3Rivers Archery Supply
Trump helps Dems lose WH and Senate
Community
Contributors to this thread:
NvaGvUp 13-Nov-17
Woods Walker 13-Nov-17
NvaGvUp 13-Nov-17
kentuckbowhnter 14-Nov-17
Annony Mouse 19-Nov-17
NvaGvUp 19-Nov-17
HA/KS 19-Nov-17
NvaGvUp 19-Nov-17
Annony Mouse 20-Nov-17
Annony Mouse 27-Nov-17
NvaGvUp 27-Nov-17
HDE 27-Nov-17
Woods Walker 28-Nov-17
Annony Mouse 28-Nov-17
NvaGvUp 28-Nov-17
Annony Mouse 28-Nov-17
Annony Mouse 28-Nov-17
Annony Mouse 01-Dec-17
From: NvaGvUp
13-Nov-17
Perhaps the title of this thread will allow Jimbo to put things in perspective.

"What Happened?"

From: Woods Walker
13-Nov-17
Sounds like Hillary's book, which posed that question AND gave the answer on the cover with her picture.

From: NvaGvUp
13-Nov-17
YEP!

14-Nov-17
Trump gets re-elected.

From: Annony Mouse
19-Nov-17

Annony Mouse's Link

From: NvaGvUp
19-Nov-17
Awesome post my friend!

Spot on and incredibly accurate.

From: HA/KS
19-Nov-17
From Mouse's link.

(I had not heard this, but love the idea. Maybe it could be something like the Required Minimum Distribution from retirement savings.)

"Finally, an idea that hasn’t gotten much attention is the tax on college endowments. These are massive storehouses of wealth. Harvard and Yale combined sit on a nest egg of almost $60 billion. This is enough to give every student free tuition at these schools from now until forever and they still wouldn’t run out of money. Instead these university endowments are like giant financial trading dynasties with very little of the largesse going to help students pay the $60,000 a year tuitions or even promoting education.

The GOP plan would put a small tax on the unspent money in the endowments if they don’t start spending the money down. My only complaint is that the tax is way too low. But the first shot against the University Industrial Complex has finally been fired. The productivity of American universities, as Richard Vedder of Ohio University has documented, continues to decline. Mr. Vedder also found that university tuitions don’t go down when these schools have bigger endowments. They go up."

From: NvaGvUp
19-Nov-17
Henry,

That's a great idea!

Even in a 'worst case' scenario, a 4% -4.5% annual take off is sustainable forever.

$60B at 4% would mean $240 M per year would be available to fund tuition.

At $60K/year, that would 100% cover the annual tuition for 40,000 of Harvard's and Yale's young skulls full of mush!

Given neither school has anywhere near that many students...... well, you get my point.

From: Annony Mouse
20-Nov-17

Annony Mouse's Link
Why the swamp will never be drained...judicial protection.

From: Annony Mouse
27-Nov-17

Annony Mouse's Link
Poor Fauxahantus...

From: NvaGvUp
27-Nov-17
Great post, Jack!

Anything and Everything the 'Faux Squaw' proposes is designed to promote her political career and her ultra-far-left agenda.

At my end, her actions have made it very difficult and unprofitable for people like KPC and myself to even meet with many employees with retirement plans to help understand them and then make the best recommendations possible to help them reach their goals.

Yet while The Faux Squaw made $421,000/year for teaching ONE class at Harvard and owns multiple multi-million dollar homes, she continues to rage against the 1% and the mostly good people in my field who take their obligation as fiduciaries to act in the best interest of their clients seriously.

Warren is the epitome of a PHONY and who is acting solely in HER best interests.

From: HDE
27-Nov-17
"Ms. Lerner and Holly Paz, her deputy at the IRS, filed documents in court Thursday saying tapes and transcripts of depositions they gave in a court case this year must remain sealed in perpetuity, or else they could spur an enraged public to retaliate."

It would serve them right. It's about time they [and all dumbass politicians] pay dearly for their actions. I say throw them to the wolves...

From: Woods Walker
28-Nov-17
Guillotines on Washington Mall!

From: Annony Mouse
28-Nov-17
From: NvaGvUp
28-Nov-17
LOL, Mouse.

In my opinion, these investors have no case.

Because anyone dumb enough to invest in ANY 'green' scam, deserves to pay the price for their stupidity.

From: Annony Mouse
28-Nov-17

Annony Mouse's Link
Kyle...those investments were probably considered very wise considering how the Obama administration operated and the expected continuation and expansion under Queen Hillary. When the expected failure came to pass, there would have been a gorbal bailout to cover losses.

And then the Kneeler Network misses the new slavery created by SOS Hillary...another non-covered bit of modern history. (link)

From: Annony Mouse
28-Nov-17
How Obama Brought Back Muslim Enslavement of Black People

Posted by Daniel Greenfield

America’s first black president didn’t bring “Hope” to America, but he did bring slave auctions to Africa. After Obama “liberated” Libya for the Islamist rebels, Arab Muslims sell black slaves for a few hundred dollars at slave auctions.

While leftists tear down the statues of slave owners from centuries ago, it was the left that brought back the sale of black men as property.

Slavery was always one of Barack Obama’s favorite subjects.

It was a favorite subject because it provided him with countless opportunities for tearing down America.

When called upon to disavow the racist, anti-Semitic and anti-American rants of his mentor, he instead denounced the Constitution as “stained by this nation's original sin of slavery.” At the funeral of the Dallas police officers murdered by a member of the racist hate group he supported, he once again invoked this original sin even while he was justifying Black Lives Matter’s bigotry and violence.

At Hillary’s DNC convention, Michelle Obama claimed that the White House had been “built by slaves”.

The unifying theme was that America’s racist past made its origins, including their constitutional restraints on his power, illegitimate. A Constitution tainted by slavery should not be able to inhibit the actions of the nation’s first black president. His wife had a special moral authority over the White House because it had been built by slaves. Slavery gave the Obamas a unique moral claim on power.

But Barack Obama and his ancestors had never been slaves. They might have been slave owners and sellers. And America’s first black president unquestionably helped bring Muslim slavery back to Libya.

After Obama invaded Libya to aid the Muslim Brotherhood, black slaves are being sold there once more.

Videos show black people being put up for sale for as little as $400 by Arab Libyan Muslim slave traders. The black men being sold as slaves are described as “big strong boys for farm work.”

After years of lecturing Americans about the “original sin” of slavery, Obama brought it back.

The black men being sold as slaves are Nigerians. Islam forbids Muslims to enslave Muslims. Nigeria has a large non-Muslim population. It is likely another case of Arab Muslims selling Christians into slavery.

Unlike President Bush, Obama paid little attention to Africa. When he did pay attention to Africa, it was largely to reward Muslim violence against African Christians in Nigeria, Kenya or Côte d'Ivoire.

And, most prominently, Libya.

Obama’s Arab Spring encouraged Islamist movements in their bids for power whether they used ballots or bullets. The resulting devastation in the Middle East, with its death toll in the hundreds of thousands, and the rise of ISIS, has captured the world’s attention. But the Islamist wave spread chaos and terror through Africa. Egypt and Tunisia fell into the hands of Islamist killers who brutalized their own people even as the media cheered these “democratic revolutions”. Boko Haram allied with ISIS in Nigeria.

And Obama illegally bombed Libya to aid the Muslim Brotherhood and allied Islamist groups in their bid for power. The regime change operation in Libya had been urged on by Hillary Clinton. The former Secretary of State had been encouraged by her associates to use it as a platform for a presidential run. But the Islamist takeover in Libya made for a bad photo op. Our attempts to address the flow of Qatari weapons into the hands of terrorists (after Obama gave a pass to their weapons smuggling scheme during the civil war) led to the Benghazi massacre. And the blackest stain on Hillary’s record.

But it didn’t stop with Benghazi.

Libya tumbled into a second civil war between Islamists and the Libyan government. Despite the media blackout, the violence touched off by Obama’s regime change has never really stopped. ISIS has a significant presence in Libya. And until recently had a death grip on parts of Benghazi.

And that isn’t the worst of it.

The Islamist Arab rebels had quickly begun targeting Africans during the civil war in a racist purge. Photos and videos showed beheadings, beatings and mutilations. The false claims of genocide in Benghazi that Obama had used to justify his invasion became real when his invasion led to the actual ethnic cleansing of Africans in Libya.

The first black president, who had allied with hate groups such as Black Lives Matter that accused America of genocide, had made possible an actual genocide of black people by his Arab Muslim allies.

The rebels he had armed and backed would identify themselves as, “The Brigade for Purging Slaves, Black Skin”.

And then it got even worse.

The Tuaregs, a Berber Islamist people whose leaders claim to trace their “pure” ancestry back to Mohammed, invaded and captured a large section of Mali. Accompanying them were Al Qaeda Jihadists. The Tuaregs keep slaves and have been at war with the “blacks”. Their hostilities were motivated in large part by the conviction that “blacks” were slaves while they were the descendants of Mohammed.

Obama ignored another racist Islamist war caused by his pro-Islamist intervention. Instead it was the French that stepped up. The recent deaths of four American soldiers in Niger however can be traced back to the disaster in Mali.

Sgt. La David Johnson, the African-American soldier whose condolence call by President Trump touched off a storm of leftist outrage, was murdered after being captured and tied up. The Jihadists who murdered Johnson are believed to be from the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara, an ISIS affiliate empowered by the Mali invasion, whose perpetrators are from a group deeming themselves “white”.

While President Trump has been accused of racism by Rep. Frederica Wilson over the death of the African-American soldier, it was Obama who had empowered the racist Islamists that murdered him.

Meanwhile back in Libya, the slave trade has made a comeback. Videos show public slave auctions in Libya where light skinned Arab Libyans sell black Nigerians for a few hundred dollars.

The slave auction, that terrible institution, wasn’t brought back by the right. It was the left.

Slavery isn’t new to the Islamic world. And where Islam rules, slavery returns. The leftist-Islamist alliance doesn’t just mean the burning of churches and the bombing of synagogues, or that Jewish students are hounded out of college campuses while European streets flow with blood.

Muslims immigrants have brought slaves to America. When Islamists took over Egypt, one of their political projects was undoing the ban on slavery. "It's not possible to say that slavery is inherently absolutely categorically immoral in all times and places since it was allowed by the Quran and the Prophet," Professor Jonathan Brown, an Islamic Civilization professor, at Georgetown, insisted.

Brown is an Islamic convert. The Washington Post, and the rest of the left, came to his defense.

The left spends a great deal of time lecturing Americans on the evils of slavery. But it is they and their allies, from Cuba to Libya, who practice slavery today.

The slave auction is ancient history in America. But Obama’s Islamist alliance brought it back to Africa.

From: Annony Mouse
01-Dec-17

Annony Mouse's Link
This Trump Decision Is A Major Blow To The Administrative State

The Trump administration switched sides Wednesday in a case pending before the Supreme Court that could retroactively nullify tens of thousands of agency decisions.

The case, Lucia v. SEC, has major implications for the process by which federal agencies try or punish those in violation of laws or regulations.

The litigation concerns an agency’s decision to allow career bureaucrats to preside as the functional equivalent of judges during enforcement proceedings. These officials, called administrative law judges (ALJs), are hired by career bureaucrats. They are not appointed by the president, a court or an agency head, but they exercise significant authority on behalf of the U.S. government in official proceedings.

ALJs can, among other things, issue subpoenas, make decisions about the credibility of witnesses or the admissibility of evidence, and issues provisional rulings that are generally upheld on final review — if a final review occurs at all.

The Constitution requires that the president, the courts, or the head of an executive department appoint all “inferior officers” of the United States.

A group of investment managers challenged the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) use of ALJs in an enforcement proceeding convened against them for alleged violations of securities law. The managers argue these proceedings are unlawful, because the ALJs are exactly the sort of “inferior officer” who must be appointed by the president, the court, or the head of an agency, since they exercise meaningful discretion on behalf of the federal government.

A lower federal court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, found in favor of the SEC. A three-judge panel found for the SEC, and the full court affirmed that decision on a five to five vote. The investment managers then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Obama Justice Department sided with the SEC in the dispute, but Trump’s new solicitor general, Noel Francisco, changed positions Wednesday, and backed the money managers.

“Upon further consideration, and in light of the implications for the exercise of executive power under Article II, the government is now of the view that such ALJs are officers because they exercise ‘significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States,'” Francisco wrote in a new brief at the Supreme Court.

A Supreme Court ruling against the SEC could have important implications for similarly-situated officials in other agencies. ALJs often preside in actions brought by a whole host of federal agencies. A finding against the SEC would potentially jeopardize, and perhaps invalidate, the legal status of thousands of other agency proceedings.

The Justice Department generally represents federal agencies before the high court. Accordingly, the solicitor general asked the justices to appoint another lawyer to represent the SEC as the litigation continues.

The high court could decide to take the case as soon as January.

MAGA: winning

  • Sitka Gear