News Roundup! Epstein, AG Barr, Manhattan U.S. District Attorney, Shareblue, PDJT’s Tweets, Rudy’s Tweet, Judicial Watch, Mayor Race In Spokane, WA, Steve Bannon On China, The Hunt, Joe Biden Thinks He Was VP During the Parkland Shooting In 2018, Richard Baris Warns Our President About Pushing Gun Control…..

I was absolutely shocked to wake up and find out that Jeffrey Epstein was dead. I believe in AG Barr. I believe he was as shocked as I was. I also believe he will get to the bottom of it and that the POSs involved in the abuse of kids at the hands of these animals will get the justice they deserve.

Larry Sanger co-founded Wikipedia. Seems like he had a come to Jesus moment after what happened today.

The Left, Democrats, MSM, Never Trumpers, Clintons etc. are scared about what they are seeing on social media today. They may have also been caught off guard with this statement put out by the Manhattan U.S. Attorney, Geoffrey S. Berman.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “Earlier this morning, the Manhattan Correctional Center confirmed that Jeffrey Epstein, who faced charges brought by this Office of engaging in the sex trafficking of minors, had been found unresponsive in his cell and was pronounced dead shortly thereafter of an apparent suicide.

Today’s events are disturbing, and we are deeply aware of their potential to present yet another hurdle to giving Epstein’s many victims their day in Court. To those brave young women who have already come forward and to the many others who have yet to do so, let me reiterate that we remain committed to standing for you, and our investigation of the conduct charged in the Indictment – which included a conspiracy count – remains ongoing.  We continue to urge anyone who feels they may be a victim or have information related to the conduct in this case to please contact 1-800- CALL FBI.”

The death of Epstein, who is directly connected to the Clintons, has triggered the maximum alert warning for “Avi” and the Shareblue community, as they dispatch urgent talking points for their social media army:

In #5 above “ROLCON” refers to role playing as a conservative.

Keep in mind that the “stalwarts” are those activists paid to go on-line into all social media platforms and defend the interests of the far-left ideology.  Epstein’s death has activated the need for an urgent crisis response from the political left.

Our President decided to rain on their parade by retweeting Terrence Williams tweet  and also BNL News.

Rudy also threw them for a loop with his tweet.

I was also so happy to see Tom Fitton tweet this out. He and his organization, Judicial Watch, are a gift from God.

We have a really good chance in November to flip a mayoral seat in Spokane, Washington.

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/aug/06/woodward-stuckart-take-lead-in-mayoral-primary-woo/

From the article linked above:

Woodward had 13,419 votes as of Tuesday night to Stuckart’s 11,805. Poole had 3,727, Bingle had 1,896 and Cruz had 774.

Woodward signaled early that she would hope to win over voters who backed Poole, Bingle and Cruz.

“I had to split the vote with three other people, and we came out ahead of Ben Stuckart,” Woodward said, suggesting that if she can bring their supporters on board, “I think we got this.”

Steve Bannon is absolutely right!

From the article linked above:

Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon was on CNBC and he explained the masterful manner with which President Trump is dealing with China.

The Chinese regime is in a precarious position and has only two choices.   They can either give the US what it wants or perish.

Bannon’s talk was historic.  He discussed how China is at economic war with the US.  He said America was losing until President Trump.  Then he said this –

Well here’s the game and right now we are converging on a point and they understand this.  We could take the whole thing down.  We can take, the whole thing’s built on a house of sand… 

If they [China] devalue their currency they are just going to flood more out.   They got $3 trillion of reserves and trust me, in a New York second that thing would flood out in a second.  That’s what their own people think about their economy.  We’ve allows these guys to push us around.  We’ve allowed these guys to take the South China Sea…

This trade war is going to end in victory and what you’re going to see is a reorientation of the entire supply chain out of China…

From the article linked above:

Assuming Trump makes good on his promise to tariff all China goods at 10% starting Sept 1, with the very real possibility of those tariffs hitting 25% soon after, then it looks like more companies will move their supply chain.

For a long time, China has been the world’s low cost, low regulation, manufacturer of choice. Even though multinationals would like to keep it that way, some 40% of U.S. companies are relocating at least some of their supply out of China, according to a May 2019 AmCham Shanghai survey.

“This shows the disruptive effect the trade war is having on supply chains. If new U.S. tariffs do take effect September 1, the increased tensions will likely accelerate the relocation trends we are seeing now,” says Kenneth Jarrett, a senior advisor at Albright Stonebridge Group, a Washington DC based strategic advisory firm.

American companies will either have to eat the margin, or find new suppliers. A year after the existing tariffs on some $250 billion worth of goods, and there has been no meaningful increase in inflation, or job loss. How long that can continue is anybody’s guess, but to date, tariffs have not had a significant impact on the U.S. economy. 

Universal Studios decided they will pull the film, The Hunt from being released.

From the article linked above:

In a statement released to Fox News on Saturday, a Universal Pictures spokesperson said: “While Universal Pictures had already paused the marketing campaign for The Hunt, after thoughtful consideration, the studio has decided to cancel our plans to release the film.

“We stand by our filmmakers and will continue to distribute films in partnership with bold and visionary creators, like those associated with this satirical social thriller, but we understand that now is not the right time to release this film.”

According to a source, “Universal insiders feel that doing the right thing was more important than releasing the movie because of the current climate.”

This is the Democrats front runner!

The problem for the Democrats is that they can’t under any circumstance have Bernie Sanders and to a lesser extent, Elizabeth Warren, win the nomination. In there perfect world it would be Kamala Harris. Tulsi Gabbard put a fork in her at the last debate.

From the article linked above:

Joe Biden said he was vice president when the deadly high school shooting in Parkland, Florida, took place. Except, it happened in 2018, more than a year after he left office — the latest gaffe by the Democratic presidential front-runner.

Biden told reporters in Iowa on Saturday that “those kids in Parkland came up to see me when I was vice president.” But when they visited Capitol Hill to talk with members of Congress, lawmakers were “basically cowering, not wanting to see them. They did not want to face it on camera.”

Richard Baris is someone I pay close attention to. In my opinion, he is the best in the business. He was right about our President winning Michigan in 2016 and the Democrats taking back the House in 2018 because of the failure of the Republicans in  repealing Obamacare.

He is warning our President and is backing it up with data from 11 battleground states.

 

 

216 thoughts on “News Roundup! Epstein, AG Barr, Manhattan U.S. District Attorney, Shareblue, PDJT’s Tweets, Rudy’s Tweet, Judicial Watch, Mayor Race In Spokane, WA, Steve Bannon On China, The Hunt, Joe Biden Thinks He Was VP During the Parkland Shooting In 2018, Richard Baris Warns Our President About Pushing Gun Control…..

  1. President Trump isn’t going to fall for the left’s gun control pressure. He knows the score.

    He knows very well that the gun control votes are not nearly as many as the 2nd Amendment votes – plus our President is a STAUNCH Constitutionalist!!!

    Liked by 12 people

    1. 1. I’m not sure what a “staunch Constitutionalist” is. Most commonly in my world that suggests a “libertarian”, which Trump certainly is not. Trump is a consummate politician who refuses to defined by any label as that requires conformity and predictability. For example, when I say “Rand Paul” you think “hard right – 2A doctrinaire, bad government”. Predictable much? You cannot be a consummate deal maker and accomplish as much as he has limited by anything other than pragmatism. Think Reagan.

      2. We think that Trump is simply letting the wake dissipate. He really hasn’t said anything of substance other than to indicate anything he supports will be “meaningful”. In the world of Trump “meaningful” is a double-edged sword and the deranged left better not wish too hard or they will end up OPPOSING a Trump-crafted plan that couples gun control to immigration and drug interdiction.

      Remember “Fast and Furious”? Gun running/smuggling and illegal sales is as prevalent and dangerous as drugs. The problem was and still is real. (Holder’s plan was “dufus”). What if “comprehensive immigration reform” in Trump World is really comprehensive must include illegal gun and drug trading? Trump will end up pitting every interest group in the Democrat party against each other internally in the runup to 2020. Then after he gets both houses and a landslide mandate watch the “train keep a’rollin all (term) long”.

      Liked by 14 people

      1. You are right. Trump’s philosophy is ‘get things done, make a win-win deal, but don’t give away or compromise the country.’

        Trump is staunch re: Constitutional jurisprudence.

        He is a pragmatist and deal-maker in the mode of Roosevelt when faced with the Prescott Bush/General Smedley Butler Plot of 1933. Roosevelt compromised and crafted the WPA, etc.

        Plot of 1933: https://twitter.com/shadygrooove/status/1069502285108002816
        LINK – whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/allwarsarebankerwars.php#ixzz3y8qxWMgC

        Liked by 4 people

        1. Not fencing with you, but I want to clarify how Trump is staunch in “Constitutional jurisprudence.” Does he respect SCOTUS, its decisions, the precedential impact of those decisions and the generational impact appointments have on our long-term survival as a constitutional republic: absolutely! But I think every president (except Obama and Roosevelt) has.

          Is he a staunch adherent to accepted DC norms regarding SCOTUS? Hell no. Ask Justice Roberts:

          “Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country. It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an ‘independent judiciary,”

          For decades, SCOTUS members have given sonorous speeches at august gatherings of sclerotic, phlegm-coughing lawyers making statements that have gone unchallenged. Not now. Trump doesn’t hesitate to call “bovine scat” on SCOTUS. After the aneurysms in DC are treated, what happens? Every judge is more honest and circumspect – even RBG was given to a non-partisan comment last week.

          Liked by 8 people

          1. Calling SCOTUS fallible isn’t unconstitutional. Sometimes SCOTUS has written law, not interpreted it. Sometimes SCOTUS needs to reject/redo its past decisions – and Sullivan vs NYT is a prime example.

            Our courts themselves have become too powerful – beyond their intended function – and distorted the balance of the three branches the founders intended.

            Liked by 6 people

            1. 1. It certainly is unconventional and runs over accept norms of deference.
              2. The growth in SCOTUS influence/power is due almost entirely by abdication of power by the legislative branch. Ultimately the legislature can enact ANY LAW that doesn’t offend the constitution. Take abortion. Only now the states have taken to asserting their individual interests. They finally realized that anything federal was never going to happen. To now the ridiculous unchecked RvW decision was unchecked by the legislative branch.

              The 3 branches are like water ballons. When they all have a pint of water in them they occupy equal space. Take water out of the legislative balloon and the court and the executive (DACA, executive orders) will fill the void. You can call it a grab but really it’s acquiescence.

              Liked by 7 people

              1. Very good points indeed. Of course, would not expect less from a conservative legal mind. So relieved to know that all Boston attorneys aren’t mentally deranged by leftist ideology!

                Liked by 5 people

              2. Boston born and bred. Southern by choice, philosophy and reality. They issued me a passport 5 years ago. Then there is the red hair, green eyes and that wondrous brain.

                Liked by 6 people

            2. For me I believe that SCOTUS over stepped with Roe Vs Wade..
              They never ever attempted to weight in the rights of the human being within the womb is so crazy to me.
              From one of the articles that I read after seeing a quote from Reagan.–So where are the rights of the human/person in the womb?

              Leading Law Journal: 14th Amendment Prohibits Abortion
              “By the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, the states widely recognized unborn children as persons. Twenty-three states and six territories referred to the fetus as a “child” in their anti-abortion statutes. Twenty-eight labeled abortion as an “[offense] against the person” or a functionally equivalent classification. In Ohio, the very same legislature that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly recognized abortion “at any stage of existence” as “child-murder.” Given that historical context, it’s clear that the public meaning of the term “person” in 1868 included prenatal life.”
              https://catholicvote.org/leading-law-journal-14th-amendment-prohibits-abortion/

              Liked by 5 people

              1. TY–I have always been against abortion except for in the rare cases of rape, incest and medical.
                Seeing Reagan’s quote really made me realize how flawed the abortion laws are legally. Reagan has several

                “Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
                Ronald Reagan .

                Liked by 8 people

              2. Nah–I will leave the numbers alone for now. But last I looked because of an abortion post, it was near 600,000.
                When you consider that NY & Calif are in the habit of not reporting that is really scary. That also means too many are using abortion as birth control.

                Liked by 4 people

        2. I was surprised how many held his bankruptcies against Trump.
          To me this was good….Our country someone who could get us out of deep debt. If Trump could become a Billionaire even after almost going belly up then he was the kind of man to have in WH.

          Liked by 3 people

      2. I love your #2 observation. That’s the way he has played the cards thus far. Trump learned strategy from his high school baseball and military school days, then from his father in real estate, then in NYC/Manhattan, then from professional card sharks when he owned casinos. The man has skills sharpened by the best experience and education.

        Liked by 6 people

      3. We must also appreciate Trump’s innate love of business and ability to balance hundreds of projects, businesses at once. He reads balance sheets, building contracts, tax returns all with hundreds of pages, like we read pulp fiction.

        He is thriving in, eating up the complex challenges of the Presidency of the USA!!!

        Liked by 7 people

      4. staunch adjective
        Definition of staunch
        1 : steadfast in loyalty or principle a staunch friend
        2a : watertight, sound
        b : strongly built : substantial

        Basically, a Constitutionalist is someone who believes the Constitution should be followed as written.

        A “staunch Constitutionalist” basically means someone whose opinions a leftist abhors to a degree that the leftist feels it necessary to try to slime them with name-calling and pejoratives, usually as a means to dismiss a person’s argument without logically engaging it.

        “He said he believes that the second amendment should be interpreted as written.”
        “Oh another Trumptard staunch Constitutionalist? Blech!”

        Liked by 7 people

      5. Big T, I completely agree with #2. President Trump gave no message of his intent to suppress our 2A rights.

        I appreciate Richard Baris’s analysis of Michigan, although he would have had more credibility with me if he’d listened more intently to our President’s words, and cast his stats in the framework of “here’s one reason President Trump will not err in stepping on 2A rights …”

        President Trump rightfully acknowledges each chaotic national event. He agrees something must be done. Immediately followed by both right & left piling on about what should/might be done. Time passes, and eventually we see what our President’s actual plan might be – anything from letting a do-nothing Congress flail … to vetoing absurd legislation … to an EO with teeth … to …

        The only thing predictable about President Trump is he is not a knee-jerker, and he focuses on longterm rather than shortterm.

        Liked by 5 people

        1. Think about the word “meaningful” as used by PDJT. It means “substantial, lasting and positive solutions to big problems.” He knows the biggest problem with guns is ILLEGAL guns (border and Chicago, NOLA etc). Guns are thus all tied up with immigration, child trafficking and drugs. Seems to me any constitutional, meaningful and long-term solution has to address all those issues. You certainly can’t solve guns in a meaningful, long-term way without the others.

          Once Trump frames “meaningful” that way, the Democrats will scatter and begin in-fighting amongst the tribes. The best part will be to watch the supposed few moderates get eaten by the left acid. (“I chould’a been a Republican”!).

          More importantly, Trump again will succeed in exposing ever more of the DC crowd for their naked selves – Dem, GOP, whomever. If something meaningful can get done, Trump will get it done. Otherwise he’ll keep busy wrecking China.

          Liked by 8 people

      6. The Supreme Courr has been ‘Anti-Constitution’ for 100 years or more starting with the trashing of the Commerce Clause that allowed the federal government to over step it’s authority.

        Other key decisions that were nasty:
        1. Getting rid of jury trials and substitution of trial by judges.

        2. ALLOWING Bureaucrats to WRITE LAWS instead of the legislature.

        3. ALLOWING ilegals to have ‘Anchor Babies’ when the parents are NOT TOTALLY subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. (Note that Mexico considers bothe the parent and the baby to be SUBJECTS of MEXICO.)

        “… Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

        Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

        The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

        The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby….Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment

        Liked by 7 people

          1. I posted a reply yesterday with Supreme Court cases and links but Word UNIMPRESSED Booted it. GRRrrrr

            I am out the door and gone most of the rest of the week.

            Like

        1. You calculate the coefficient of friction with formulae and advanced math. When I analyze constitutional law, I do legal math: I look to precedent and the constitution. As to #1, 2, 3 and 4 perhaps you could tell what cases you say stands for each polemic and then I could reply.

          Liked by 4 people

        2. I was trying to keep the comment short…

          1. Commerce Clause: Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

          “….The Supreme Court ruled in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) that even home gardens (in that case, a farmer’s growing wheat for his own consumption) are subject to federal laws that regulate interstate commerce. Economists and scholars have criticized this decision, but it continues to be cited and followed in Supreme Court rulings, such as those applying federal anti-drug laws to consumption of even home-grown medical marijuana…” — Hans Bader
          http://www.examiner.com/scotus-in-washington-dc/trojan-horse-law-the-food-safety-modernization-act-of-2009
          Hans says of himself:
          “…  As a lawyer, I am skeptical of this claim (I co-represented the prevailing defendant in the last successful constitutional challenge to federal regulation under the interstate commerce clause, United States v. Morrison (2000), one of only two cases in 70 years in which a challenge was successful). …”
          …..

          Beaurcrats writing laws:

          (A repost in part from: Mar 3, 2014
          From: 43. REGULATION AND THE CONSTITUTION #1, by Dr. Harrison Schmitt (former US Senator (NM), astronaut, geologist, #12 man on the Moon)
          “http://americasuncommonsense.com/blog/2011/02/01/regulation-and-the-constitution-1/

          “…It is now obvious that Congress got America into a real pickle when it agreed in 1933, as part of Roosevelt’s New Deal, to delegate law-making power to agencies under the control of the President. This unconstitutional and increasingly threatening situation became entrenched with the passage of the 1946 Administrative Procedures Act. APA set up the formal mechanisms for creating regulatory law outside any direct action by Congress….”

          The case, “Thomas E. Perez, et al., v. Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), et al.,” asked the Supreme Court to resolve the long-standing question of whether a federal agency seeking to propose new rules or significantly amend existing ones must engage in the notice-and-comment procedure prescribed by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The APA requires agencies to publish a notice of proposed rule-making in the “Federal Register” and entertain comments from interested parties before promulgating ‘Rules’ that are THEN treated as LAWS. This was the 1/2 assed response to the oversteping by executive bureaucracies.

          ……
          The whole notion that an UNELECTED, UNFIRABLE group can WRITE LAWS, I find very offensive.
          ……

          The Fiction and Tyranny of “Administrative Law” : http://www.friesian.com/fiction.htm

          ….An analysis by The Wall Street Journal of hundreds of decisions shows how much of a home-court advantage the SEC enjoys when it sends cases to its own judges rather than federal courts. That is a practice the agency increasingly follows, the Journal has found.

          The SEC won against 90% of defendants before its own judges in contested cases from October 2010 through March of this year, according to the Journal analysis. That was markedly higher than the 69% success the agency obtained against defendants in federal court over the same period, based on SEC data.

          ………..

          “In-House Judges Help SEC Rack Up Wins,” Jean Eaglesham, The Wall Street Journal, May 7, 2015, A1, color added

          Speaking of due process, what about MetLife’s argument that the [Financial Stability Oversight] council’s “unprecedented structure — which lodges investigative, prosecutorial and adjudicative functions in the same individuals — is incompatible” with the Constitution’s separation of powers?

          No worries, mate. “The alleged ‘blending’ of executive, legislative, and judicial funcitions of which MetLife complains is typical of administrative agencies,” says the government.

          ………..
          Jury Trials,and Jury Nulification of a law.
          ……….

          The citizens RIGHT to judge both the accused AND THE LAW is critical because it allows citizens the final say on laws and regulations. Therefore it was absolutely necessary for the ruling class to demolish this right. They did so by:
          (a) First making sure jurors are not informed of their rights and duties as jurors. (see Fully Informed Jury Movement)
          (b) Second by giving bureaucratic departments a ‘within house Judicial Tribunal’ that replaces the trial by jury, as well as complex ‘regulations’ no one can understand. In this way the Supreme Court intentionally trashed the Constitution and Amendment VII.

          “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved….” ~ Amendment VII

          Pretty darn clear isn’t it? But the Supreme Court didn’t think so.

          So, the 6th and 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 3 Section 2 give US citizens the right to a trial. As Joan Biskupic stated:

          “Anyone accused of a crime in this country is entitled to a jury trial.”

          The Constitution may say so but, in fact, this is simply not the case — and becoming less so as politicians fiddle with legal definitions and sentencing standards in order specifically to reduce the number of persons entitled to a trial….

          ….As Thomas Jefferson put it to Tom Paine in a 1789 letter, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” ….
          http://prorev.com/juries.htm

          SEE: http://www.copblock.org/29691/what-is-jury-nullification/

          Here is how the politicians have gotten around the US Constitution to make sure citizens are denied their right to a trial:

          The Seventh Amendment, passed by the First Congress without debate, cured the omission by declaring that the right to a jury trial shall be preserved in common-law cases… The Supreme Court has, however, arrived at a more limited interpretation. It applies the amendment’s guarantee to the kinds of cases that “existed under the English common law when the amendment was adopted,” …

          The right to trial by jury is not constitutionally guaranteed in certain classes of civil cases that are concededly “suits at common law,” particularly when “public” or governmental rights are at issue and if one cannot find eighteenth-century precedent for jury participation in those cases. Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (1977). Thus, Congress can lodge personal and property claims against the United States in non-Article III courts with no jury component. In addition, where practice as it existed in 1791 “provides no clear answer,” the rule is that “[o]nly those incidents which are regarded as fundamental, as inherent in and of the essence of the system of trial by jury, are placed beyond the reach of the legislature.” Markman v. Westview Instruments (1996). In those situations, too, the Seventh Amendment does not restrain congressional choice.

          In contrast to the near-universal support for the civil jury trial in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, modern jurists consider civil jury trial neither “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Palko v. State of Connecticut (1937), nor “fundamental to the American scheme of justice,” Duncan v. Louisiana (1968).
          http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/7/essays/159/right-to-jury-in-civil-cases

          No I am not a lawyer, but I can see how the original intent of the Founders has been twisted in the cases above.

          Since WE the People are REQUIRED to OBEY all these laws they should be SIMPLE, STRAIGHT FORWARD and written in plain English that ANYONE with a 6th grade enducation can understand.

          Like

      7. Sorry to interrupt what appears to be a fascinating conversation but I have a few comments to make.

        I let my NRA membership lapse. I can no longer support an organization who believes incremental steps toward removing the right to keep and bear arms is in line with the 2nd amendment. I know many others who have also done so. They do not believe in the 2nd amendment, they believe in keeping their revenue stream via corporate sponsorships healthy.

        I know many people who will not vote for Trump, or any presidential candidate, if he comes out with ANYTHING related to gun control. In fact, I know people who will not vote for him again because of the bump stock ban. If he takes ANY measure toward further curtailment of our 2nd amendment rights – other than curbing illegal weapons trafficking (and by that I don’t mean regular weapons that may have been stolen, I mean ACTUAL illegal weapons like fully automatic weapons etc) – he will lose enough votes in swing states that he will lose the presidency. I know, right at this moment, in rural America, who to call if I want an unregistered (to me anyway) gun. I could have one by the end of the day, tops. And I’m a law abiding citizen with a business and a reputation to protect. How many others with less on the line know even more people like that, have access to even more? How many off the record sales take place on a daily basis, among law abiding citizens with no criminal records?

        Drugs need to be de criminalized and legalized. People should be able to put into their bodies what they want. If they want to become addicted to oxycodone, that is their right and a physician’s license shouldn’t be put on the line because of someone’s addiction. We let people drink themselves to death, we let them smoke themselves to death, it should be no different for ANY drug. We waste so much money on a task that can never succeed – drug control. Just legalize them, tax them if you must, and let the chips fall where they may. I don’t notice gobs more people (per capita) dying from narcotics overdoses in Canada, and certain narcotics are available without a prescription.

        All the money wasted on gun and drug control could be put toward the illegal alien problem and beefing up the borders and do some ACTUAL good for our nation. Jobs galore would be created.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Apparently, letting your NRA membership lapse is a somehow a meaningful gesture. If you are so upset because Trump is about winning an election and not about pandering to a group that has no where else to go, find another candidate. In poker and in politics, it’s about risk analysis. To keep you happy in your one-issue world, he risks losing 50x as many votes in the complicated multi-issue world of “real politique.” In this regard you are no different from one-issue abortion opponents. In the end, they could not withhold their vote and not vote against a flagrant pro-abortion candidate. Pledges not to vote for someone 18 months before an election are as reliable as the weather this minute on Cape Cod. You’ll vote for Trump as the alternative will scare you too much.

          Liked by 8 people

          1. The one issue is related to many others, as you know. I am looking at a much larger picture, and incremental steps toward gun control only serve to assist those on the left would really like to see us disarmed and helpless, because all the rest of the agenda can be easily accomplished then.

            I am not a one issue voter. But this one issue, given the history of mass shootings in recent history, as well as the rise of blatant Marxism, is the key to many other issues. If he panders to the least common denominator on this issue he will lose them all, ultimately. I seriously doubt he is unaware of this.

            I have chosen to only vote for local and state candidates in the past, and there is no reason I would not choose to do that in the future. Voting for someone I can’t have confidence in is simply stupid and something a leftist would encourage.

            Unlike many on this page, I don’t care one way or the other about abortion, though I do think it shouldn’t be available as currently offered; it should never be used for birth control. It’s quite frankly irresponsible to use abortion as a method of birth control. It can affect a woman’s long term ability to actually carry a child to term if used in that manner.

            Perhaps those who will vote for Trump or not based on a single issue are ignorant. Perhaps they are not. I do know many things are at stake, and our cold civil war is only a few more matches from becoming a hot civil war.

            Liked by 1 person

              1. What isn’t amusing is the persistent apocalyptic bluster that self-righteous ideologues high-handedly peddle from a self-appointed perch of moral high ground that really is nothing more than an echo chamber. Guys like you don’t engage. You lumber into the middle of a discussion, claim to not want to break up “what appears to be” (speaking of condescension) an interesting discussion and then narcissistically jump on a soapbox to lecture all of us what is right, wrong and ignorant about all of our lowbrow opinions. That is the long version of your persuadability and social graces.

                Liked by 3 people

        2. I strongly disagree about the drugs – people who use/abuse halucinogens, etc. are a danger on the roads, detriment to society since they can’t/won’t work (slaves to their addictions), and become an expense/burden to society.

          I would agree to official ‘drug addict communities’ – compounds where all the users can be discarded along with any and all drugs confiscated by law enforcement. Let them do their own maintenance, housekeeping, law enforcement, grow their own food or depend on what their families toss over the fence in care packages to keep them alive….but take away their cars so they can’t hurt each other. Let them ride bikes, skate, skateboard or use those segway scooters.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. LOL and people who abuse alcohol are not a danger on the road? Please. Alcohol is quite possibly the most dangerous drug available legally in terms of human suffering. Yet it’s legal and anyone can purchase it as long as they’re over the legal age. Your logical contradiction based on your early religious training is showing. People don’t drive when they’re doing hallucinogens, as a general rule. How can you enjoy the trip when you have to concentrate on the road?

            Liked by 1 person

            1. SO – throw the entrenched unrepentant alcoholics in the same compound with the druggies. Let anyone who wants to ‘go straight’ come out and prove it.

              NOPE – not based on early religious training. My intolerance of addicts due to family with divorced ‘functional’ alcoholic smokeaholic parents.

              And just happened to hear people freaking out on drugs when I was in graduate school….and have seen families destroyed by addicts and seen addicts destroying themselves.

              Most recently I saw a beautiful young woman go from gorgeous to hideous – a crone- in a year or less….meth, it looked like.

              Liked by 3 people

            2. You really need to stop making assumptions about my and other folks reasons for disliking addicts being in mainstream society. They are a public danger and a nuisance.

              Liked by 3 people

              1. Your dislike of addicts in no way gives you the right to legislate morality. A drug is a drug is a drug and this puritanical wringing of the hands about mushrooms, meth, marijuana, heroin, etc while continuing to ignore tobacco, sugar, and alcohol is just mind boggling. If one is legal then they all should be legal. You do not have the right to insist that young woman be responsible unless you are paying her way.

                I am married to the child of alcoholics. I can see quite clearly the damage it does. I saw alcoholics destroy themselves when I was growing up. I have watched people die of asphyxiation and drowning in their own fluids because of smoking. I’ve watched people destroy their bodies with sugar, and suffer heart attacks and amputations. I’m still not going to go out and try to convince people that sugar, alcohol and tobacco should be illegal because SOME people use them irresponsibly (and we could have a second discussion about whether ANY use at all would be deemed irresponsible).

                Frankly I am appalled at how the nanny state has pervaded even these aspects of life. We are endowed by our Creator with the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. If this includes drugs and substances now considered illegal, so be it.

                Liked by 1 person

              2. That’s your opinion – it’s not morality when the addicts are a public endangerment and plus a drain on the public purse. Let ’em have their own happy little commune.

                I have the right to my opinion. Just as you have yours.

                Liked by 2 people

              3. That’s your opinion and I think I can safely make the assumption that you have never done them to even know. How much money do these legal drugs cost us as taxpayers every year? In comparison with illegal drugs?

                Like

              4. If you are a drug addict, you are a public nuisance in an apartment building when you lose control and burn down the building. You are a problem to society when your heroin habit becomes too costly and you steal, rob or sell sex to support your habit. You should be happy if you put you in a ‘drug haven’ and throw all those drugs in with you. Why are you complaining with a small matter of incarceration unless/until you decide to go clean??? ;->

                Liked by 2 people

              5. I am not an illegal drug user and your idea is frankly ridiculous. Alcoholics and smokers burn down houses all the time but no one suggests reservations for them. Changing consciousness by use of substances – caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, sugar, mushrooms, xanax, Norco, oxycodone, etc has been done since the beginning of time. ALL mammals will alter their consciousness with substances if given the opportunity to do so. Don’t believe me? Look at cats and catnip.

                Liked by 1 person

              6. I didn’t mean you personally – I meant it rhetorically. Look, you are defending drug use – and I’m tired of the topic. I’m through.

                Liked by 2 people

              7. In your opinion. In my opinion, and based on statistics, mushrooms are not that great a public safety issue. In fact, statistically speaking, they are a non issue. What makes it a public safety issue is the fact that you’ve created a black market and de facto criminals by making it illegal.

                Liked by 1 person

        3. Mentioned a book called smoke and mirrors. Excellent read on this topic. The big stipulation that I have is that drug use or impaired judgment due to the influence of drugs can NOT be a mitigating factor in any crime UNLESS it wasn’t self administered ie spiked drink

          Liked by 3 people

            1. You’ve read it?
              Joe bonanza, one time godfather in New York, like capo de capo, said the best thing that ever happened to the mob was prohibition. Turned a small operation of strictly Italian predation into a monster and allied them with the other crime groups.or death match rivalry. It was a bonanza. They got organised in different cities , set up supply runs etc.
              The difference between your corner store and Walmart

              Liked by 1 person

              1. My family lived it, on both sides. My grandparents on my father’s side and my great grandmother on my mother’s side were business associates during Prohibition running alcohol from Chicago to Toledo. 🙂

                Liked by 1 person

              2. From the south it was how stock cars started I believe. Supply and demand. Criminalise something and the criminals make a killing

                Like

      8. Potus Trumps tweets are like when a matador trails his cape on the ground then flutters it at an already enraged bull. You watch the bull, (dems and other assorted idiots), will charge, miss and get another sword through the shoulder blades. This Potus……he plays for blood.

        Liked by 3 people

    1. When I read the ROLCON business I immediately thought about the steady slide or devolution in the commentariat OT. The principal reason l left was because of this activity and now it has a name, ROLCON

      Liked by 19 people

        1. Multiple likes regarding ROLCON over on the other side of the forest….and possibly one or two closer by. As been said about many other topics, now that we are becoming “awoke”…once you see them you cannot unsee them.
          Wolf, and others here, are far better seeing below the surface into the subtle layers of deception than I am … but I’m learning. Actually, it’s somewhat sad but that’s a discussion for another day.
          Thanks Wolf and all the thoughtful writers here for your guidance along this journey.

          Liked by 9 people

      1. This is where the fabled “Overton Window” comes in.

        When the troll farms such as ShareBlue set out to destroy or disrupt a blog or whatever, they often send trolls in as pairs (I call them “Bookends”), with one (or more) pushing a far-left view point, and the other (or more) pushing what appears to be a far-right or at least right-wing viewpoint “countering” that.

        Over time, or pages, or posts, the supposedly right-wing poster, who has gained a loyal following in the meantime, has moved gradually to the left. The left-hand poster(s), might or might not move leftward, but usually do as well. This, of course, results in the entire dialog having moved left, almost unnoticeably. The damage is done, and if by experts, no one notices, except that somehow the forum has changed.

        I’ve seen this happen on many fora, starting with Twitchy and even Breitbart and various climate sites, but OT seemed to get hit pretty hard, too. Though I think there was more to that… Even “The New American” has resident trolls, and even a “Latter Rain” poster (Lookin’ at YOU, Ted)…

        I wonder if we Deplorables have as many resources, or are using them, to defend the territory (mindscape) that the left is stealing from us? We don’t have to, nor should we, stoop to their level, or misrepresent things, but we should be able to go to the “intellectual mat” with them and WIN based on facts and the TRUTH…

        Liked by 6 people

        1. As with many of the things we seek to defend against the left, they have one distinct advantage. It is far easier to tear something down than it is to build it.

          Liked by 4 people

          1. Yeah, far easier to tear down and if you’re not a prog/ commie you’ll never match their “glee factor” in deriving satisfaction from the increments of disrupting their enemy. You have better things to do. For them, their ideology is their only religion. Marx and Alinsky would approve

            Liked by 4 people

          2. They have another very great advantage.

            Conservatives are REAL INDIVIDUALS with INDIVIDUAL VIEWPOINTS. As Brock/Shareblue showed the LefTrolls are PAID, in LOCK-STEP EMPLOYEES, who have PROFESSIONALS writting their scripted points for them. They are PLENTIFUL and RELENTLESS and have TIME. They are the Professional Team going up against part time amateurs.

            Is it any wonder that they can trash a site?

            Is it any wonder President Trump is going after the $$$$

            Liked by 6 people

    1. Yes Thank You Flep—
      Really enjoy your news roundups..
      Today’s news does make me realize that it was not that long ago that it seemed that weekends were a bit more quiet.
      Used to be there was some type of Friday fiasco, and then not much happened until Monday. (oh there was the usual Chicago mess–sad to state it that way…)

      Liked by 3 people

    1. Is this why our weekends are no longer quiet…Is this the way that the left wants to deflect us from the real truth of their corruptness?

      Liked by 5 people

    2. Red — thought I should tell you that I stole/borrowed/confiscated or however you want to say it your meme…
      it is loved… by many already

      Liked by 5 people

  2. I become used to the head fake from President Trump.
    Remember when we thought he was going to pick Mitt Romney for Sec of State?
    OMG, the base had a meltdown.

    Then, on immigration, remember the timeline:
    October 2017 – he gave Congress 6 months to work it out.
    January 18-23 of 2018 – Trump announced he would put DACA for 1.8 million pathway, 10yr citizenship on the table. The base had a meltdown. Schumer made his proposal look like 25 BILLION but it was not funded and guaranteed, Trump turned it down, “Shithole comment”, and Schumer shut down the government for 3 days….. Remember?????

    The 6 month arbitrary deadline of March 3rd, which was a deadline picked by Trump (therefore he was the only one who could change the deadline) was avoided as the 9th Circuit swept in at the last minute and saved the Dems. Remember???

    For immigration, we then began a game of cat and mouse with the lawfare boys. The BOrder Wall has taken longer than we thought, and Mexico, faced with a Hobson’s Choice, is helping the President more than the Dems.

    But everytime the base thinks President Trump will “cave” or not get 100% of what we want, the base has a knee jerk reaction. One would think we would know better by now. How often have we been sheepish when we learned….. everything was fine. Marica’s 48 hour rule, or Scott Adams 24hr rule to clarify a comment, or Daughn’s 24hr rule for sending an angry email…….. applies. This President has not sold us out, yet. The only error I see is Ryan/McConnell “don’t worry, you’ll get your border wall funding after the midterms.”

    Enter the discussion of 2nd amendment and gun control.

    Did anyone else think it was ODD when President Trump said, paraphrasing, “Yeah, I would like to see something MEANINGFUL on background checks and immigration.”
    Of course, the two issues are not at all related. Why would anyone thing the two issues should be tied together?

    Obviously, there is something going on….., we should know better by now. Sept 10th is a whole month away. Our side should/ needs to communicate the outrage, but there is something going on here.

    Liked by 20 people

    1. The base having a knee-jerk reaction is good, b/c it fires up an opposition and gets the word out into the conservative conscious.

      The MCM WILL NOT do it! Trump effectively deputized the base to engage social media when he does this.

      Meanwhile the Dems are stupid. The should jump to agree with him, but they won’t let him have the win.

      Trump always wins because he exposes the fact that they don’t really want a deal – they take extreme positions because they don’t want him to “win”!

      Say what you will about politics, but it is a team sport, and Dems have shown that they can’t overcome differences and play on the team, even if everything is staged in their favor!

      Liked by 8 people

    2. ““Yeah, I would like to see something MEANINGFUL on background checks and immigration.”

      Read that as a stand alone.

      And it comes out MEANINGFUL background checks OF immigrants….

      Remember it is NON-AMERICANS who are the VAST MAJORITY of MURDERS.

      Liked by 4 people

  3. “The Hunt”?

    It’s outrageous! Everyone is asking “What were they THINKING?!”

    That’s the wrong question. They should be asking:

    “WHAT were they thinking…”

    This movie was not produced by accident… it was 100% vetted and 100% intentional.

    Anyone who thinks a movie studio would blow $18M+ on a film and NOT have these kinds of questions raised is totally kidding themselves.

    They had a reason. They got the money. Full production was approved. Don’t tell me it was an accident.

    Because it was NO ACCIDENT.

    Liked by 11 people

    1. Just the thought of anyone even putting the effort into a movie such as that totally sickens me.
      Yet on the other hand, it really shows the depth of the vile hate that is carried by those on the left.
      Scary, isn’t it…

      Liked by 5 people

      1. I have seen a James Bond Movie before where they hunted people but that was different the good guy won.
        The problem as I understand is pitting the elites against deplorable and they elites engaging in a sport of hunting.
        I think that deranged .

        Liked by 4 people

          1. It was made to make money. That’s why Hollywood makes movies.
            This was just a case of very bad timing. The producers had no idea we’d have 3 mass shootings just ahead of the movie’s scheduled release.

            I remember when the corny movie “The Pope Must Die” was retitled to “The Pope Must Diet” and released about a year after the assassination attempt on the Pope.

            Liked by 4 people

    2. Perhaps theatrical release was never the goal. Just as the book deals prominent liberals obtain after leaving government service, perhaps the purpose of buying the manuscript and hiring the producers and actors and camera men was to move money to people the financiers wish to support.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. My opinion, open to other possibilities, is that the chicom investors gave money and directives at the top to do it, more than the $18M+ budget, and if we got the details behind THAT transaction… let’s just say it would “embarrassing” to the studio…

        The chicoms would have wanted a dramatic propaganda film like this pushed out, but being culturally provincial and not understanding how heartland U.S. works, they would main the usual mainland China assumptions about how it would be received. IOW, they assume that Americans in flyover states are no different from the billion or so Chinese peasants. So of course it was bound to backfire.

        Of course there could be much more to this story, and there probably is b/c the studio heads had to know they were playing with radioactive nuclear waste to produce this film. Maybe they were banking that making this film they would get on the China money gravy train for the foreseeable future. But to me this is the simplest, most straightforward explanation for what happened.

        Which still raises a lot of uncomfortable questions about the relationship of the studios / studio heads / Mainland China.

        Liked by 4 people

    1. It is concerning that these events could be a precursor to having “other substances” used. It needs to be stopped. Is it not considered assault on an officer to throw any substance or object at them while in uniform?

      Liked by 8 people

        1. No matter the situation you do what they say..
          Yes, I have had a few rude ones, but it was “Yes Sir’ all the way.
          When all was done, then I went to court or the station to give my 2 cents.

          Liked by 4 people

            1. now you are being a bit ridiculous,
              but I have had two stops in my 50 plus years of driving that the officers were bad cops in my opinion.
              One I can remember the tears streaming down my face thankful that it was dark and he could not see them…

              Liked by 4 people

  4. President Trump gives some ‘straighten-up-and fly-right love swats’ to Anthony Scaramucci this morning on twitter.

    62,960,688 followers – 10:45 am – 8/11/19

    Time to start the countdown to 63 MILLION!!!

    Liked by 8 people

    1. You have to remember that probably about 10% or ?? are the haters…You know the ones always making hateful vile comments on his posts, regardless of what Trump says.
      I would make a bet that if Trump came out and said he was mailing a $1000 dollar bill to every household in America that was gotten from his personal account there would still be the haters.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. The fastest increases were election night and Inauguration day! It’s slowed down a lot since the fight with twitter and social media has gotten in full swing. As PDJT says, they make it hard. They’ve purged his followers twice as many as 80K and subtracted 328,620 on 7/13/18. Total of 671,818 purged in 2018-19

        Liked by 4 people

  5. I’m not a researcher but I know some of you are. Patriot’s Soapbox just tweeted this link, and it looks like it could be a key to unlock a big door. Is this what Q refers to when he writes “you have more than you know”?

    Liked by 4 people

      1. I disagree, andy – when they need a Mafia guy to squeal on the others – they ‘kill’ him – put him in witness protection – and get what they need to put other guys away…this is how they work – behind the scenes – there was a story on Criminal Minds – I believe – about one such mafia guy who was put in witness protection – art imitates life – you know…not as far-fetched as you think – imho

        Liked by 2 people

        1. That would be one wide ranging conspiracy since it was reported many jail guards came forward to support the fact he committed suicide. If only one of them were to rat out the others, the conspiracy would be exposed.
          I enjoy good conspiracy movies as much as anyone else, but I can separate truth from fiction. He’s dead. Accept it or not.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. You believe the jail guards – the ones that were told to take a ‘maintenance’ break?

            After the first attempt on his life – the game plan changed – imho – for all we know – he could have been moved to another facility after the first attempt – and a body double (which many think did not match) could have replaced him…this could all have been planned – and orchestrated by the media and ds operatives…I cannot prove it – and we may never be able to prove it – but, I think he is alive – and someone else left in his place – also – where did an inmate get a ‘rope’ for the first attempt – and why did he allegedly tell the guards someone was trying to kill him – too many unknown unknowns, andy – a high profile inmate would not have the ‘means’ to harm him/herself…but hey, that is just what I think.

            Liked by 2 people

    1. LOL! President Trump hides from nobody. He moved out of The White House because it is being redecorated and he didn’t want to be around all the noise and activity that entails.
      And he didn’t want to go to Trump Tower due to all the security measures that would be set in place in a large radius around the building. Entire city blocks would be closed off and businesses inside that circle would be very negatively affected.
      This is just more Trump bashing.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. I am sure what you are saying is a strong possibility – however – they could be having high-level meetings in a SCIF, too – not Trump bashing at all – just another perspective – personally, I do hope he is enjoying his family and some golf with friends – would not rule out ‘sleep’ either – but, I understand he does not need much of that – isn’t it odd to see a President spend his entire Christmas break in the WH – and not take a trip somewhere for fun – ever other month? We are blessed to have him as our President – with a sterilized WH, too! God Bless President Trump!!!

        Liked by 3 people

  6. The poster of this video is right it needs to go viral.

    “I Am the Majority” Mark Robinson addresses Greensboro City Council on gun show ban

    Here is the Youtue version

    Liked by 3 people

  7. It was a no-brainer that Epstein wouldn’t survive in his cell. I am – always was – far more concerned about Ghislaine. Where is she now, and what will our “appalled” Feds do to keep her alive?

    Liked by 6 people

      1. Small ponds with big gators lead to hungry gators. Hungry aggressive gators.

        I swam in a large double lake with the gators as a child, but we knew they had lots of fish to eat and we also knew we needed to make a lot of racket and not bring our dogs to swim.

        Just like we knew you need to make a lot of noise in the woods to warn the rattlesnakes to get out of the way.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Smaller pond=larger croc. They own everything that comes to drink. Not interested in fishies. Leave them for freshies.(freshwater crocs with sharp, fish grabbing teeth as opposed to big meat grabbing teeth)

          Liked by 2 people

    1. I usually agree with the Judge but this time Nope Nope
      She is playing into the hands of the left…Red Flag Laws would be abused and mis-used by the left.
      Top 10 benefits of Red Flag Laws for your government controllers.
      1: No more need for a pesky warrant.
      2: No need for actual evidence.
      3: Anyone can make a false claim and have your rights removed for any reason.
      4: A great way to get back at people you don’t like.
      5: Guilty until proven innocent.
      6: Will prevent people with real problems from seeking help.
      7: Most efficient way to degrade the second and the fourth amendment at the same time.
      8: The fear will keep your ex in line.
      9: People with no mental health background can order lethal SWAT raids.
      10: Simply designate your political opponent’s rhetoric as “unstable hate-speech” and you may efficiently disarm and or harm them.

      NOT ONE MORE INCH

      Liked by 5 people

      1. I was taken aback, k – however – she is a former prosecutor – and judge – and NY has already clamped down – first, the Safe Act – nothing safe about it – now, it is something else – not sure what – the NY guys would know – in addition – NY has more psychiatric hospitals than you can shake a stick at…she is concerned about unstable people having guns – she also said she served to approve pistol permits and the like – unfortunately, it is really easy to declare a person ‘unstable’ – especially, if they do not agree with you politically – in a blue state –

        My concern is the wrong people will be denied – and someone like the Dayton shooter will not – as was the case –

        Gaetz was saying it should be up to the states – and she wants a ‘universal’ law – I think – we should never entrust another human being with our mental health – imho – let alone someone in the pseudo-psychological sciences – they are the real whackos! Look at the alleged El Paso shooter – his father has been on meds most of his adult life – and yet – he makes determinations about others – and the whacky pseudo sciences are his specialty…makes one wonder if he experimented on his son.

        Liked by 6 people

        1. Red Flag will end up like the “Me Too”
          Say I don’t agree with you duchess, so I’m going to say you’re a threat…its too ifish especially in this current political climate…

          H3LL just look at what Tommy Lees threat to conservatives which is still on Tweeter H3LL he is only one of millions that seem to believe that way.

          https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/08/08/rocker-tommy-lee-warns-trump-supporters-were-going-to-pay-you-back-so-fcking-hard-for-all-this-sht/

          Liked by 4 people

          1. I agree – anybody can say anything about you – and cause you problems even if it is not true – I read somewhere they can charge a person with a misdemeanor if they accused you wrongly – seems to me – that is too little too late…

            Liked by 3 people

            1. All one has to do is look at some of the FB drama between some families & couples.
              Can’t tell you the times I have told people to step back away from the computer.

              Liked by 5 people

  8. As I said in my tweet—Looks like one Judge knows how to use common sense
    Deerfield man no longer facing felony charges
    https://www.uticaod.com/news/20190805/deerfield-man-no-longer-facing-felony-charges?fbclid=IwAR1hegSLh-iCtLbUFlZKMzftafIIhfRVnBeMnarbzN3DIBZJSLNi-peB2FE

    Liked by 4 people

  9. This was one of the other people that has been kissing up to Trump that I do not trust still..
    Damn, in my opinion he just buried himself. He would have been better to have not say anything.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. Getting back to Red Flag Laws, did you know the state of Connecticut had a Red Flag law in place before the Sandy Hook child murders? This mass murder took place in 2012 and despite several “red warning flags” about 20 year old Adam Lanza, he still had access to several guns at home. The first person he murdered was his mother who had bought the guns for him.
    Connecticut is a very strict gun law state, yet this mentally challenged creep could still get his hands on guns and ammo. So don’t tell me further restrictive gun laws “will stop these mass murders”. They won’t.

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/disturbing-things-learned-today-sandy-hook-shooter-adam/story?id=27087140

    Liked by 4 people

    1. nothing is going to keep guns out of criminals. OK only one thing but it would be the most impossible thing to happen….Someone just goes zap &* no more guns left on earth… hmmm

      Liked by 2 people

    2. andyocoregon
      The red flag does not work for the most part because parents do not want to face the fact that their kids needs mental help. They see it as a stigma and they want their kid to be perfect. Some problems are ignored until something terrible happens.
      I know it is hard and parents feel like a failure but today it is ok to see a psychiatrist with your kids for help not too is failing the child.
      Still no one apology from the parents of the young adults who shot all those innocent people. They owe us all an apology specially the people who are still suffering and those survivors whose family got shot.
      We all have gone through much specially President Trump. Those people have a responsibility.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Actually the parents of the El Paso killer have publicly issued their profuse sorrow and apologies for their little brat.

        But parents can enable their mentally challenged teenagers in many ways and by far the worst way is buying them guns. In Oregon we had mass shooter Kip Kinkle who, in 1998 killed both his parents, then went to the local high school and killed two classmates and injured 25 others. His father bought him the rifle he used. They frequently went to gun ranges to shoot targets.

        And then there’s Adam Lanza who murdered 26 people, including children in 2012. That was called the Sandy Hook murders. His mother bought him the AR-15 he used to kill her. She kept the gun in a large gun safe, but the dummy gave him the combination so he had access to it in case someone broke into their home when she wasn’t there. Biggest mistake of her life.

        Dead parents cannot apologize. IMO, all parents should learn from the mistakes of others and not allow their teenager to have access to guns.

        Like

      1. LOL noted BUT I kind of like the element of surprise!!! 😀

        What’s next with Hollywood well they are losing $$$$$$

        On top of all that, the weekend will not help reverse the trend of 2019 trailing 2018. “Year-to-date box office was at $7.13 billion — down 6.5% as of Aug. 7, according to Comscore. Summer is even at $3.65 billion,” Variety wrote.

        https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/08/11/box-office-hobbs-shaw-fends-off-scary-stories-for-top-spot/

        Liked by 3 people

    1. Great comment on there, which would be well to remember, in terms of dealing with the lefturds and snowflakes (H/T Old Salt):

      “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.” – Bill Ayers, American Communist
      Obama’s mentor.

      Liked by 4 people

    1. And a view from the “Arkan cide” 🙂

      Dude… everyone is so surprised that Epstein committed suicide…

      just imagine how surprised he was…

      Liked by 4 people

  11. Had to share the this precious tweet

    Liked by 6 people

    1. They do have their religious freedom, as long as they don’t infringe on mine.
      However, if they are there to talk about how to kill Christians, instill Shara law and destroy America then they can go home.

      Liked by 4 people

            1. That was why I said However—There always seems to be an exception with them—With Muslims it their religion or you dead…
              Yes we have freedoms but they don’t want the freedoms for others.
              Hey I agree with you…

              Liked by 3 people

              1. I thank God we are still free to think and decide for ourselves – we must cherish that God-given freedom – and fight to keep it.

                Liked by 1 person

  12. Liked by 4 people

  13. “The Hunt”
    Thats some funny shit right there, these people dont know what they would face.
    I am what my people consider a swamp jumpin redneck hillbilly, I am a survivalist at heart, it was instilled in me at a young age.Most of my kin and their friends were Nam Vets and taught me well.
    What a joy it would be to be hunted by these elite fools, alot of us would be like Benjamin Martin in The Patriot we would be considered ghost.

    Liked by 4 people

  14. The Babylon Bee treats us to an hilarious spoof on Biden.

    Biden Clarifies: ‘I Like All Races, Even The Bad Ones’

    Joe Biden has apologized for his recent seemingly racist comment, where he said that poor kids are sometimes as smart as white kids. “Everyone who knows me knows I’m not a racist,” said Biden. “I even have a black friend, Barry. Smart, articulate guy.”

    Aides were then seen signaling him to stop talking, but Biden pushed on. “Rest assured,” Biden said. “I like all races, even the bad ones.”

    Media immediately jumped all over Biden’s comments, responding to his horrifying gaffe by calling on President Trump to resign.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s