Remembrance Day

President Trump's Proclamation commemorating the 78th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor is here.

# # #

Action Alert: red flag legislation

Image credit: medium.com

Cleveland Tea Party rarely comments on issues such as abortion or gun control. But in the wake of the two shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Sen. Lindsay Graham has proposed legislation that begins the march toward gun control and confiscation.  However, yesterday's report in The Hill references his proposed legislation that “would create a federal grant program” – a bill that expands, rather than shrinks the federal government; a core Tea Party value is constitutionally limited government.

The bill introduces subjective “criteria” concerning the so-called “red flags.” Radius at Sparta Report has the definition:

A red flag law-also known as a gun violence restraining order-essentially allows a judge to order police to confiscate an individual’s weapons if that person is deemed a threat to themselves or others.

Sparta Report goes onto to explain why he thinks red flag laws are a bad idea and don't work. 

So here’s part of The Hill’s report:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Monday that he will introduce bipartisan legislation encouraging states to create "red flag" laws and that President Trump is "very supportive" of the idea. 

Graham, in a statement, said he has reached a deal with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) on a bill that would start a federal grant program to help and encourage states to create " 'red flag' protection order" laws, which are meant to make it easier for law enforcement to identify mentally ill people who should be banned from purchasing guns.

“These grants will be given to law enforcement so they can hire and consult with mental health professionals to better determine which cases need to be acted upon. This grant program also requires robust due process and judicial review. It does allow for quick action," Graham said in the statement. 

The full report is here. 

So the bill is a "’red flag' protection order” to facilitate “law enforcement so they can hire and consult with mental health professionals.” What could go wrong?  How about the mental health professionals who published The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President. None has examined President Trump in person, and any one of them could “identify mentally ill people who should be banned from purchasing guns.” People such as President Trump or members of his family? Or anyone else with whom they disagree.

According to Katie Pavlich at Townhall, Sen. Graham stated that President Trump "seemed supportive." Any wiggle room there?

The Action Alert: call or email any of these offices if you have concerns about the red flag legislation or any other bill leading to expanding the federal government in general, and gun control in particular.

Sen. Lindsay Graham’s phone DC Office: (202) 224-5972

Sen. Lindsay Graham’s email page is here 

White House switchboard Comments #: 202-456-1111

White House email page is here

UPDATE: Add Gov. Mike DeWine and Sen. Rob Portman to the list.

Gov. Mike DeWine: (614) 644-4357 or by email here

Sen. Rob Portman:  202-224-3353 or by email here

# # #

More censorship at YouTube

Image credit: steemit.com

From Sparta Report:

YouTube is constantly tweaking and changing their algorithm. Most of the time these changes are small and are barely noticed.

Lately, however, YouTubers large and small have been complaining about how little growth their channels have experienced. Apparently, YouTube’s algorithm has been changed to favor mainstream media outlets like CNN over small, independent content creators.

YouTuber Mark Dice reported on this just the other day.

The result is that YouTubers aren’t seeing their channels grow in the way that they should.

Justin Derby of Truth: The Objective Reality has noticed that YouTube’s latest round of censorship means that many YouTubers are gaining more subscribers on their BitChute channels…and he has the evidence to back it up.

# # #

Solyndra on steroids: how to stifle competition

Lots of us are laughing at AOC’s idiotic Green New Deal “plan.” Tea Party people want smaller, not bigger government. Mr. Instapundit linked to a timely analysis by Chelsea Follett at Human Progress:

“The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.” Senator Bernie Sanders first said those words in 1974 and has been repeating them ever since. Senator Sanders is not alone in his belief. Three out of four Americans agree with the statement, “Today it’s really true that the rich just get richer while the poor get poorer.” 

Senator Sanders is half right: the rich are getting richer. However, his assertion that the poor are becoming poorer is incorrect. The poor are becoming richer as well. 

Economist Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institution showed that between 1979 and 2010, the real (inflation-adjusted) after-tax income of the top 1 percent of U.S. income-earners grew by an impressive 202 percent. He also showed that the real after-tax income of the bottom fifth of income-earners grew by 49 percent. All groups made real income gains. While the rich are making gains at a faster pace, both the rich and the poor are in fact becoming richer. 

In addition to these measurable real income gains, decreases in prices have given the poor increased purchasing power, helping to raise living standards for the worst off in society. As a result of falling prices such as for groceries and material goods, along with gains in real income, Americans have more income left after basic expenses.

Technology has also become cheaper, improving our lives in unexpected ways. For example, consider the spread of cell phones. There was a time when only the wealthiest Americans could afford one. Today, over 98 percent of Americans have a cellular subscription, and the rise of smart phones has made these devices more useful than ever.

Unfortunately, progress has been uneven. In those areas of the economy where competition is hobbled, such as education, housing, and healthcare, prices continue to increase. 

. . .

“Competition is hobbled” whenever the government intrudes. Ms. Follett's full article is here. (And Solyndra is now defunct.)

# # #

SCOTUS internet sales tax ruling

image credit: usatoday.com

This SCOTUS decision will affect all of us. Sparta Report just announced its decision to close down its little sales center at its blogsite:

effective today, the Sparta Report Shop will no longer be in operation due to the disastrous decision by the Supreme Court’s “republican wing” to allow states to charge out of state businesses with sales tax. We are not interested in complying with 2.5 thousand and more localities and states and keeping track of the various stupidities of the corrupt local political tax wrangling.

Investors Business Daily has more:

Taxes: Whatever you think about the issue of taxing internet sales, the simple fact is that the Supreme Court has just guaranteed that people across the country will now be paying more in state taxes. It's hard for us to see how this is good news.

In its 5-4 decision on South Dakota v. Wayfair, the court overturned two previous rulings that prevented states from taxing sales of out-of-state companies. That meant a catalog company based in Maine didn't have to navigate 45 state sales-tax laws to figure out how much each customer owed, and then remit that money to the right states.

Brick-and-mortar stores have been trying to lift this ban for decades, because, they say, it unfairly tilts the playing field in favor of catalog and online retailers. 

According to the Government Accountability Office, this break cost states up to $13.4 billion in lost revenue last year alone. And, retailers say it cost jobs and hurt local economies.

Not surprisingly, Amazon.com  (AMZN), Shopify (SHOP), Etsy (ETSY), Wayfair (W) and other e-commerce stocks dropped on Thursday.

The Supreme Court ruling was notable not just because it did something it rarely does — namely, overturn previous decisions. (The most recent, Quill v North Dakota, was in 1992.) The court also split in a highly unusual way.

On the majority side were rock-ribbed conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, who sided with Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion. 

But so did stalwart liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Kennedy argued that the explosive growth of online retail rendered the court's previous rulings outdated.

Three of the other liberals on the court, Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, sided with Chief Justice Roberts' dissent. Roberts argued that it should be up to Congress to make a change like this.

Whatever the merits of the decision, the Court's ruling means not only higher taxes for consumers, but higher prices.

.  .

More Taxes To Come?

Worse still, the court may have opened the door to letting states impose other taxes on out-of-state firms.

Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform argues that states could use this ruling to impose corporate taxes and even income taxes across state lines.

"If physical nexus is no longer required for sales taxes ,then it is no longer required for personal or corporate income taxes," he said. "Now, California (or any state or city that loses population through exit) can tax people and businesses who do their best to avoid that state or city."

If you think that's a fanciful prediction, you haven't been paying attention. State governments will take every opportunity they can to raise taxes — especially if their own residents aren't the ones paying them.

In the end, it makes Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts' dissent look all the wiser.

Read the rest of the IBD report here.

# # #

Omnibus spending bill: it’s not over till it’s over

cartoon by Alexander Hoffman at dailyreckoning.com

Quite a few conservative bloggers and columnists have been throwing up their hands in despair over President Trump’s signing of the god-awful Omnibus spending bill last week. Headlines such as “Art of the Fail” or “Trump Fought the Swamp and the Swamp Won” were everywhere. But perhaps we are watching another Trump negotiation. Since the Omnibus bill is not a budget, the Executive branch has some flexibility on how (and if) funds are allocated. For example, Ann Coulter suggested he fund the wall using Defense Dept. money.

My own outrage is directed at the GOPe members of the Uniparty, who ran on - and raised millions on - promises they had no intention of ever keeping. They did not expect to win. Some might conclude that they wanted to lose. And we now see them, out in the open, blocking Trump’s agenda at every turn, including this latest maneuver.

As I see it, The GOPe has tried hard to stop Trump from the day he announced his candidacy right up to today. The Omnibus bill was just another opportunity to obstruct and undermine. They don’t want to be in the majority. They want to keep their noses in the trough and raise money by making more empty promises that they can whine about if they are in the minority. And the gloating Democrat leadership would love nothing more than to see Trump’s base lose heart. 

For some more optimistic/realistic takes, try Don Surber, Kurt Schlichter, or Sundance at Conservative Treehouse.

Related: at American Thinker, Joseph Smith asks if it will be “Time for Republicans to stay home in 2018?”

# # #

Memo fallout

 image credit: eutimes.net

Which is worse?

The Media response to “The Memo” as reported by George Neumayr at The American Spectator (Obamagate : Confirmed”)

The media’s response to the release of the Nunes memo surpasses the level of Pravda covering a Soviet show trial. No sooner had the memo appeared than journalists immediately began throwing sand into their audience’s eyes. The story, according to the media, is not that Obama’s Justice Department/FBI snookered FISA court judges and used Hillary’s purchased Steele dossier to spy on Trumpworld. No, the scandal is that the evil Republicans exposed this outrage, and that Trump, the ultimate target of this espionage, has the gall to defend himself. How dare a defendant in our kangaroo trial defend himself with the truth — that’s the upshot of all the media’s bleating.

or Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s initial reactions:

         “No department is perfect”

and this headline at Sparta Report:

Jeff Sessions Today: [FISA Fraud] Rod Rosenstein Represents‘The Kind Of Quality And Leadership That We Want In The Department’

# # #

Sparta Report’s Biggest Fools Of The Year

cartoon credit: joyofjello.com

Sparta Report announced its Winners Of The 2017 Fools Of The Year Contest, determined by over 1,000 of their readers. My kind of contest.

The big winner is NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. The other winners were CNN’s rudest moron, Jim Acosta (includes video of his arrogant and unprofessional meltdown in front of President Trump and President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan; and Hillary “Felonia von Pantsuit” Clinton.

Fun commentary / photos / video are here.

###