-intentioned, often make worse… 

…Yet by the end, Lee convinces himself that populism can not only ratchet up limited-government approaches but even “anchor conservatism to the Constitution and radically decentralize Washington’s policymaking power.” Again, these are worthy conservative objectives.They are rooted, however, in a deep understanding of why the Constitution’s separation-of-powers framework and promotion of individual liberty are, in the long run, good for society.It is fantasy to believe these objectives will be helped along by populism. More reflective of a mood than a theory, populism is notoriously content to have big-government preening overrun limited-government caution… 
But give Senator Lee his due: He is at least trying to wage conservatism in our purportedly populist environment. His “principled populism” turns out mainly to be principled conservatism under a different name. Stephen Moore, by contrast, is telling conservatives to abandon their principles entirely: Surrender to the zeitgeist, deep-six the GOP’s image as the (highly imperfect) vehicle of Reagan conservatism, and become “Trump’s populist working-class party.” …

…Moore thinks conservatives need to “open [their] eyes to the everyday anxieties and financial stress people are facing,” a capacity he acquired by turning “more into a populist” on the hustings with Trump. Let’s put aside that many (though by no means all) of these anxieties and financial stresses have been caused or worsened by statist government policies; and that conservatives have, in fact, been hard at work developing proposals to address them. What exactly does Moore’s metamorphosis portend in practice? 
He reportedly told some fairly aghast congressional Republicans that it means helping Trump deliver on his campaign promises . . . even if lawmakers think some of them are dumb ideas — just as Moore does. Trump, for example, wants an Obama-like stimulus of a trillion dollars for roads, bridges, etc. Moore’s response? “I don’t want to spend all that money on infrastructure. I think it’s mostly a waste of money. But if voters want it, they should get it.”

That’s populism: Doing what you know is wrong, heedless of harmful consequences — some unintended, others easily foreseeable — because the masses will perceive it as empathy.

The significance of the populist moment, or the likelihood that we are actually in the midst of one, seems wildly overrated — unless you think it unimportant that the populist victor lost the popular vote. To win, President-elect Trump needed the Electoral College.
Trump did not win because of populism. His final vote tally will be roughly equal to the 62 million George W. Bush garnered in 2004.

Let’s bear in mind the Census Bureau’s estimate that our population has grown by 30 million since then. Even with Trump’s marginal improvement over the hauls of Romney in 2012 and McCain in 2008 (about 61 and 60 million, respectively), the GOP has flat-lined, at least in presidential elections, in which voter participation is at its heaviest.
No, Trump won because he ran against a Democratic nominee whose support was tepid at best within her own party, which itself is hemorrhaging supporters. Mrs. Clinton was simply a very unappealing candidate — just as she had proven herself to be in 2008. It is likely that other, more committedly conservative Republican candidates with higher personal-approval ratings would have beaten her more handily…

When Populism Masquerades As Conservatism

WE WARNED YOU TRUMP-BOTS ABOUT THIS….AMONG ALL THE WARNINGS WE ISSUED ABOUT DT…

 

For some in middle class, Trump plan would mean tax increase

*SOURCE*
[EXCERPTS.]

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump’s proposals would modestly cut income taxes for most middle-class Americans. But for nearly 8 million families — including a majority of single-parent households — the opposite would occur: They’d pay more.

Most married couples with three or more children would also pay higher taxes, an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found. And while middle-class families as a whole would receive tax cuts of about 2 percent, they’d be dwarfed by the windfalls averaging 13.5 percent for America’s richest 1 percent.

Trump’s campaign rhetoric had promoted the benefits of his proposals for middle-income Americans.

“The largest tax reductions are for the middle class,” said Trump’s “Contract With the American Voter,” released last month.

The tax hikes that would hit single parents and large families would result from Trump’s plan to eliminate the personal exemption and the head-of-household filing status. These features of the tax code have enabled many Americans to reduce their taxable income.

His other proposed tax changes would benefit middle- and lower-income Americans. But they wouldn’t be enough to offset those modifications.
If you’re a low- or moderate-income single parent, you’re going to get hurt,” said Bob Williams, a fellow at the Tax Policy Center…

…Lily Batchelder, a visiting fellow at the Tax Policy Center and former deputy director of President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council, estimates that roughly 7.9 million families with children would pay higher taxes under his proposals. About 5.8 million are led by single parents. An additional 2.1 million are married couples…

…Trump’s plan would more than double the standard deduction to $15,000. But that change would be outweighed by his elimination of personal exemptions and head-of-household status. So the family’s taxable income would be $60,000, and their tax bill would be $2,440 more than it is now…

===========

MAJOR UP-DATE!!!

This is Where Things Start to S*ck

By  |  November 30, 2016, 05:00am  |  @ewerickson

*SOURCE*
[EXCERPTS.]

Wilbur Ross is a Democrat. He worked with Bill Clinton. He has funded Democrats. He has been on the New York Democratic Committee. He is a Democrat filled with Democrat ideas. And Trump wants him to be Secretary of Commerce.

Steven Mnuchin is a George Soros loving leftist who forced poor people into foreclosures that were unnecessary. He is as insider as you can get on Wall Street.

As much as Tom Price is a friend and good man, he has also been in Congress since 2002 and Elaine Chao, as much as she is a nightmare to union activists, is Mitch McConnell’s wife and a career cabinet member.

How exactly is Donald Trump intending to drain the swamp?

It seems like he is about to engage in swamp subsidy with a Democrat and a George Soros guy while bringing in career politicians from the GOP with establishment ties.

He’s already advancing an infrastructure plan that is bigger than what Barack Obama proposed and passed with zero GOP votes, but Republicans are signaling they are willing to pass Trump’s even bigger spending plan because he’s not black not Obama…

a Soros man and a major New York Democrat as well as career politicians and a big spending plan really start to make the whole thing s*ck.

And if Trump winds up with Bob Corker as Secretary of State, a man who suffers from a short man’s Napoleonic complex, we’re in for four smug years of seriously revolting foreign policy. Remember, Corker bent over for Obama on Iran and only afterwards realized he got screwed.

This isn’t looking good right now.
===========================================

END OF MAJOR UP-DATE

I know what you’re thinking:

“Doesn’t DT EVER say something, ANYTHING, and mean it?”

Nope. See-  Trump himself put it best in February: “Everything is negotiable.”
VIDEO INCLUDED.
*SOURCE*

-Rev. Larry Wallenmeyer.

 

 

Responses

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

+