Posted by Tina
What? Yeah…stay with me while I bring us up to date.
A gun used in the November 13, 2015 Paris terror attack has been linked to Fast and Furious, the gun running scandal that dates back to 2009 and a Phoenix, Arizona office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF). 2000 guns were intentionally sold to suspected criminals and the feds let the criminals and the guns cross the border into Mexico. They wanted to be able to trace the guns after they were sold to the drug cartels and some speculate ten use the issue to force gun control laws. Enter media spin and the story goes away.
A US Border Agent, Brian Terry, was later murdered with one of the FF weapons and soon we were made aware of hundreds of people in Mexico, including some related to government officials, that had also been murdered with these guns. Yes folks, the same guys that want to restrict legal gun purchase and ownership in America sold guns to criminals that were later used to kill people. And now one has shown up in Paris.
According to the New York Post Fast and Furious was a Justice Department program. After agent Terry was killed the scandal exploded. The Freedom of Information Act came into play and the obstruction game in Washington began. Stonewalling, media spin, talking points, the whole nine yards. By now we know the drill, you can read the particulars at the Post link.
Fast Forward to the investigations into the terror attack in Paris:
A Report of Investigation (ROI) filed by a case agent in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) tracked the gun used in the Paris attacks to a Phoenix gun owner who sold it illegally, “off book,” Judicial Watch’s law enforcement sources confirm. Federal agents tracing the firearm also found the Phoenix gun owner to be in possession of an unregistered fully automatic weapon, according to law enforcement officials with firsthand knowledge of the investigation.
The investigative follow up of the Paris weapon consisted of tracking a paper trail using a 4473 form, which documents a gun’s ownership history by, among other things, using serial numbers. The Phoenix gun owner that the weapon was traced back to was found to have at least two federal firearms violations—for selling one weapon illegally and possessing an unregistered automatic—but no enforcement or prosecutorial action was taken against the individual. Instead, ATF leaders went out of their way to keep the information under the radar and ensure that the gun owner’s identity was “kept quiet,” according to law enforcement sources involved with the case. “Agents were told, in the process of taking the fully auto, not to anger the seller to prevent him from going public,” a veteran law enforcement official told Judicial Watch.
It’s not clear if the agency, which is responsible for cracking down on the illegal use and trafficking of firearms, did this because the individual was involved in the Fast and Furious gun-running scheme. An ATF spokesman, Corey Ray, at the agency’s Washington D.C. headquarters told Judicial Watch that “no firearms used in the Paris attacks have been traced” by the agency. When asked about the ROI report linking the weapon used in Paris to Phoenix, Ray said “I’m not familiar with the report you’re referencing.” Judicial Watch also tried contacting the Phoenix ATF office, but multiple calls were not returned.
This, like most everything about the Obama administration, is totally messed up!
Stay tuned, folks, for more “executive privilege” claims by the Obumble admin . . . .
But it was heartening to hear that there are more Russians in ISIS than Americans, or even French.
Pooty made war on his Muslims. The French ghettoized theirs.
Now … will you stop making all those nasty Trumplike noises? There are consequences.
Quit lecturing me on “consequences.” We are suffering under the dire consequences of the Obama administration, a terror attack every year on his watch, the rise of ISIS and their established “state” within several countries, the spread of ISIS, hundreds of thousands of refugees flooding into Europe and the US because of lousy (nonexistant?) planning, inappropriate use of the military as a social engineering and climate change factory, decimation of the military (no parts to repair planes), an extremely sluggish economy affecting millions of Americans in terms of jobs, wages, and retirement, division and strife incited and promoted by the leader of our nation.
The consequences of electing Obama twice are all too real, Libby. Your flip attitude about it is disappointing given your nasty position at the end of the Bush administration.
And don’t you dare claim he “caused” the crash…we both know he was one of the few who kept warning the problem needed to be addressed and your party would not even consider it…we have the Barnie Frank video to prove it!
I can’t resist reporting, and my elitism doth show, 71% of Republican voters know what obnoxious means !!
Libby says, “Now … will you stop making all those nasty Trumplike noises?”
Possibly a solution for Lib’s, lets locate them in a sanctuary city such as San Fran,
Then the like’s of people like Libby can deal with the consequences that come with non vetted people that have no respect for Western laws and it’s infidels ,
They still have private access to weapons though unbridled criminal activity, a advantage over a anti gun public, they even benefit from that’s areas elected politicians gun trafficking, YEE ha!
I’m curious as to why neither of you wants to address the point: that countries who treat their Muslim populations badly have sent the most non-Arab fighters to ISIS. This would seem to give evidentiary support to the proposition that electing Trump is a bad idea, since not only does he propose to threat them badly (and Cruz is a real prince too), but his bloviating encourages you, on the street, to do likewise.
Which countries are you referring too Libby? I really, really, want to know exactly which countries treat their Muslim population badly and how many of those [offended] Muslims went to ISIS because of it? Please enlighten me and I hope you don’t reply that the terrorist recruits went over to ISIS because of under-employment? Libby, that old excuse is wearing so thin, we can see right thru it.
Uh, see above.
I have a thought. I hope it’s true. Because I really don’t like to think you are so very far round the bend.
Are you being irrationally anti-Obama as a means of being pro-Trump? That sorta makes sense, in that there are no pro-Trump points to make, so you’d have no choice but to be anti-everything else. And the hopelessness of the pro-Trump position would explain the ferocity.
I hope this is it.
But Tina, there simply is no denying that our present difficulties ARE rooted in the previous administration, AND the one before that. The O-man has done his best with what means he had. Hils will do her best.
Trump, however, is a boob, totally out of his depth, and cannot be allowed anywhere near the button.
I resent the assertion that I am being irrational. If you can’t see the mess this administration has made, the contempt he has for people, the private “transforming” agenda that drives his decisions, his refusal to work with Republicans or even Democrats in Congress and his penchant for acting as a dictator, it’s not my problem. I’d say you’re irrationally detached and therefore easily dismissive of criticisms and facts.
“Are you being irrationally anti-Obama as a means of being pro-Trump?”
Libby I have expressed myself quite clearly in terms of the election. We have two candidates neither of which is ideal. My disdain for Hillary Clinton and Obama have to do with what they have done. To me the record is so incredibly inexcusable that I will work to defeat them. This has nothing to do with Trump and his positives and negatives. I knew this before I knew who the alternative candidates would be.
If you recall I also didn’t want a repeat Bush candidate. I think America should avoid dynasty presidencies.
“…there are no pro-Trump points to make, so you’d have no choice but to be anti-everything else”
This opinion shows your partisan position not mine. You are absolutely wrong because you (your party faithful) are impressed by polish, glitter, gestures, and slogans. Style and symbolism over substance. Hence, hope and change was all it took…the promise of heaven over markers for results. Obama promised a better economy. After seven years we have not experienced growth greater than 2% and in these conditions only the rich make money. That’s the antithesis of what he promised and what you say you stand for and yet, Elizabeth Warren gets cheers! That’s the ultimate in irrational thinking!
“there simply is no denying that our present difficulties ARE rooted in the previous administration”
Sorry lady that doesn’t wash. We’d have to believe that the Bush administration wasn’t perfection because our current difficulties WERE rooted in the Clinton administration…you wouldn’t go for that. We can go back to before Carter for “difficulties”…every president inherits “difficulties” from previous administrations.
No, this is about Obama’s and Hillary’s performances on the job. Their policies and execution have not produced a positive result. Even worse, the have done great, and in some cases, sustained damage. That you will not own this is telling, nothing is ever the fault of a democrat. That you then attempt to make it seem like I am the irrational thinker is laughable.
In this election the economy is number one for me with fighting terrorism a very close second. If we don’t get our economy rolling we can forget fighting terrorism effectively. The Democrats under Obama/Hillary have failed completely in both areas. Hillary represents more of the same and with Bernie pulling your party left, it’s more of the same on steroids. No thank you, I’ve had quite enough of misery, division, terror attacks, and failure.
The Trump tax plan will create a growing economy, as has always happened in the past when taxes are lowered. That means jobs and opportunity for the middle and lower classes to build personal wealth and prosperity for themselves once again. It also means greater prosperity for the nation and the world.
I’m willing to bet on Trump to rely on the generals to come up with a workable war strategy. I believe he will execute it swiftly. I think he will more quickly change course when necessary and not get bogged down. Part of the problem we have now is the enemy’s ability to change course. And I think Trump will attend briefing meetings and be front and center for the duration if there’s a crisis. In addition I think Trump will $#!%-can the social engineering crap in the military and get back to basics…focus on a strong, ready, equipped fighting force.
Trump has a different style than Obama but he has been no more bombastic, ridiculous, and unpresidential with his constituency base during the primaries than Obama was in 08. The difference is how the media treated Obama. Their adoration was sickening…just ask Bill and Hill. Obama said opponents were “the enemy.” His supporters were told to “Get in their face” and “If they bring a knife, we bring a gun…ha ha ha” This article slammed him for passing the buck and blaming staff, a precursor to his style as president. He never takes responsibility. Remember when Joe Biden told a predominantly black audience that Republican policies would put them, “back in chains?” When your guys do this stuff you’re entertained. Or, you don’t notice or care. These things don’t cause you to declare they are unfit or make you question their poise, grace, or intellect. You don’t declare Obama a “boob” who everyone should hate (Chris). This is Irrational! But totally predictable.
Tina: “The Trump tax plan will create a growing economy, as has always happened in the past when taxes are lowered.”
Does it not bother you that even conservative experts think Trump’s tax plan is ridiculous?
“This is pie-in-the-sky nonsense,” said William G. Gale, the Arjay and Frances Miller Chair in Federal Economic Policy at the Brookings institution and the co-director of the Tax Policy Center. Gale also served on the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H. W. Bush.
Hoagland, who spent more than three decades working in the Senate, including a stint as director of budget and appropriations in the office of then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), said implementation of the Trump plan “might result in growing social and economic unrest increasing dangerous economic polarization.”
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank, and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, said that from a legislative perspective, “The plan loses too much revenue to even be considered and lacks the cohesion of a genuine tax reform.” In terms of its impact on taxpayers, he said, “It reduces taxes for everyone, but at the expense of future taxpayers.”
Of course, analyzing the Trump tax policy is, as with all of his policy positions, complicated by how frequently he changes them.
In recent interviews with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and NBC’s Chuck Todd, Trump appeared to suggest that he actually expects tax rates on the wealthy to go up under his plan.
“They’re going down. But by the time it’s negotiated, they’ll go up,” Trump said on ABC.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/05/17/Experts-Weigh-Donald-Trump-s-Tax-Plan-and-Find-It-Wanting
’ve never seen anything quite like it: A presumptive presidential candidate proposes a major policy initiative and a month before he is due to be formally anointed at his convention, his own party’s House members roll out a dramatically different plan.
That, of course, is exactly what House Speaker Paul Ryan and his caucus just did to Donald Trump and his tax reform proposal. While there are some similarities between the two blueprints—both would cut taxes primarily for business and high-income households—there are also major differences. The contrasts are so strong that it is hard to imagine how candidates sharing the same ticket can square them.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/06/28/the-striking-contrast-between-the-trump-and-house-republican-tax-plans/#2da0e7e1568c
The problem begins with his outspoken approach to Mexican immigration. His “plan” to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants would shrink the economy by about 2 percent, according to American Action Forum (AAF), a conservative and pro-business think tank. The sudden subtraction of 7 million workers would cause an immediate shock to thousands of businesses, triggering a GDP collapse ranging from $400 billion to $600 billion in production, AAF’s analysis found, with the worst of the slump occurring in industries like construction and hospitality. “The things Donald Trump has said are utterly unworkable,” Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economic adviser to Senator John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign and the forum’s president, told Reuters.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/donald-trumps-economy/481743/
This is not surprising. Trump’s statements on the economy have revealed a stunning lack of knowledge, from his claim hat the unemployment rate may be as high as 42% to his dangerous recklessness regarding defaulting on our debt. Economists on both sides of the aisle have said his protectionist policies would plunge us into a recession, increase the national debt and cost thousands of jobs:
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-treasury-haircut-idea-insane-2016-5
https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/trump-s-trade-policies-would-make-america-recession-bound-again
Trusting Trump to make good decisions in the war on terror, or to listen to his generals, is even more misguided. Trump has advocated war crimes, including killing the family members of terrorists. When challenged on what he would do if soldiers refused such an illegal order, Trump simply responded “They won’t refuse me.” There is no basis for trusting Trump to listen to others, or to even appoint knowledgeable people, as he has made a habit of surrounding himself with morons on his campaign staff.
Your choice is between someone whose economic and foreign policy positions you disagree with, and someone whom experts on both sides of the aisle say would create chaos across the world stage.
The choice is clear. You may disagree with Clinton’s policies, but she is respected on the world stage, she is knowledgeable on economic and foreign policy issues, and she is a professional. Trump has none of these qualifications; he doesn’t know what he is talking about at any given moment, and he refuses to listen to criticism; his response to the conservative US Chamber of Commerce’s critiques of his plan was simply to attack, with no rebuttal against their arguments at all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/us/politics/donald-trump-us-chamber-of-commerce-trade.html?_r=0
Trump doesn’t know anything about these issues, and doesn’t see the need to learn about them.
Your faith in Trump to make good decisions on the economy and foreign policy is entirely misplaced, and not even shared by experts in your own party. Why would you put your faith in such a dishonest, selfish, and proudly ignorant person?
“Does it not bother you that even conservative experts think Trump’s tax plan is ridiculous?”
No. Experts were wrong about Obama.
Experts were wrong about Reagan.
Why do you listen to experts who are wrong and most likely partisan elites?
Who has done well under Obamanomics? The big lefty banks and corporations and politicians like Hillary Clinton (With Obama waiting in the pay day wings)
“You may disagree with Clinton’s policies, but she is respected on the world stage, she is knowledgeable on economic and foreign policy issues, and she is a professional.”
She is “respected by lefty progressives…her record is bad, she not comfortable on economics and will defer to Bill…and she is a professional politician (not a servant of the people)…a professional liar, conniver, jet setter, criminal elitist.
She sucks! And she should never be president.
I adhere tot he concept expressed by William F. Buckley who said, “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”
Our founders expected our leaders to come out of the private sector, serve for a short amount of time and then go back to their real jobs. Professional elitist politicians don’t work in the best interests of the people…they work for their own interests.
Hillary has contributed zip in all of her years in “service” to the people…but she sure has enriched herself and her sense of entitlement is Yuuuuge!
Tina: “No. Experts were wrong about Obama.”
Wait, are you saying *conservative* experts were wrong about Obama’s economic policies? The US Chamber of Commerce was wrong about Obama? The American Enterprise Institute was wrong about Obama? *George Will* was wrong about Obama?
Because these are the experts saying Trump’s economic policies are ridiculous, and these are the same experts you have cited for years to show why Obama’s economic policies, in your view, don’t work.
“Why do you listen to experts who are wrong”
Well, you’ve given me no reason to believe they are wrong about Trump, other than saying they’ve been wrong before. You haven’t countered any of their actual arguments, because you can’t–you’re just taking a blanket anti-intellectual, anti-expert stance. “The British people are sick of experts” is what brought us Brexit; this combination of arrogance and ignorance is dangerously irresponsible, and leads to stupid policy.
And who, exactly, are you saying I should I believe instead of the experts? You? A person who can’t and won’t refute a single one of their points? Trump, who, when he isn’t blatantly lying about the economy, is revealing stunning ignorance of it? A guy who is openly using his campaign as a slush fund for his own businesses, who used his charity to buy stuff from another charity, is openly soliciting campaign donations from foreign governments, and who bribed Ben Carson for an endorsement? WHY should I believe Trump’s empty promises about the economy over the experts when he has shown complete dishonesty in both his financial and personal dealings?
Your position is that I should take it on faith that Trump will be good on the economy despite his long record of economically illiterate statements. Why should I do this? Give me a reason.
“and most likely partisan elites?”
Republican partisan elites, who refuse to back the presumed Republican nominee. That would indicate their concerns are valid beyond partisanship, since if they were simply being partisan, they would fall in lockstep behind him. Why can’t you get this? Trump is the most unpopular nominee in generations, and is causing a split in the party. This is not the fault of “partisan elites,” it is the fault of a man who frequently behaves like an uneducated boor in public. These Republicans don’t support him because they cannot, in good conscience, support him.
As for being the “elites,” they’re generally considered that for a reason. They are educated and knowledgeable. Wrong, in my view, on a lot of stuff. But when your partisan elites are agreeing with my partisan elites, and siding with them over their own nominee, then it’s time to start thinking that maybe these people know more about the economy than you do, and have good points when they say Trump’s combination of economic protectionism, nationalism, tax cuts and spending will not work.
“I adhere tot he concept expressed by William F. Buckley”
William F. Buckley would never support Donald Trump. William F. Buckley would call you a fool. William F. Buckley kicked the John Birch Society to the curb; the National Review is respecting Buckley’s legacy. You besmirch it by even saying his name.
Donald Trump used money donated for charity to buy himself a Tim Tebow-signed football helmet
Did Donald Trump violate IRS rules, by using a charity’s money to buy himself a signed football helmet?
Four years ago, at a charity fundraiser in Palm Beach, Donald Trump got into a bidding war at the evening’s live auction. The items up for sale: A Denver Broncos helmet, autographed by then-star quarterback Tim Tebow, and a Tebow jersey.
Trump won, eventually, with a bid of $12,000. Afterward, he posed with the helmet. His purchase made gossip-column news: a flourish of generosity, by a mogul with money to burn. “The Donald giveth, and The Donald payeth,” wrote the Palm Beach Daily News. “Blessed be the name of The Donald.”
But Trump didn’t actually pay with his own money.
Instead, the Susan G. Komen organization — the breast-cancer nonprofit that hosted the party — got a $12,000 payment from another nonprofit , the Donald J. Trump Foundation.
Trump himself sent no money. (In fact, a Komen spokeswoman said, Trump has never given a personal gift of cash to the Komen organization.) He paid the bill with money from a charity he founded in 1987, but which is largely stocked with other people’s money. Trump is the foundation’s president. But, at the time of the auction, Trump had given none of his own money to the foundation for three years running.
The Washington Post discovered this unusual payment — a charity apparently buying sports memorabilia for a super-wealthy man — this week, during a review of Trump’s charitable giving.
Afterward, three experts on tax law questioned whether Trump had violated IRS rules against “self-dealing” — which are designed to keep nonprofit officials from using their charities to help themselves.
Those rules ban the “furnishing of goods” by private foundations — like Trump’s — to their own officers. If the rule is broken, the person who breaks it must notify the IRS and may have to pay a tax penalty. There could also be penalties for signing a tax return that failed to mention the violation. In 2012, the tax return for Trump’s foundation checked the boxes for “no,” it did not break the self-dealing rule.
But did it?
The answer may depend on what became of the helmet and jersey.
If they are still in Trump’s possession — perhaps on display at one of his homes or properties — that might be deemed improper, if the IRS ever looks.
“That would be a classic violation of the prohibition on a charity being operated for the private inurement (benefit) of the charity’s creator,” Brett G. Kappel, an expert on tax-exempt organizations at the Akerman law firm in Washington, wrote in an email. The Trump Foundation does not appear to have offices of its own. It is headquartered at Trump’s business offices in New York and has no full-time staff.
The best case for Trump, experts said, would be if he had given the helmet and jersey away to another charity, perhaps to be auctioned off at another fundraiser.
“If … the foundation paid for it, and they owned the helmet, and the helmet was given to someone as a charitable activity,” that would be enough, said John Edie, now retired, who was the longtime general counsel at the Council on Foundations.
Edie said Trump could not get off the hook by simply giving the memorabilia to a friend.
“Spending $12,000 for a helmet and then giving it to a golfing buddy is not” charity, Edie said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/01/donald-trump-used-money-donated-for-charity-to-buy-himself-a-tim-tebow-signed-football-helmet/
I understand why people say Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy. I really do.
But how can anyone believe Donald Trump is any *more* trustworthy than she is?
Neither Trump nor Hillary feel they have to play by the rules, so all we can do is look at the effects of the rule breaking. Hils has been done in public service. Donald’s has been done in his own interest.
Now, The Donald says he wants to take up public service. This is laudable, but I would prefer he start with something smaller and establish a nice steady, thoughtful reputation before he hits the big time.
Did you catch the “Mexican plane attacking us” remark? That was not thoughtful.
One difference. Hillary has been in politics her entire ugly life. She has, or should have, a good working knowledge of the rules. Trump is new in this game.
“Hils has been done in public service.”
That’s a laugh. She was “dead broke” when she left the White House. And what has she done that’s really of note? Come on now, really? What are three big contributions after so many years “in service.” She and bill have lived quite the extravagant lifestyle on the taxpayer and donors. If we needed a good con artist she might be our man.
Hillary’s entire career has been about advancing herself and her own ambitions. if Hillary is good at anything it’s putting up with crap from a husband who’s personal addictions have nearly swamped her ambition more than once!
Libby: “Did you catch the “Mexican plane attacking us” remark? That was not thoughtful.”
I had to look that up. Oh, dear God in Heaven. Why doesn’t this man have anyone in his campaign to stop him from saying such stupid things? Why doesn’t anyone tell him this is not acceptable from someone who wants to be president?
And people believe him when he says “I surround myself with the best people?” Why? Are they stupid?
Tina, by your lights, leaving the White House broke ought to be a virtue. But because it’s Hillary, it isn’t?
If you want to characterize six years trotting the globe trying to get the species to make nice “nothing if note”, we can’t stop you. But you’re wrong.
“…leaving the White House broke ought to be a virtue. But because it’s Hillary, it isn’t?”
So you believed that lie? She had bills, big deal everyone has bills…but she also had a very expensive home and income stream. That ain’t “broke.”
“If you want to characterize six years trotting the globe trying to get the species to make nice “nothing if note”, we can’t stop you. But you’re wrong.”
Okay…name that big accomplishment! What were her goals and what did she accomplish? I know she did a lot of this, and this, and this on our dime. What else?
You are so petty, Tina. Do you think other secretary of states have not drank and danced every now and then? And the narcissism of someone who refuses to even Google “Hillary Clinton accomplishments,” and expects others to just spoon feed you easily available information, is stunning.
The usual progressive gas bags blow the usual gas.