Tax the rich?

Tax the rich? While the radical leftists in Dem party proposal appeals to our envy nature, it is HORRIBLY DESTRUCTIVE. Tax policies put forward by Warren and Sanders would discourage entrepreneurs from starting companies in the U.S., undermining the revenue-raising goal of the taxes..

The effect of having a net worth tax would take people that are starting companies and say, I'm not going to start them in America, but go somewhere else, because it's such a negative impact. Tax policies put forward by Warren and Sanders would discourage entrepreneurs from starting companies in the U.S., undermining the revenue-raising goal of the taxes. Like most Dem proposals, It would have the exact opposite effect of what you want to happen

Trump's amazing success in rebuilding our economy and confronting/killing the bad guys.. MAGA. ANYONE of the Dem candidates will screw this up and ruin it.

Trump's amazing success in rebuilding our economy and confronting/killing the bad guys.. MAGA. ANYONE of the Dem candidates will screw this up and ruin it.

     "The economy has added more than seven million jobs during the Trump presidency, and more than 2.4 million Americans have risen out of poverty. The unemployment rate is as low as it has been in a half-century, and the rates for African-Americans and Hispanics are lower than ever. Median household income hit a record $66,000 last year, and income inequality dropped sharply as the lowest earners got the largest proportional gains. More than two million prime-age workers have returned to the labor force. This jarring disconnect between the forecasts and the real Trump economy would be comical if the policy stakes weren’t so high."

     Democrats are impeaching a president with 51% approval, 3.7% unemployment, $5000 average wage increase for middle class families who just wasted the world's top two terrorists and sign two massive trade deals with Mexico, Canada and China. And oh yeah, Dow over 29,000. Polls show 30% Black support for Trump, a Democrat killer. Decade after decade of Black support for dems have gotten them zero. With Trump, record jobs. Illegal alien entry dropping fast.
Good luck.    

     Every Dem candidate says the economy is not working for the average guy. Except it is a LIE.
WSJournal editorial today
"It all sounds terribly grim. Except, well, the U.S. economy has been expanding for a decade, the jobless rate is 3.5%, and incomes are now rising faster for low-income workers than for their bosses. That includes a 5.9% annual increase for the bottom tenth of workers during the Trump Presidency, more than double the rate in President Obama’s second term. The bottom half of households have seen their net worth increase by 47% since the 2016 election, according to a report by the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

“By stressing growth, Trump has done more to reduce income inequality than did the Obama/Pelosi policies that stressed inequality over growth.” WSK

A late 2019 Quinnipiac poll found 57% of Americans said they were better off financially than in 2016 while 22% said they were worse off. A Fidelity year-end survey found 78% expect to be better off in 2020 compared to 2019.

The party out of power has to make the case for change. But the challenge for Democrats pitching carnage will be persuading Americans that they shouldn’t believe the economy they see with their own eyes."

1.    https://amac.us/trumps-roaring-economy-helping-old-and-young-men-and-women-majority-and-minority/?campaign=daily-news-email&fbclid=IwAR1IM_9AWhauYkUVCEmaXg4DB-BezQ0Gn86ED7_leHEVKexBKYkDZL5K6Ko

2.    Great China deal because of Trump’s negotiations https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2020/01/16/china_surrenders_to_reality_in_the_trade_dispute_498403.html

3.    Trump gets Black support https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-trump-earn-black-support-11579133622

4.    Unlawful entries have plummeted on his watch, even without...(the wall)." https://www.wsj.com/…/trump-neednt-bang-his-head-against-th…

Gun rights: not just for a militia

Liberals WRONG about meaning of 2nd amendment.

An acquaintance was expressing displeasure with my conceal carry class, and said "the 2nd amendment is not about our right to own guns. It is just for a militia." Now this was smart person but SO WRONG. I didn't want to argue because we agreed no politics. See the thorough analysis of the Founding Fathers and current law here.

BUT you should know. We absolutely have a right to own guns (until a Democrat wins and appoints anti-Constitultionalists to the Supreme Court.

April 5, 2018

Is the Second Amendment for Just the Militia?

By William Sullivan

Let's begin with the simplest of observations.  Our United States Constitution serves two distinct purposes. 
The first is to explicitly enumerate the powers and procedures of our nation's central government, which was defined as the three distinct bodies (which, by the way, two thirds of the high school students currently lecturing us about the Second Amendment cannot name) – the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial, with levels of authority descending in that precise order.

The second is to explicitly enumerate the limitations of that central government's power, which is the sole reason why our Bill of Rights exists.  The Constitution would not have been ratified in 1791 without the addition of these first ten amendments.  Therefore, our Constitution would not exist without the limitations to our central government's authority described therein.
Some miss this simplest of understandings. 
Take Brett Arends, who, in 2016 after the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, committed to a different argument at Market Watch.  He argues that the Second Amendment does not describe a "limitation" of the federal government's authority, as is commonly understood of each of the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights.  Rather:

The Second Amendment is an instrument of government.  It's not about hunting or gun collecting or carrying your pistol into a saloon.  The Founding Fathers left it up to us to pass sensible laws about all these things.  The Constitution is about government.

His argument as to the veracity of this statement is among the more laughable things you'll ever read.  He cites Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29, cherry-picking choice phrases from the essay, filling in the gaps with his own thoughts.  For example, Arend writes:

Each state militia should be a "select corps," "well trained," and able to perform "the operations of an army."  The militia needed "uniformity in ... organization and discipline," wrote Hamilton, so that it could operate like a proper army "in camp and in the field," and so that it could gain the "essential ... degree of proficiency in military functions."

Hamilton was explicitly arguing against a standing, full-time federal military, favoring "well-regulated" militias among the states to preserve liberty from a tyrannical federal government.  But Arend's logic appears to be based upon nothing more than an observation of the fact that a "well-regulated militia" is cited by both the Second Amendment and Federalist 29, so therefore, Federalist 29 must be making the case that the Second Amendment's purpose is to secure solely the militia's "right to keep and bear" firearms, not the right of "the people" as the Second Amendment explicitly states.  There is nothing more that binds Federalist 29 to Arend's claim.
Perhaps it's pertinent to note, however, that there are mountains of practical examples among Hamilton's contemporaries refuting that claim. 
Samuel Adams, in 1788 (the same year this Federalist Papers essay was published), said plainly that the "Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
James Madison, in 1789, said before the explicit language of the 2nd Amendment had been ratified (emphasis added) that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
George Mason, in 1788 to the Virginia Ratifying Convention: "I ask, sir, what is the militia?  They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
Even Hamilton, in Federalist 29, asserts the same.  It's pretty clear that Brett Arend missed a key point Hamilton makes in the essay. 
Arend offers that "Hamilton was scathing about the idea that the 'militia' could mean every Bob, Billy, and Benjamin with a musket," saying Hamilton wrote that a militia is "the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it."
But that's not the whole quote by Hamilton in Federalist 29.  It actually reads (emphasis added):

[A]n army of any magnitude ... can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline or the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and the rights of their fellow citizens.  This appears to me the only substitute for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, should it exist.

This is the sentence immediately before the one Arend references, which specifically cites that a "large body of citizens" – i.e., every law-abiding "Bob, Billy, and Benjamin" – should be both disciplined and armed with weaponry comparable to the "standing army," and that this is the "best possible security against [a standing army], should it exist."  Arend conveniently left that last bit out in his selective dissection of the essay, too.  Because that "standing army" does exist, and Hamilton's words are still relevant. 
Hamilton's prescription for liberty was explicit.  It describes an armed populace.  Never once does he say guns should be limited among law-abiding citizens by the federal government, the tyranny feared by the anti-Federalists, whom he was entreating or hoped to pacify with this essay.
Like the Second Amendment, Hamilton is describing the necessity of a "well-regulated militia" as a reason for an armed populace.  Given that a "well-regulated militia" will, at times, be necessary to "the security of a free State," "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" by the federal government. 
This is all easily understood and sensible.  Why is that wisdom disavowed by modern gun-grabbers, and worse, why are Hamilton's words being misrepresented? 
Leftists lost this battle long ago, because suggesting that the Second Amendment applies only to protect a "state-sponsored militia" and not "the people" was always a losing battle when fought on the grounds of reason.  The only way this "militia" boondoggle could succeed would be through revisionist assumptions about a "living Constitution" and judicial activism, not observation of history or honest appraisal of our Constitution's purpose. 
And thankfully, the Supreme Court abrogated all of that nonsense in recent years in the cases of Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago.
Look no farther as to why former justice John Paul Stevens (whose last case over which he presided was McDonald) recently penned an op-ed for the New York Times calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.  It is nothing short of surrender to the unmistakable logic of the Second Amendment's purpose.  For the sweeping gun regulation that the left demands to be found consistent with the Constitution, the Second Amendment must first be abridged.  And that will not happen anytime soon.
Like most gun rights advocates, I appreciate Stevens's honesty, and I welcome the left's efforts to try.
William Sullivan blogs at Political Palaver and can be followed on Twitter.

Let's begin with the simplest of observations.  Our United States Constitution serves two distinct purposes. 
The first is to explicitly enumerate the powers and procedures of our nation's central government, which was defined as the three distinct bodies (which, by the way, two thirds of the high school students currently lecturing us about the Second Amendment cannot name) – the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial, with levels of authority descending in that precise order.
The second is to explicitly enumerate the limitations of that central government's power, which is the sole reason why our Bill of Rights exists.  The Constitution would not have been ratified in 1791 without the addition of these first ten amendments.  Therefore, our Constitution would not exist without the limitations to our central government's authority described therein.
Some miss this simplest of understandings. 
Take Brett Arends, who, in 2016 after the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, committed to a different argument at Market Watch.  He argues that the Second Amendment does not describe a "limitation" of the federal government's authority, as is commonly understood of each of the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights.  Rather:

The Second Amendment is an instrument of government.  It's not about hunting or gun collecting or carrying your pistol into a saloon.  The Founding Fathers left it up to us to pass sensible laws about all these things.  The Constitution is about government.

His argument as to the veracity of this statement is among the more laughable things you'll ever read.  He cites Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29, cherry-picking choice phrases from the essay, filling in the gaps with his own thoughts.  For example, Arend writes:

Each state militia should be a "select corps," "well trained," and able to perform "the operations of an army."  The militia needed "uniformity in ... organization and discipline," wrote Hamilton, so that it could operate like a proper army "in camp and in the field," and so that it could gain the "essential ... degree of proficiency in military functions."

Hamilton was explicitly arguing against a standing, full-time federal military, favoring "well-regulated" militias among the states to preserve liberty from a tyrannical federal government.  But Arend's logic appears to be based upon nothing more than an observation of the fact that a "well-regulated militia" is cited by both the Second Amendment and Federalist 29, so therefore, Federalist 29 must be making the case that the Second Amendment's purpose is to secure solely the militia's "right to keep and bear" firearms, not the right of "the people" as the Second Amendment explicitly states.  There is nothing more that binds Federalist 29 to Arend's claim.
Perhaps it's pertinent to note, however, that there are mountains of practical examples among Hamilton's contemporaries refuting that claim. 
Samuel Adams, in 1788 (the same year this Federalist Papers essay was published), said plainly that the "Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
James Madison, in 1789, said before the explicit language of the 2nd Amendment had been ratified (emphasis added) that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
George Mason, in 1788 to the Virginia Ratifying Convention: "I ask, sir, what is the militia?  They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
Even Hamilton, in Federalist 29, asserts the same.  It's pretty clear that Brett Arend missed a key point Hamilton makes in the essay. 
Arend offers that "Hamilton was scathing about the idea that the 'militia' could mean every Bob, Billy, and Benjamin with a musket," saying Hamilton wrote that a militia is "the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it."
But that's not the whole quote by Hamilton in Federalist 29.  It actually reads (emphasis added):

[A]n army of any magnitude ... can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline or the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and the rights of their fellow citizens.  This appears to me the only substitute for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, should it exist.

This is the sentence immediately before the one Arend references, which specifically cites that a "large body of citizens" – i.e., every law-abiding "Bob, Billy, and Benjamin" – should be both disciplined and armed with weaponry comparable to the "standing army," and that this is the "best possible security against [a standing army], should it exist."  Arend conveniently left that last bit out in his selective dissection of the essay, too.  Because that "standing army" does exist, and Hamilton's words are still relevant. 
Hamilton's prescription for liberty was explicit.  It describes an armed populace.  Never once does he say guns should be limited among law-abiding citizens by the federal government, the tyranny feared by the anti-Federalists, whom he was entreating or hoped to pacify with this essay.
Like the Second Amendment, Hamilton is describing the necessity of a "well-regulated militia" as a reason for an armed populace.  Given that a "well-regulated militia" will, at times, be necessary to "the security of a free State," "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" by the federal government. 
This is all easily understood and sensible.  Why is that wisdom disavowed by modern gun-grabbers, and worse, why are Hamilton's words being misrepresented? 
Leftists lost this battle long ago, because suggesting that the Second Amendment applies only to protect a "state-sponsored militia" and not "the people" was always a losing battle when fought on the grounds of reason.  The only way this "militia" boondoggle could succeed would be through revisionist assumptions about a "living Constitution" and judicial activism, not observation of history or honest appraisal of our Constitution's purpose. 
And thankfully, the Supreme Court abrogated all of that nonsense in recent years in the cases of Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago.
Look no farther as to why former justice John Paul Stevens (whose last case over which he presided was McDonald) recently penned an op-ed for the New York Times calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.  It is nothing short of surrender to the unmistakable logic of the Second Amendment's purpose.  For the sweeping gun regulation that the left demands to be found consistent with the Constitution, the Second Amendment must first be abridged.  And that will not happen anytime soon.
Like most gun rights advocates, I appreciate Stevens's honesty, and I welcome the left's efforts to try.
William Sullivan blogs at Political Palaver and can be followed on Twitter.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/is_the_second_amendment_for_just_the_militia.html#ixzz6BNuZshyB
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/is_the_second_amendment_for_just_the_militia.html

Trump combats anti-Semitism on campus and the LEFT lies about it

Trump combats anti-Semitism on campus

Posted: 12 Dec 2019 01:21 PM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

Yesterday, President Trump signed an executive order that will enable the government to consider discrimination against Jews to be a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. This means that colleges and universities can lose federal funding if they fail to combat discrimination against Jewish students. Trump’s move is a response to the growing number of anti-Semitic incidents on our campuses.

To receive Title VI protection, Jews must be considered a nationality for purposes of federal civil rights law. If Jews are deemed only members of a religion, the protection doesn’t apply.

In response to word that Trump was going to sign this Executive Order, the New York Times complained that Trump was redefining American Jews as a separate nationality. Two of the Times’ most prominent reporters, Maggie Haberman and Peter Baker, said that “Mr. Trump’s order will have the effect of embracing an argument that Jews are a people or a race with a collective national origin in the Middle East, like Italian Americans or Polish Americans.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal picked up this ball and claimed that Trump’s move “smacks not only of what happened in the Soviet Union but also Nazi German.” Thus, did Blumenthal, a known liar, try compare an order to protect Jews from anti-Semitism to Nazi Germany.

But Yair Rosenberg of Tablet pointed out that the underlying rule here adopts an Obama-era distinction that protects Jews as a nationality because racists view them this way. Slate’s Mark Stern, a liberal, said “the order’s interpretation of Title VI — insofar as the law applies to Jews — is entirely in line with the Obama administration’s approach.” He added, “the New York Times absolutely blew this story.”

Mainstream Jewish advocacy groups like the Anti-Defamation League praised Trump’s measure, thus further giving the lie to Blumenthal’s alleged concern.

Some critics have raised a more substantial concern about using Title VI to combat anti-Semitism on campus — the possibility that doing so might infringe on free speech, including speech about Israel. When the government threatens to cut off funding to colleges based on what is said on campus, there is always the danger that free speech might be unduly curbed.

However, the left is fine with the government threatening to cut off funding to colleges that don’t act against alleged (and dubious) cases of racism, sexism, etc. Thus, it’s difficult to take seriously the hand wringing over the possibility that the government will also act against campus anti-Semitism.

It’s worth noting in this regard that Trump has already signed an executive order protecting free speech on campus. This administration is far more solicitous towards the free expression of ideas on campus than its predecessor.

In sum, the latest executive order is a welcome way of addressing well-founded concerns about anti-Semitism and discrimination on campus. As with other executive orders, it’s possible that the government will interpret and enforce it in a over-bearing way. However, there is no reason to assume that it will.

Jihad at American

Abdul-Majeed Marouf Ahmed Alani JIHAD!!!!
An American Airlines mechanic accused of sabotaging a navigation system on a Miami flight with 150 passengers aboard pleaded guilty Wednesday to attempting to destroy the aircraft in a plea agreement designed to avoid a maximum sentence up to 20 years in prison.

“I do admit the guilt,” Abdul-Majeed Marouf Ahmed Alani, 60, said through an Arabic interpreter in Miami federal court.

evil Sanders

Sanders Calls Netanyahu ‘Racist’, US Should be ‘Pro-Palestinian.

What else do you need to know about that jerk? Oh, that he is actually a full blown communist trying to hide it?

Impeachment not historic at all

The rank dishonesty and maniacal partisanship underlying impeachment have made for a sorry spectacle. What can be said about the House triumvirate of Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, and Speaker Nancy “prayerful” Pelosi? Send in the clowns.

The Russia hoax collapsed in the senile display of Robert Mueller before the House Judiciary Committee on July 24. On July 25 President Trump had the congratulatory telephone call with Ukraine’s President Zelensky that somehow became the subject of a complaint submitted by a fake “whistleblower.” The fake whistleblower has remained anonymous for some reason. We all know who he is, although the Democrats’ have protected his identity more zealously than intelligence authorities protect top secret information. Send in the clowns.

As the Russia hoax was a pretext for undermining Trump, the Ukraine thing is an obvious pretext for the continuation. Both episodes are shot through with such dishonesty and bad faith it is no coincidence (as the Communists used to say) that Adam Schiff has been out in front of each. The prayerful Pelosi logically tapped Schiff to conduct and direct impeachment theater in the House even though the Intelligence Committee has at best a highly questionable role in it. Send in the clowns.

Fake History

Posted: 19 Dec 2019 11:33 AM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

Democrats and many of their media allies are desperate to characterize the impeachment of Trump as “historic,” rather than as approaching par for the course in our modern, hyper-partisan politics.

The fact that this is the third impeachment proceeding in the past 45 years, and that Trump is the third elected president of the past eight to endure one, undercuts the notion that this impeachment is momentous. However, Jonathan Allen makes a stab at it. He tweets:

Unprecedented: Trump now holds the record for most votes ever acquired on an article of impeachment at 230. He’s also No. 2 at 229.

Right, if we’re only talking about impeachments of presidents. But as Jim Geraghty points out, there’s less to this factoid than meets the eye. Much less.

When Andrew Johnson was impeached, there were fewer than 200 members of the House. His impeachment could not possibly have garnered as many votes as Trump’s did.

The vote to impeach Johnson was 126–47, with 17 members not voting. Thus, that impeachment had much more support than the current one.

Richard Nixon’s impeachment proceeding never came to a vote. Nixon saw that he would be impeached and that many Republicans supported this remedy. Accordingly, he resigned.

In any case, the Democrats controlled around 240 seats. Thus, even without a single Republican vote, Nixon would have been impeached with more than 230 votes.

This leaves only the Clinton impeachment. There, the article of impeachment for the crime of perjury garnered 228 votes. It didn’t gain more only because the Republicans held fewer seats then than the Democrats hold now.

More significant than the raw vote tally in the Clinton case is the fact that five House Democrats voted to impeach the Democratic president. Last night, no Republican voted to impeach the Republican president.

If the impeachment of Trump is historic, it’s because (1) there was zero Republican support for it and (2) there was no allegation that Trump committed a crime. These are historical firsts.

In the unlikely event that Nancy Pelosi declines to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, this impeachment will become a true historical oddity. No impeachment Congress has ever been dopey enough to refuse a Senate trial — not on any grounds, and certainly not on the grounds that the Senate needs to hear witnesses the House did not hear from due to its rush to get the impeachment over with.

If Nancy Pelosi wants to make history, that’s the way to do it.