Capture the Flag and Send a Message to Your Representative

This is not a message my gun-grabbing Congressthing wanted to promote…

April 19 is, among other things, Patriots’ Day. Of particular significance were the Battles of Lexington and Concord. Whenever this day comes around, it reminds me of a project from two decades ago that allowed me to make a statement of defiance to a gun-grabbing politician and get a valued souvenir in the bargain.

This is a project I did several years ago that I’ve written about a few times over the years–I resurrect it from time to time because I believe it makes a good statement of defiance, plus most of you have probably never seen it.

My U.S. Representative at the time, Jane Harman, was one of the most anti-gun members of Congress. Holding press conferences with Sarah Brady to promote more citizen disarmament (where I was threatened with arrest for asking a question), she campaigned on the slogan “I wear my opposition [to believers in the Second Amendment] like a badge of honor.”

So why in the world did I send her a check? And why do I encourage all RKBA supporters to follow suit with their own representative, especially if they’re oath-breaking gun-grabbers?

One of the constituent services that Congress provides to “We the People” is a program which lets you fly a commemorative flag over the nation’s Capitol building. For a nominal fee (I paid about thirteen bucks at the time) you can specify one of a couple different flag sizes and materials, the date you want your flag flown, and why you are flying it.

I asked for my flag to be flown on April 19 with the notation:

“In tribute to the Citizen Patriots of Lexington and Concord who resisted confiscation of their armaments on this date in 1775, and in continued defiance of all who would infringe on the Right of the People to keep and bear arms.”

I can think of many other dedications, such as “In loving memory of the children of Mount Carmel,” or “For Vicki and Sammy Weaver,” or numerous other events warranting commemoration. I’m sure you can, too.

Whether your Representative chooses to process the orders or return them, a point will have been made (and I’m still not clear what their options are for refusing to do so, and it could even be the basis for further exposure, possibly up to and including legal action).

Anybody unfortunate enough to live under Nancy Pelosi’s gun-grabbing tyranny? $19 is the least expensive flag you can get, and note selecting “Customize” and “additonal text” lets you append personalized sentiments to the preset “Dedication Message.” Now the question becomes “Will she?”

It can be a powerful point. Their choice will be to fly our flags in defiance of their statist policies, or to create a public record of suppressing alternative political sentiments. And it will either cost you nothing, or, for a nominal price you’ll get a beautiful flag and a commemorative certificate signed by the Architect of the Capitol (and hopefully, yours won’t misspell “armaments.”)

You’ll also have the satisfaction of knowing that you sent your Congressthing a strong, no-compromise statement of principle, and maybe even made him or her squirm. Why not contact your Representative, send in an order form and fly a flag for freedom?

If anyone tries this and get rejected, please forward, copy or take a screenshot of the refusal to let me know.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post Capture the Flag and Send a Message to Your Representative appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi falls apart on air after CNN’s Chris Cuomo confronts her about the memo

Big props to Chris Cuomo on this one! — It looks like CNN may be trying to redeem themselves after their two-year-long fake news fiasco

(INTELLIHUB) — Well, I have to admit, although I am not much of a Chris Cuomo fan I have to say he absolutely killed it during Monday night’s broadcast when he confronted House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on the memo. In fact, much props to Cuomo for his effort. His persistence may have even bumped CNN’s tarnished reputation back up one notch — or not. LOL.

In the interview, Cuomo sided with the American people for once in his life.

“I have to believe that it’s hard for the American people to have faith that anybody in this city [D.C.] where we are right now is out for the truth and not out for politics,” Cuomo told Pelosi. “I can understand why they [the American people] want it all released […] I can understand why they want it all out because they say ‘you know what we can’t trust you guys — let us read it — let us figure it out — you can redact the names — you can make it safe enough for us to look at’ because they say the same thing about you.”

‘They are talking about this memo like its the Holy Grail of the truth about what was going on during the campaign,’ he explained while the haggard minority leader fidgeted her jaw back and forth like a Tweaker on a hot summer day.

Pelosi looked nervous. So nervous as to which it almost made her look reptilian to some extent. Her makeup was just caked on.

“It’s not even true,” Pelosi pleaded. “They have made up a memo that isn’t even true and they are lying to the American people.”

*ROTFLMFAO*

Does this remind you of anything Nancy — like the Trump-Russia dossier?

Oh, you got a little taste of your own medicine there I see.

Cuomo–1, Pelosi–0

Featured Image: Screenshot via CNN/YouTube

©2018. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

Shepard Ambellas is an opinion journalist, analyst, and the founder and editor-in-chief of Intellihub News & Politics (Intellihub.com). Shepard is also known for producing Shade: The Motion Picture (2013) and appearing on Travel Channel’s America Declassified (2013). Shepard is a regular contributor to Infowars. Shepard is the leading journalist covering the Las Vegas Massacre, logging over 800+ hours, 130+ reports, during his ongoing investigation. Read more from Shep’s World. Follow Shep on Facebook. Subscribe to Shep’s YouTube channel.

Follow @ShepardAmbellas

The post Rep. Nancy Pelosi falls apart on air after CNN’s Chris Cuomo confronts her about the memo appeared first on Intellihub.

Just One ‘Gun Law’ Could Have Reduced ‘Stoneman Shooting’ Killings

The “Only Ones” the “law allows” to be armed will never be able to prevent multiple victims from being slaughtered. (@FranklinWSVN)

“Another school shooting” has rocked America, once more bringing out how divided the country is on guns. As we’ve seen before, furious words are being hurled by  raging citizen disarmament zealots manifesting their hatred of those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms, and accusing “NRA” of having “blood on its hands.” As usual, we see opportunistic and strident “progressive” politicians, cheerleading “journalists” and foaming-at-the-mouth “celebrities” egging that on, and posturing loudly for new “gun laws.”

“Debate” with fanatics vested in citizen disarmament is a wasted effort. At best, those attempting to inject reality into the public discourse may help enlighten those who have not given the matter close scrutiny and retain open minds. As for those whose minds are on lockdown, ask what laws would have made a difference in the atrocity at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High. You’ll get the same tired old platitudes.

Background checks? How have those worked at “stopping the violence” in places like Chicago? Besides, the suspect reportedly passed one.

Banning so-called “assault weapons”? Those represent only a small fraction of homicides committed with firearms, so anyone seriously proposing that needs to also demand a ban on handguns.

As previously reported at Oath Keepers, Nancy Pelosi admitted the “slippery slope” gun-grabbers used to ridicule as “paranoid,” but  which the founders of the modern disarmament movement freely endorsed. And lest you think banning all guns hasn’t been a long-term goal, check out what I found from the Jan. 1968 issue of GUNS Magazine while doing some research:

It’s only in recent times that gun-grabbers feel it more prudent to mask their true goals with terms like “common sense gun safety laws.”

So much for the lie that “No one is talking about taking your guns.” Of course they are. That’s the end game, or at least the beginning of the end game.

Not on our watch.

OK, so if guns are at a stalemate, what about identifying common factors to stop killers before they can strike? Like Hollywood’s Department of Precrime…?

There are plenty of conflicting reports about the suspect’s mental state, temperament, politics and ideology, with many playing “Gotcha” to conflate and spread blame. And people are naturally curious about such aberrations in their midst and information gets put out there that later turns out to be inaccurate. We’re still finding out much about him, not that the finger-pointing matters in terms of resolving anything. And our finding out is being hampered anyway now that the suspect’s social media presence is being taken down, forcing the public to rely on major media passing along what civil authority wants them to know.

The only relevant ideology is that he is twisted and evil. No one in his right mind advocates killing innocents.

Speaking of “right mind,” how about the “fact” that “everybody knew” the suspect was a likely school shooter?  Even the FBI had been informed and they didn’t follow up properly!

While we don’t know what they legally could have done, it’s tempting to believe they could have taken the suspect out of the general populace.

On what grounds? We can’t throw away due process. Recall that despite three visits, cops from a few years back say they didn’t have enough to remove the Isla Vista killer from circulation (which, among other things, was a spectacular admission of how California gun registration has proven useless at preventing anything.)

So I’m saying that’s just the way it is? Nothing can be done?

Not at all. There is one “gun law” that at least had the potential to make a difference, but it was being infringed by “gun free school zoned” edicts.  Broward County Public Schools, of which Stoneman Douglas is part, explains on its website:

No person shall be authorized to carry any weapon or firearm into any meeting of the public school district; any school athletic event not related to firearms; any school administration building; any school facility; and/or school sponsored event. Any person possessing, transmitting, and/or using a weapon on School Board property shall be subject to arrest. In addition, employees who violate this policy may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment. The SBBC hereby waives the exception in section 790.115(2)(a)3., and therefore prohibits the possession of any firearms in vehicles for student or campus parking privileges. a. Certified law enforcement officers are exempt when working within scope of their employment. b. School Board property shall be defined as school grounds, facilities, administrative offices, bus stop, school bus, or vehicle provided for transportation by the school system. c. School sponsored activities shall be defined as any approved School Board event or official School Board business, on or off School Board property.

Don’t look for the Second Amendment to be recognized any time soon by our representatives or the courts as “being necessary to the security of a free State.” Instead, look for renewed demands to enact even more citizen disarmament edicts.

We’ll see if this puts the kibosh on the Republicans’ stomach for nationwide concealed carry reciprocity with the midterms coming up. And don’t be surprised if some “gun rights leaders” — prone to endorsing “compromises” on things like “bump stocks” or “Fix NICS”  — decide it’s time for them to extend another olive branch to those who want nothing less than everything.

The proper response of course, for those who would “guard with jealous attention the public liberty,” is to respond to gun-grab demands with one word:

“No.” You can add “Your move” for effect.

For those who still insist on the disarmament we see so many calling for, I have one question:

How many men who resist are you willing to see killed in order to make that happen?

Don’t be surprised if some of the more emotion-driven and restraint-challenged answer “All of you.”

 

STATEMENT BY STEWART RHODES, FOUNDER OF OATH KEEPERS:

This shooting only reinforces the problem with “victim disarmament zones” and the utter necessity of armed officers in the schools AND armed and trained school staff and teachers.   As for calls to disarm us and ban guns, remember, in Paris, the terrorists at both the Charlie Hebdo and theater attacks used select-fire AKs which were smuggled into the country and were entirely illegal in France.  Frances ban on all such weapons in civilian hands didn’t matter.

A terrorist, a drug lord, a gang, or a raving lunatic, can all get whatever they need on the black market worldwide. That is the reality.

Given that reality, exactly what gun law here in the U.S. would have possibly prevented that crime?   None.  You can’t legislate away the existence of modern firearms.   They will exist.  But you can empower we the people, in all places, to be the protectors and actual first-responders the founders expected us to be as the militia.  An armed populace – including teachers and school staff – who are allowed to protect the children under their care, is the answer, just as it has been the answer in Israel for decades in defense of their children at school.  It works.   in fact, that is the only thing that works when a school is targeted for attack.  Everything else is simply too slow, as this latest shooting again demonstrates with the police failing to stop the shooter in time to prevent 18 deaths, and counting.

The staff and the teachers need to be able to put a stop to the killing, because they are ALWAYS THERE and don’t need to come from somewhere else.  They and they alone can provide the fast response that is needed to stop the killing.  When seconds count, the police are only moments away.  And that means the teachers and staff need to be armed and trained, just like in a church the staff and volunteers need to be trained.   The recent mass slaughter at Sutherland Spring Baptist Church in Texas shows that reality all to well.  Even with a local hero like Stephen Willeford responding as fast as he could with his own AR to stop the killing (beating the cops there) he was nowhere near as fast as an armed church member would have been, if any had been armed.

Whether it is a church, a school, a college, a mall, or any other public soft target for terrorism or mass murdering nuts, the answer is that the intended victims must be able to defend themselves and to protect those under their care.

One answer short term is for us trained military and police veterans to volunteer to do shifts at schools as armed guards across the nation until we can get enough teachers and staff trained up.  I’ll serve,  Won’t you?    Stewart

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

 

The post Just One ‘Gun Law’ Could Have Reduced ‘Stoneman Shooting’ Killings appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Will Your Taxes Go Up? Find Out With These 8 Scenarios

With Republicans having inexplicably sacrificed a crucial Senate seat last night by choosing to support a candidate accused of multiple counts of pedophilia, it"s unclear whether tax reform is even a remote possibility at this point.  Certainly, the challenge of forming a consensus among the GOP was difficult enough when they held a 2-seat advantage in the Senate so we can only assume it will be next to impossible now that that lead has been cut in half. 

Of course, Republicans seem to have every intent of passing a tax bill before Doug Jones gets seated in January...but, then again, they"ve missed almost every deadline they"ve set for themselves since Trump moved into the White House nearly a full year ago.

Be that as it may, just in case a bill gets passed at some point before winter break, Bloomberg, along with a little help from Baird Private Wealth Management, has put together a series of 8 tables which help to quantify exactly how you may be impacted by tax reform whether you"re a "millionaire, billionaire, private jet owner" living in Manhattan or an "average Joe" making $40k a year and renting an apartment in Milwaukee.  Here they are:

Scenario 1 - Manhattan Millionaires: These Manhattan residents have a jumbo mortgage (at an assumed 4 percent interest rate) and take a $40,000 deduction on mortgage interest; pay property taxes of $96,250 and state income tax of $135,360; and make annual charitable contributions totaling $100,000.

Unfortunately, contrary to what you might hear from Nancy Pelosi, these folks take a hit under both the House and Senate tax bill primarily due to the loss of the SALT deductions.

Scenario 2 - Malibu Millionaires:  A married couple has a primary residence in Malibu, California, and a second home in Lake Tahoe. The property tax on the Malibu home is $15,860, and $4,896 on their second home; they deduct $40,000 total in mortgage interest for the two homes; and give $50,000 to charity.

Scenario 3 - Small Business Owner:  This married couple with a small manufacturing business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has $300,000 in pass-through business income. Their deductible mortgage interest adds up to $6,000; their property tax is $8,600; and they give 5 percent of their income to charity.

Scenario 4 - Suburban Family:  A married couple in a New York City suburb has estimated state income tax of $17,290; their annual mortgage interest deduction is $14,000; and they pay property tax of $13,750 -- about the same amount they donate to charity.

Scenario 5 - Single Secretary In Manhattan: This New York City renter pays estimated state income tax of $8,148 and gives about $6,500 to charity.

Scenario 6 - Married Family In Austin:  This young couple rents and has income of $100,000. They give $5,000 a year to charity.

Scenario 7 - Median Income Couple In Portland:  This Portland, Oregon, couple earns close to the median household income for the U.S. Their property tax bill is $1,688; their deductible mortgage interest is $3,000; and estimated state income tax is $4,744.

Scenario 8 - Median Income Family In Milwaukee:  This married couple rents and has an estimated 2017 state income tax bill of $2,104.

Of course, this will all change when/if the GOP submits a final tax bill for consideration...but, like Obamacare, you may only find out how it truly impacts you after it has already been passed.

Government On Verge Of Shutdown As Democrats Refuse To Support Stopgap Plan

In an announcement that brings the federal government to the verge of a weekend shutdown, Nancy Pelosi said Democrats won’t support a Republican bill for a two-week funding extension because almost none of their demands have been met.

Meanwhile, Speaker Paul Ryan says he feels confident about the vote count for the Republican’s short-term extension that would kick in after a continuing resolution approved in September to fund the government through midnight, Friday expires.

According to Bloomberg, the bill is a “waste of time” that doesn’t include funding for combating the opioid crisis, among other priorities like enshrining DACA provisions into law, something Pelosi has said must happen before the end of the year.

Pelosi added that she hopes she and Chuck Schumer, her counterpart in the Senate, can work out a deal suitable to both parties when they meet with President Donald Trump later today.

The House Rules committee last night approved a rule change to allow Republican leaders to bring the bill to a vote Thursday.

The decision on a stopgap bill with a Dec. 22 end-date came after Ryan and his leadership team held discussions on overall budget strategy with the leaders of the restive House Freedom Caucus. A formal check of how members would vote came back showing widespread support, said Representative Dennis Ross, a member of the vote-whipping team.

As we pointed out yesterday, the continuing resolution that"s been funding the government for the last two months, and yet many battles over a host of intractable issues are still being fought. At this point, passing something by midnight Friday - when the continuing resolution expires -is looking increasingly problematic.

As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, GOP lawmakers are also divided over when to tackle the Dreamers issue.

President Donald Trump in September ended an Obama-era program shielding the children of undocumented immigrants from deportation, with the protections beginning to expire in early March, giving Congress six months to pass legislation protecting them.
 

Democratic Congressman Conyers "Retires, Not Resigns" As Sexual Misconduct Allegations Build

Careful to explain to those that care, Michigan Democrat Congressman John Conyers says he will "retire" from Congress today, and is "not resigning," following a growing list of sexual misconduct allegations. Conyers is endorsing his son, John Conyers III, to replace him in Congress.

“He is not resigning. He is going to retire,” Ian Conyers told the newspaper. “His doctor advised him that the rigor of another campaign would be too much for him just in terms of his health.”

Conyers, 88, is the longest serving House member and was one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) have both said Conyers should step aside in light of the sexual misconduct allegations leveled against him. Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the assistant Democratic leader who is also a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) with Conyers, has also said the Michigan lawmaker should resign.

As a reminder, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi had encouraged the House Ethics Cmte to "proceed expeditiously" as it investigates accusations against Conyers.

The review began after reports Conyers reached a $27k settlement with a former aide who said she was fired for rejecting his sexual advances; since then, Conyers has been accused of harassment by other women.

Conyers has acknowledged the settlement but denied sexual harassment claims.

Conyers concluded:

“My legacy will continue through my children."

We are not so sure about that Mr. Conyers, we suspect your families legacy will be tarnished with your alleged actions.

As The Hill reports,Ian Conyers, who also serves as a Michigan state senator, also told the Times that he plans to run for John Conyers"s seat in Michigan"s 13th Congressional District.

“I’m absolutely going to file for his seat. The work of our congressional district, where I come out of, has to continue,” Ian Conyers said.

 

“We have got to have someone who has depth and experience but also historical understanding of what it takes to fight this type of evil in Washington.”

In the interview, the state senator refused to defend the alleged actions of his great uncle.

“I stand with my uncle in terms of his belief of no specific wrongdoing,” Ian Conyers told the newspaper. “However, those things need to have their day in court.”

Refugee Admissions Into U.S. Plunge 83% In First Two Months Of FY18

As monthly refugee admissions into the United States lap the last few months of Obama"s administration, the stark changes enacted by the Trump White House are more apparent than ever with admissions down a staggering 83% in the first two months of fiscal 2018 (October and November) compared to the first two months of fiscal 2017.

As CNS News points out, a total of only 3,108 refugees were admitted in October and November down from the 18,300 refugees who were admitted in October and November of last year.

The most striking change between the refugee admissions in the initial two-month period of this fiscal year and last fiscal year was the relative differences in size of the contingents from Syria, Somalia and Iraq.

In Oct.-Nov. 2016, 2,259 Syrians (97.6 percent Muslim, 1.7 percent Christian), 2,463 Somalis (99.9 percent Muslim) and 2,262 Iraqis (75 percent Muslim, 17.3 percent Christian, 7.4 percent Yazidi) were resettled.

 

In Oct.-Nov. 2017 the numbers had dropped to 33 Syrians (66.6 percent Muslim, 33.3 percent Christian), 126 Somalis (100 percent Muslim) and 76 Iraqis (84.2 percent Muslim, 10.5 percent Christian, 3.9 percent Yazidi).

 

Among the 3,108 refugees admitted since FY 2018 began, the five largest contingents came from Bhutan (805), the Democratic Republic of Congo (627), Burma (347), Ukraine (290) and Eritrea (281).

 

The religious breakdown of those 3,108 refugees was: 59.6 percent Christian, 15.4 percent Muslim, 9.6 percent Buddhist, 7.6 percent Hindu, 4.7 percent Kirat and 0.9 percent Jewish.

 

By contrast, the five countries represented most strongly among the 18,300 refugees resettled by the Obama administration in the U.S. during the first two months of FY 2017 were the DRC (4,236), Somalia (2,463), Iraq (2,262), Syria (2,259) and Burma (1,509).

 

The religious breakdown of those 18,300 refugees was: 48.1 percent Christian, 43.6 percent Muslim, 2.4 percent Buddhist, 1.7 percent Hindu, 0.9 percent Kirat and 0.3 percent Jewish.

Meanwhile, fourteen months after the Obama administration backed a push at the U.N. for global responsibility-sharing for refugees and migrants, the Trump Administration has pulled out of the initiative with U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley saying it “is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.”

Now the administration is also withdrawing from a U.N. initiative called the Global Compact on Migration.

 

In a statement Sunday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. would continue to engage at the U.N. but in this case it “simply cannot in good faith support a process that could undermine the sovereign right of the United States to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders.”

 

“The United States supports international cooperation on migration issues, but it is the primary responsibility of sovereign states to help ensure that migration is safe, orderly, and legal.”

 

Haley said Sunday the New York declaration “contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with U.S. immigration and refugee policies and the Trump administration’s immigration principles.”

 

She said no country has done more that the U.S. in providing support for migrant and refugee populations across the globe, “and our generosity will continue.”

 

“But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone,” she said. “We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country.”

Of course, it"s just a matter of time until Chuck Schumer and/or Nancy Pelosi tell us that Trump"s efforts to not outsource decisions regarding American sovereignty to the U.N. is just more evidence of the inherent racism plaguing the current administration.

John Conyers Hospitalized; Pelosi Calls For His Resignation

Update: House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi has had a change of heart regarding her colleague John Conyers - whom she recently praised as an "icon" who fought for civil rights and women"s rights. A day after the Washington Post published a story about how Congressional Democrats were divided over the issue of whether Conyers should resign, Pelosi is saying that she now believes he should resign. As we reported below, Conyers was hospitalized in his hometown of Detroit earlier today, reportedly due to "stress". She called the allegations against her colleague "serious", "disappointing" and "very credible."

 

Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi says Rep. John Conyers should resign: The allegations are "serious, disappointing, and very credible." https://t.co/KhGfwep1RZ pic.twitter.com/8ALtYc3kQH

— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) November 30, 2017

 

* * *

A day after reports emerged that Michigan Rep. John Conyers wouldn"t seek re-election in 2018, ending a more than 50-year career in the House, local media reported that he had been hospitalized after returning to the Detroit area.

Conyers" office confirmed the congressman is hospitalized but did not say why or at which hospital. Political consultant Sam Riddle spoke to reporters Thursday morning and said Conyers was hospitalized due to stress. Riddle said he spoke to Conyers" wife, Monica Conyers, Thursday morning.

"I just spoke with Monica Conyers on the phone and we want you to know that the congressman is resting comfortably in an area hospital. He"s doing OK, as well as he can be expected for a gentleman that"s approaching 90 years of age," Riddle said. "The congressman"s health is not what it should be and lot of that is directly attributable to this media assault."

The 88-year-old congressman returned to Detroit this week amid sexual harassment claims from his former staffers.

One of the women accusing Conyers of sexual harassment spoke early Thursday.

Marion Brown described what she claims Conyers did to her while she worked for him.

"Some of the things that he did, it was sexual harassment," she said. "Violating my body, propositioning me, inviting me to hotels with the guise of discussing business, and then propositioning for sex. He just violated my body. He has touched me in different ways, and it was very uncomfortable and very unprofessional."

Conyers settled a sexual harassment claim with Brown back in 2015.

Buzzfeed reported last week that Conyers had used taxpayer money to pay settlements to several former staffers who accused him of sexual harassment.

 

Trump: "I Don"t See A Deal" On Keeping Government Open, Leading To Bill Turmoil

President Trump said he will meet on Tuesday with the Democratic leaders of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, to discuss keeping the government open. But, in a tweet, Trump cast doubt on whether they can agree to fund the government beyond a Dec. 8 deadline, saying: "I don"t see a deal!"

Trump said Democrats "want illegal immigrants flooding into our Country unchecked, are weak on Crime and want to substantially RAISE Taxes."

Says Trump: "I don"t see a deal!" adding that Democrats "want illegal immigrants flooding into our Country unchecked, are weak on Crime and want to substantially RAISE Taxes."

Meeting with “Chuck and Nancy” today about keeping government open and working. Problem is they want illegal immigrants flooding into our Country unchecked, are weak on Crime and want to substantially RAISE Taxes. I don’t see a deal!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 28, 2017

And while the mid-December Bill market has already been turmoiling, Trump"s comments only led to more stress as the spread between 12/7 and 12/21 widening to 12bps after Trump cast doubt on whether he and congressional leaders can agree to keep the government funded.

Top Democrats "Abruptly" Pull Out Of White House Meeting After Trump Twitter Attack

Following this morning"s tweet, in which Trump said that he was meeting with top Democrats Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to keep the government open, but because "they want illegal immigrants flooding into our Country unchecked", he "doesn"t see a deal", and which sent the T-Bill market turmoiling as mid-December government shutdown odds surged, moments ago the top two Democratic leaders in Congress pulled out "abruptly" (in AP"s words) of the previously scheduled meeting with President Donald Trump.

Instead of meeting Trump, Schumer and Pelosi shot back with a statement asking for talks with top GOP leaders in Congress. The top democrats said they’d skip a “show meeting” at the White House and instead ask for a meeting with their Republican counterparts, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“Given that the President doesn’t see a deal between Democrats and the White House, we believe the best path forward is to continue negotiating with our Republican counterparts in Congress instead,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a joint statement.

Some Democrats have called for any year-end spending deal to include legislation that would codify an Obama administration policy providing protection against deportation for young undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children. Trump, who announced in September he was ending the program, has said any deal protecting the so-called “Dreamers” should be paired with funding for a border wall and legislation that would reduce legal immigration.

If Democrats and Republicans do not reach a deal on spending by Dec. 8, the federal government could face a partial shutdown. Trump’s meeting with the Congressional leaders, which will also include Republicans House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, is scheduled for 3 p.m.

As a reminder, the Dec. 8 deadline was set in a deal Schumer and Pelosi struck with Trump - against the wishes of Ryan and McConnell - to avoid a government shutdown and debt default in September. They agreed to fund the government at current levels and suspend the debt limit for three months.

As Bloomberg reminds us, since that deal was struck, Congress has focused mostly on a tax overhaul and has made little progress reaching a spending deal to keep the government open. Other issues have also piled up, including the fate of cost-sharing subsidies that help defray deductibles and coinsurance payments for low-income patients with Obamacare insurance policies. Trump stopped paying the subsidies.

The negotiations also include efforts to lift legislative caps on military spending, raise the debt limit, provide more funding for disaster assistance, and extend a children’s health insurance program and an intelligence surveillance program. Several of those issues face year-end deadlines and may end up in a huge spending plan that requires votes from both Republicans and Democrats.

The Trump administration does not want to include immigration as part of the year-end spending deal to keep the government open, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said on Monday. “We hope that the Democrats aren’t going to put our service members abroad at risk by trying to hold the government hostage over partisan politics, and attaching that,” Sanders told reporters on Monday.

Markets reacted favorably to the news, with stocks jumping on speculation that a meeting between the top Democrats and Republicans will be more productive than the "show meeting" between Trump and the democratic duo.

While stock euphoria is predictable, those curious if the government"s shutdown odds are rising are urged to look at the Dec. 7-Dec. 21 Bill spread which, ominously, continues to blow out.

"Helpless, Raging" Charlottesville Families Shocked By These 2018 Obamacare Premiums..."It"s Horrific"

Over the past several months, Democrats have jumped on every opportunity possible to blame the Trump administration for yet another year of staggering Obamacare premium increases.  Ironically, despite arguments from the Left that Trump"s defunding of Obamacare"s marketing budget would cause 2018 signups to plunge, as Politico recently noted, they"re actually up in 2018...which begs the question: was the Obama administration just wasting $100 million a year in taxpayer money for nothing?  Shocking thought, we know.

Meanwhile a fresh barrage of outcries from Democrats, most notably Ms. Nancy Pelosi, came after Trump"s decision to cut federal subsidies, an action which the CBO insisted could result in devastating premium increases of up to 20%.

Of course, if Trump is responsible for 20% of Obamacare"s premium hikes in 2018, then perhaps Nancy Pelosi should explain to the Dixon family in Charlottesville, VA precisely who is responsible for the other portion of the 235% premium hike they just received. 

As the Washington Post points out this morning, the Dixons, a family of 4 in Virginia, were shocked earlier this month to find that their Obamacare premiums were going to surge from roughly $900 per month in 2017 to over $3,000 per month in 2018.

Ian Dixon, who left his full-time job in 2016 to pursue an app-development business, did so because the ACA guaranteed that he could still have quality coverage for his young family, he said.

 

But when the 38-year-old Charlottesville husband and father of a 3- and a 1-year-old went to re-enroll this month, his only choice for coverage would cost him more than $3,000 a month for his family of four, which amounted to an increase of more than 300 percent over the $900 he paid the year before. And this is for the second-cheapest option, with a deductible of $9,200.

 

“Helpless is definitely a good word for it,” Dixon said. “Rage is also a good word for it.”

Of course, Democrats and the MSM also applauded Obamacare"s "great success" earlier this year when several counties that were previously feared to be left with no coverage options in 2018, suddenly picked up a carrier.  That said, perhaps Bloomberg, Reuters, NBC, etc. should reconsider just how meaningful these Obamacare monopolies are if the premiums charged are so high that no one can afford them anyway...

Earlier this year, Aetna and Anthem pulled out of the Albemarle market, citing too much unpredictability and risk. A smaller carrier, Optima, came in to fill the void. Consumers in the area went from having 19 plans offered in the options from Aetna and Anthem to only five coverage options with Optima.

 

Several factors led to Optima’s offering such high-priced plans, said Michael Dudley, the president of Optima.

 

First, small communities like Charlottesville tend to be pricier to cover because there is a small patient pool to balance out risks. So Optima took a cue from the carriers who had already ditched the market when actuaries predicted it was a place where the insurance companies might be paying out more to cover claims than it receives in premiums.

 

It is also a more expensive coverage area because the primary provider is University of Virginia Health System, an academic medical center that charges higher rates for its care than a community hospital. Optima will include UVA Health System in-network, unlike many carriers who have dropped the big medical centers as a cost-saving measure.

...perhaps local business owner Shawn Cossette can provide the Obamacare cheerleaders within the media some helpful insights...

Among them was Shawn Marie Cossette, 55, who runs her own event and floral design business in Charlottesville. Last year, she purchased an Anthem silver plan for $550 a month for herself. This year, under Optima, a silver plan would cost her $1,859 monthly.

 

“It’s a huge percentage of my income,” she said. “I really believed in the ACA. I really feel everyone deserves the right to health insurance, but who can afford those prices if you don’t qualify for subsidies?”

Major Newspapers Confirm No ‘Gun Laws’ will Ever be Enough for Them

Citizen disarmament proposals offered for serious consideration by major newspapers can only end in one of two ways if the issue is forced. (Surrender of Cornwallis by John Trumbell, U.S. Capitol Rotunda)

“Would strict enforcement of existing gun laws have stopped the Texas church massacre?” The Los Angeles Times editorial board asks rhetorically. “Probably not.”

“Of course not” would be more like it, no matter how many ostensibly on the side of the Second Amendment claim otherwise.  As long as those who do evil walk among us, they will find a way. Remember that mass killings that racked up the highest death tolls, 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing and the Happyland Dance Club fire, were all committed without guns.

The Times goes through the “existing laws” the Texas church massacre maniac slipped through to come to its central thesis, one the paper has been rabidly demanding for decades:

“But even then, assault weapons like the one Kelley used will remain for sale in this country, and that’s the fundamental problem. Civilians have no legitimate reason to own military-style firearms. Enthusiasts might get a kick out of shooting them, but that’s hardly reason to endanger the rest of us. These rapid-fire weapons, with their high-capacity magazines and quick reloads, are designed for one purpose: to kill as many people as quickly as possible. They do not belong in private hands.”

That, of course, is a lie, demonstrable if by no other means than looking at the sheer number of such firearms peaceably owned and used for all kinds of other purposes, and then comparing that to the small percentage used in crimes of violence – often by people who obtained them by criminal means.

The Times is not done intentionally confusing a readership conditioned to believe the editors know what they’re talking about:

“Gun advocates argue that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to own such weapons, but it does not. The Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision (which we think was wrongly decided) recognized a right to own a firearm in the home for self-protection, but echoed previous court decisions that the ownership right is not absolute, is subject to regulation, and can be limited to firearms currently “in common use.” By some estimates, assaults weapons account for only about 3% of the estimated 300 million guns in our collective arsenal. That’s not ‘in common use.’”

No “gun advocate” worth his salt thinks the Second Amendment “gives” them anything. Since The Times cited Heller. It’s fair to assume leaving out a key citation was a deliberately fraudulent lie of omission:

“As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … “

Equally deceptive is their characterization of what “in common use at the time” means (and by their definition, all new developments in firearms technology would be forever withheld from We the People). That qualifier relied on U.S. v Miller, a case from 1939 that found a weapon must have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

But it’s interesting The Times admits they even disagree with the Heller opinion that you can have a gun in your home. And it doesn’t matter what kind, because they’ve long supported handgun bans as well. And forget them recognizing any right to carry either openly or concealed.

They want it all.

As does The Boston Globe, which wants Americans to “Hand over your weapons.”

 “The logic of gun control lies, at bottom, in substantially reducing the number of deadly weapons on the street — and confiscation is far and away the most effective approach … Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.”

If “that idea” ever “seems” normal, the core and vital reasons behind Oath Keepers will come into play. It will become a very dangerous time for the citizen targets of those who follow such orders as well as for those refusing to obey them. That’s why it’s so crucial to disseminate the truth now, and by that I mean for you and me to do it, and regularly.

Then there’s “the newspaper of record,” The New York Times, a generational apologist for communist totalitarianism from the days of Walter Duranty that flat-out declares:

“Repeal the Second Amendment.”

The masks are off and they can’t put them back on. This is what’s at the bottom of Nancy Pelosi’s “slippery slope.” And this is the answer to throw back in the faces of collectivists who use Alinsky Rule 5 ridicule and sneering terms like “paranoids” as they flat-out lie that “No one wants to take your guns.”

Of course they do.  And if they can, the real business of control will become apparent.

In the mean time, they’ll continue lie under cover of the “common sense gun safety law” deception, and chip away at one piece and then the next until they can try to bring the whole thing down. And they’ll continue smearing anyone who opposes them as an extremist, as a hater, as a terrorist and as a treasonous domestic enemy to be destroyed.

They’re intent on forcing the issue. The surrender they demand of us is unconditional.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

 

The post Major Newspapers Confirm No ‘Gun Laws’ will Ever be Enough for Them appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Buchanan Fears A GOP Bloodbath - The Lesson For 2018

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

The day after his “Silent Majority” speech on Nov. 3, 1969, calling on Americans to stand with him for peace with honor in Vietnam, Richard Nixon’s GOP captured the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey.

By December, Nixon had reached 68 percent approval in the Gallup Poll, though, a year earlier, he had won but 43 percent of the vote.

Contrast Nixon’s numbers with President Trump’s.

Where Trump won 46 percent of the vote against Hillary Clinton, his approval rating is now nearly 10 points below that. He has less support today than on the day he was elected, or inaugurated.

Tens of millions of Americans are passionately for Trump, and tens of millions are passionately against him.

The GOP problem: The latter cohort is equal in intensity but larger in number, and this is especially true in purple and blue states like the commonwealth of Virginia.

There is no way to spin Tuesday as other than a Little Bighorn, and possible harbinger of what is to come.

In George Washington’s hometown of Alexandria and Arlington County, Democratic candidate Ralph Northam won 4-1. In Fairfax and Loudoun counties, the most populous D.C. suburbs, Northam won 2-1.

In the rural counties, however, Republican Ed Gillespie rolled up the landslides.

As there are two Americas, there are two Virginias.

Consider. Of all the delegate seats in the Virginia assembly allocated to Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William counties, the GOP can today claim only one.

Northern Virginia is taking on the political and socioeconomic profile of San Francisco.

Another and perhaps insoluble problem for the GOP, not only in the Old Dominion, is demography.

Democrats rolled up their largest margins among African-Americans, Hispanics, single women, immigrants and the young. And these voting blocs are growing.

Gillespie ran up his largest margins among white males near and past retirement age and married white women. These Middle Americans are in inexorable demographic decline.

The Greatest Generation is passing on, and baby boomers born between 1946 and 1951 are now on Medicare and Social Security.

Yet reports of the GOP’s demise are grossly exaggerated.

Though Gillespie lost by nine points, Jill Vogel, who ran for lieutenant governor on Trumpian issues, lost by six.

By 2-1, Virginians do not want their Confederate monuments torn down. Northam, sensing this, moved toward Gillespie’s position as the campaign went on. Also, among the 27 percent of Virginians who regarded taxes and immigration as the top issues, Gillespie won by nearly 4-1.

It was health care concerns, the No. 1 issue, that buried the GOP.

As for mainstream media rage and revulsion at the “racism” of Gillespie ads suggesting Northam supported sanctuary cities and was soft on the MS-13 gang, this reflects an abiding establishment fear of the Trumpian issues of illegal immigration and crime.

Then there was the Republican messenger.

A former chairman of the RNC, Washington lobbyist and White House aide, Gillespie is an establishment Republican unconvincing in the role of a fighting populist conservative. His speeches recalled not Trump’s run, but that of the Republicans Trump trounced.

Ed Gillespie was Virginia’s version of Jeb Bush.

Message from the Old Dominion: A purple state, trending blue, with its economy recession-proof as long as Uncle Sam across the river consumes 20 percent of GDP, is a steepening climb for the GOP. You must have a superior candidate, comfortable with cutting issues, to win it now.

Republicans are being admonished to drop the monuments-and-memorials issue and respect why NFL players might want to “take a knee” during the national anthem.

But if to win in Northern Virginia the GOP must move closer to the Democratic Party, why would the rest of the state want to vote for the Republican Party?

During the campaign, both candidates moved rightward.

Northam rejected sanctuary cities and accepted Lee and Jackson on Richmond’s Monument Avenue, and Gillespie ran Trumpian ads, even if they seemed to clash with the mild-mannered candidate himself.

The lesson for 2018:

While the solid support of Trumpians is indispensable for GOP victory, it is insufficient for GOP victory. Republican candidates will have to decide how close they wish to get to President Trump, or how far away they can risk going and survive.

Facing this choice, Sens. Jeff Flake and Bob Corker decided to pack it in. Other Republicans may follow. But a house divided will not stand.

Republicans should recall that off-year elections are often problematic for incumbent parties. In 1954, President Eisenhower lost both houses of Congress. After pardoning Nixon in 1974, Gerald Ford lost 49 seats. In 1982, Ronald Reagan sustained a 27-seat loss.

In 1994, Bill Clinton lost 53 seats and control of the House. In 2010, Barack Obama lost 63 seats and control of the House.

If the nation chooses to turn Congress over to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer in 2018, will that be all Trump’s fault? Or should perhaps some credit go to Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and venerable political tradition?

The Republican Tax Plan Will Crush These Housing Markets

For the past few weeks, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have screamed to anyone who would listen that the GOP tax plan is nothing more than a tax break for millionaires and an attack on middle class working families.  But, as the Wall Street Journal points out this morning, America"s millionaire, billionaire, private jet owners living in expensive urban areas are set to lose "bigly" if Trump"s $500,000 cap on the mortgage interest deduction survives.

But in the priciest markets, concentrated in some of the nation’s largest coastal cities, the impact could be significant. In the San Jose, Calif., metropolitan area, 75% of new mortgage loans thus far in 2017 were for more than $500,000, according to an analysis by CoreLogic Inc., a housing data provider. The median home price there is more than $1 million, and even small starter homes can climb well above the proposed cap.

 

In the San Francisco metro area, 60% of new loans were for more than $500,000, while in Los Angeles and San Diego, the figures were 44% and 37%, respectively.

 

The impact wouldn’t be limited to California. In Honolulu, 48% of loans were greater than $500,000, while the figures for the New York area and Seattle were 22% and 25%, respectively.

 

An analysis by ATTOM Data Solutions yielded similar results. In the Washington, D.C., area, 35% of purchase and refinance loans in 2017 thus far were for more than $500,000. In Hawaii, 15% of loans fell into that category, while in California 12% did.

In addition to capping the mortgage interest deduction, the current GOP bill also limits the amount of property taxes that households can deduct to $10,000 annually.

Not surprisingly, the assault on McMansions has angered the realtor lobby which we"re certain will fight tooth and nail to preserve the status quo.

Jeff Barnett, a California realtor and vice chairman of the National Association of Realtors’ large-firm real-estate services committee, said his area will be hit “very, very hard” if the tax bill passes. Even if corporate tax cuts help boost the economy, he doesn’t think that will be enough to compensate.

 

“You’ve taken away so many incentives for housing, they can’t spend” the money from any extra economic growth, he said.

Of course, as we pointed out earlier this week (see: Trump Is About To Crush Home Prices In Counties That Voted For Hillary: Here"s Why), Clinton won the vote in the top 45 counties in the country with the highest median home prices which has resulted in rampant speculation that the mortgage cap is nothing more than a clever punishment levied on Democratic voters.

As Dennis Lee calculated, "assuming that all of these homeowners are taxed at a marginal rate of 39.6%, we find that the increase in tax burden during the first 12 months of homeownership driven solely by the mortgage interest and property tax deduction caps varies from $0 for the county with the 20th highest median home price (San Miguel County, Colorado) to approximately $7,200 for the highest-priced county (San Francisco County, California)." Barclays" conclusion: these counties - all of which are largely pro-Clinton - would need a 0-11% decline in their median home prices to keep the after-tax monthly mortgage and property tax payments the same for would-be buyers.

Of course, only time will tell whether the swamp (a.k.a. "The National Association of Realtors" in this case) will allow this particular component of the GOP tax bill to survive...

Trump Drafting Executive Order To Kill Obamacare"s Individual Mandate, Report

After having previously cut so-called "cost reduction subsidies" (see: Trump To Scrap Crucial Obamacare Insurer Subsidy) and the marketing budget for Obamacare, Trump is now reportedly ready to also repeal the legislation"s controversial "individual mandate" which taxes people who choose to forego health insurance.

According to the Washington Examiner an executive order has already been drafted to scrap the mandate but has not yet been executed only due to ongoing GOP debates over whether or not to include the repeal in the pending tax bill.

The Trump administration has prepared an executive order that would unravel Obamacare"s individual mandate, but has put it on hold to see whether it might be included in the Republican tax bill instead, a GOP senator told the Washington Examiner.

 

According to the senator, an executive order is sitting with the Office of Management and Budget waiting for approval. President Trump decided to delay the executive order after Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., pushed for the inclusion of the individual mandate repeal in the tax bill, and has been supportive of its inclusion in statements he has made on Twitter.

Of course, including the individual mandate repeal in the tax legislation is intended create billions in budget savings and offset lower tax receipts but it could come with the unfortunate side effect of alienating potential mainstream GOP votes in the Senate who refused to support the Obamacare repeal efforts earlier this year.

Including repeal of the individual mandate in the tax bill instead of through executive order would create billions in budget savings that Republicans need to pay for tax cuts. According to a Congressional Budget Office report published in December 2016, repeal of the individual mandate would save $416 billion over a decade, since it would mean fewer subsidy payments to people who sign up. A new CBO report is expected Monday.

 

The repeal is not currently in the tax bill, known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but House Speaker Paul Ryan said this weekend that it was on the negotiation table among House Republicans.

 

"We have an active conversation with our members on a whole host of ideas on things to add to this bill and that"s one of the things being discussed," he said.

 

The senator who spoke to the Washington Examiner, who asked to remain anonymous, thinks colleagues could embrace repeal in the tax bill, because the revenue generated "pays for so many tax cuts."

According to the Washington Examiner, Trump cannot repeal the individual mandate through executive order, but he can broaden "hardship exemptions," which under Obamacare are left to the discretion of the administration. The exemptions allow customers to have ways to get out of paying the fine for not having coverage, which is $695 per adult or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is higher.

The Obama administration created hardship exemptions for a range of situations, including if someone filed for bankruptcy, experienced a flood, death of a family member, domestic violence or a shut-off notice from a utility company.

Of course, it"s only a matter of time until Nancy Pelosi and/or Chuck Schumer take a stage somewhere to tell us precisely how many people will die as a result of Republicans even talking about an "individual mandate" repeal.

Millennials Prefer Socialism To Capitalism

Donald Trump Jr. was right: It’s never too early to start teaching your kids about socialism. At least that’s what a survey published Thursday by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation appears to suggest.

 

I’m going to take half of Chloe’s candy tonight & give it to some kid who sat at home. It’s never to early to teach her about socialism. pic.twitter.com/3ie9C0jv2G

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) October 31, 2017

 

Because for the first time in the study’s history, the VCMF said a majority of millennials prefer socialism to capitalism.

But there’s one catch…

Only 34% of millennials could accurately differentiate between communism and socialism.

...and seven in ten couldn’t accurately define communism.

Considering the extent to which radical leftist idealism permeates contemporary college culture, the fact that millennials feelings toward socialism. It also should come as no surprise that 70% of millennials underestimated the number of victims of communism. Nearly half were off by 50 million or more.

Oddly, a small percentage of Americans view communist leaders like Joseph Stalin favorably, despite his massive body count.

But while millennials still harbor generally more favorable views about communist icons like Stalin and Che Guevara, their numbers have dropped since last year.

Despite President Donald Trump’s repeated attacks on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, only 60% of Americans are aware of the economic calamity taking place in Venezuela.

In summary, millennials, who now comprise the largest plurality of American voters and the largest generational cohort in the workplace, are decidedly more liberal than their older peers. Perhaps the fact that many millennials are too young to remember the Cold War has something to do with it. But one thing’s for certain, with polling showing Bernie Sanders to be the most popular politician in America, Nancy Pelosi and her corporatist cronies might see their grip on the party continue to weaken amid a resurgence of the American left.