Trump's Coming Storm .

The Trump storm is already coming !

The either the man is a complete moron and he keeps proving it every time he opens his mouth. There was no reason to ask "what this represents"; and when challenged all he can come up with is "the calm before the storm"? Is he announcing a major conflict? If he is then he's worse than an idiot; ( ➤)I wish he'd taken the advice: Better to remain silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and dispel all doubt. But then again, Trump dispelled all doubt long ago! He just has to keep spouting drivel.It felt like the opening scene of an action movie — the president, stiffly rotating from side to side, surveying the country’s military leaders and providing an ominous hint that something would soon unfold.At 7:18 p.m., reporters were led into the lavish dining room where the military’s senior leaders and their spouses were lined up on either side of the president and first lady Melania Trump in preparation for a formal group photo.“You guys know what this represents?” Trump said gesturing to the commanders surrounding him as he made looping motions with his right index finger.He dramatically paused and then said: “Maybe it’s the calm before the storm.”   “What’s the storm?” a reporter called out, as the officials and their spouses continued to pose, their faces frozen in toothy smiles, even as many of their eyes began to dart around the room.

(1)>>“Could be the calm before the storm,” the president said. What Trump's hinting at here is impossible to truly discern. One guess: He's going to declare war somewhere. Nothing more presidential than wink-wink, nudge-nudging at a potential international catastrophe.Who will Trump choose to war with? Who knows! He told Rex Tillerson to knock off all the talking with North Korea. He's planning to scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. We also know that Trump generally seems to savor looking like a madman with his finger on the nuke-'em-all button. And still no one seems to know what, if anything, he was talking about.  

Gutting Obama-care .

President Trump’s decision Thursday to cut off crucial health-care subsidies has once again revived the long-running debate over the (2)>>Affordable Care Act, increasing the potential for a government shutdown in December and making the issue central in next year’s midterm elections.The move to end insurer subsidies could propel premiums an average of 20 percent higher next year for those who purchase insurance on the individual market, according to a nonpartisan congressional analysis.Trump and Republican allies defended the move as removing a giveaway for insurance companies, and they blame rising premiums on fundamental flaws in then-President Barack Obama’s signature health-care reform law. But Democrats called it an act of sabotage against the ACA for which the GOP will be held responsible at the polls.The dispute sets the stage for another wave of political battles over the nation’s health-care system, as Republican lawmakers will need to decide whether to authorize the subsidies through legislation as well as whether to once again attempt a broader repeal of the ACA, popularly known as Obamacare. Democrats could also use a Dec. 8 appropriations deadline to threaten a government shutdown if the subsidies are not restored.  Trump’s move could increase the chances of a government shutdown in December, when Democrats might demand the inclusion of insurer payments in exchange for their votes on legislation to fund federal departments and agencies through next year. 

Undermining Obama's legacy .

The vary moment Trump took office,  his storm has been to uproot everything Mr. Obama had tried to push through congress . Its vary unorthodox , but makes no sense . It almost sounds like a vendetta  against Obama , to erase everything he ever did . Beside the whole plan to undermine Obama , there may seem revisionist work going on the Republican controlled Congress . But rarely has a new president appeared so determined not just to steer the country in a different direction but to actively dismantle what was established before his arrival. Whether out of personal animus, political calculation, philosophical disagreement or a conviction that the last president damaged the country, Mr. Trump has made clear that if it has Mr. Obama’s name on it, he would just as soon erase it from the national hard drive.  
Gutting the Iran Deal.

Mr Trump has given the US Congress days to decide whether to reimpose sanctions on Iran that were lifted in 2016 as part of the deal,  (3)>>and warned that he may seek to terminate the deal completely.However, Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said that if the US follows through on either of those options, then it could result in Iran developing nuclear weapons and raise the threat of conflict.Speaking to Deutschlandfunk radio, Mr Gabriel said that Mr Trump had sent a “difficult and dangerous signal” when the US administration was also dealing with a crisis over North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. Trump's UN speech , His claims that “the Iranian regime has committed multiple violations of the agreement” were also misleading at best. On two occasions, Iran’s stockpile of heavy water flowed over the ceiling imposed by the deal, but the situation was quickly rectified and Iran’s reserve is now below the limit.Nor is heavy water a direct proliferation threat. It is used in certain reactors that produce plutonium as a by-product. However, under the deal, Iran has destroyed the only reactor of that type.Trump’s remark that Iran had “failed to meet our expectations in its operation of advanced centrifuges” appeared to refer to an ambiguity in the deal that has since been resolved and was not declared to be a violation.  France and the European Union have criticized Trump’s threat to withdraw from the Iran deal, arguing that the United States should not act unilaterally to jeopardize a deal that was negotiated by multiple powers. French President Emmanuel Macron said Sunday he told U.S. President Donald Trump not to tear up a nuclear arms deal with Iran, as doing so could lead to a standoff similar to the one with North Korea.“What I told him was not to tear up the deal,” Macron told TF1 and LCI in his first live TV interview since taking office. “After that I told him, let’s have a demanding dialogue, let’s continue to conduct checks, but let’s be much more demanding with Iran on its ballistic activity.”

NOTES AND COMMENTS: 

( ➤)I wish he'd taken the advice: By this argument, even if Mr. Trump does disassemble the Obama legacy, it may redound to his predecessor’s historical benefit. Trump's own successor if by chance in 2020 might undo Trump's legacy .(1)>>“Could be the calm before the storm,” "I know something you don't know, and I won't tell you, ha ha ha!" One more evidence of this guy's chronic, childish narcissism. His dramatizing has lost any effect it might have for another, more responsible president.  The White House summoned the media to a last-minute photo op on Thursday evening, during which President Donald Trump made a series of cryptic comments while surrounded by “the world’s great military people.” Leon Panetta, a former defense secretary and CIA director, said Trump's remarks would be something "you'd really worry about" under a previous president. (2)>>Affordable Care Act. Eighteen U.S. states sued President Donald Trump’s administration on Friday to stop him from scrapping a key component of Obamacare, subsidies to insurers that help millions of low-income people pay medical expenses, even as Trump invited Democratic leaders to negotiate a deal. The ACA requires the insurers to pay for the out of pocket expenses of lower income customers who buy their policies on the exchanges. These policies are subsidized by the way. And If we don't reimburse the insurance companies, and they jack up rates, guess who pays the higher rate? The government! A Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 71 percent of Americans would rather try to make Obamacare work than completely upend the current policy. As time goes by, support for Obamacare has only grown, with an April Gallup poll finding that 55 percent of Americans support Obamacare — up by 13 percentage points from November.The GOP has not been able to muster enough votes in Congress to replace Obamacare with their own law, so Trump has used other avenues to essentially kill Obamacare. Most recently the White House announced that Trump would be ending Obamacare payments to insurance companies.Trump does not seem to care who he affects in the process of doing away with Obamacare. A report from The Associated Press concluded that of those who would be most impacted by the Republicans undoing Obama’s healthcare plan, about 70 percent are from states that supported Trump during the election.The AP reported:“An estimated 4 million people were benefiting from the cost-sharing payments in the 30 states Trump carried, according to an analysis of 2017 enrollment data from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Of the 10 states with the highest percentage of consumers benefiting from cost-sharing, all but one — Massachusetts — went for Trump.”So why has Trump remained so deadest on ridding the U.S. of Obamacare? Despite support for the healthcare law, and how it would adversely affect his own loyal support base, CNN suggested that Trump has focused more on the name rather than the numbers . (3)>>and warned that he may seek to terminate . In other words, the war would require a multi-year campaign, similar to the one the United States and its European allies mounted over Iraq from 1991 through 2003, involving continuous overflights and intermittent bombing for more than a decade. And even then the U.S. was not confident that it had succeeded in destroying Iraq's nuclear weapons program. But in the Iran case the United States would have no European allies, would not be backed by a United Nations mandate to conduct the military campaign, might not have access to some of the necessary bases, and would be opposed by a much more capable enemy that unlike Iraq is capable of procuring the most modern anti-air defense systems from abroad.

A Primer on Gun Control.

The "bible" of the Pro- Gun
lobby . A little book
of contradictions .

In 2015 A visibly angry President Obama gave perhaps his most forceful speech on gun violence yet , noting that it wasn't his first speech in response to a mass shooting and probably wouldn't be his last."Somehow this has become routine. The reporting has become routine. My response here, from this podium, has become routine," Obama said. Around 2015 during (➜)President Obama term , there were 11 (1.1)>>mass shootings .But most of them made no mention of guns as a root cause of the violence .A turning point was 2012, when 20 children and six teachers were shot and killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Obama created a commission on gun violence, and took some executive actions, but Congress failed to strengthen laws on the background checks. Everything about (⟴)>>"gun control" took a backward step with the election of President Trump . Trump obviously wanted to unravel years of attempts to create some kind of government ruling on guns . (2)>>Even the slightest attempt on how many rounds of ammo was stopped by the NRA Republicans at Congress . President Trump took a evacuative order to reverse a Obama era ruling on (➽)background checks for the mentally ill.The new rule had been intended as one way for the federal government to respond to the very real problem of underreporting of mental health records to the nation’s background-check system for gun purchases. What this has to do with the latest mass shooting ? It's been an on going thing in this country . The facts regarding the massacre at Las Vegas ,there are sill unanswered questions regarding the motives . Like every mass shooting , after the dust & smoke clears the gun debate rages , after its all quiet , everything goes normal .
Its always "LEGAL weapons".
 The Vegas shooter had obtained all his weapons legally . The count of the arsenal is stagging. Forty-seven guns were found in the suspected Las Vegas shooter's hotel suite and two homes, police said Tuesday night at a press conference.Multiple loaded high-capacity magazines were found in the hotel suite, at the (3)>>Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, law enforcement sources said on Monday. A modified bump stock rifle was also found, which allows a gun to simulate rapid automatic gunfire. Law enforcement officials are still in the process of examining firearms to determine if they were capable of firing automatically.At a separate location authorities found tannerite, an explosive used in target practice, sources said.According to a database maintained by Mother Jones, there have been at least 90 mass shootings in the United States since 1982, and most of the shooters got their guns legally. The database focuses on what the publication calls "indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker," and excludes shootings stemming from more conventional crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence.Of the 143 guns wielded by killers in mass shootings, more than three quarters were obtained legally, including dozens of assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns with high-capacity magazines, according to Mother Jones. Although America’s political debate about guns tends to focus on grisly mass shootings and murders, a majority of gun-related deaths in the US are suicides.this is actually one of the most compelling reasons for reducing access to guns — there is a lot of research that shows greater access to guns dramatically increases the risk of suicide.

The "TRUTH" about the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment consists of just one sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today, scholars debate its bizarre comma placement, trying to make sense of the various clauses, and politicians routinely declare themselves to be its “strong supporters.” But in the grand sweep of American history, this sentence has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions. In fact, for two centuries it was largely ignored. Its missing a lot more sentences. I think the 2nd Amendment was shorten for an obvious reason . The 1788 Virginia Convention [ http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s43.html ] contains the rest of the missing Second Amendment :

"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

The BIG QUESTIONS about "militias" (4)>>long ignored by the NRA , was long swept under the rug by our nations history  . Reading the Convention amendments that our nations founders probably had other ideas on why citizens have a right to arms . Its long connection to keep free and standing armies of citizens { if read correctly} . That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural. The whole purpose originally was to have a army of civilians during times of national crisis who would take up arms along side a solider if called . The worrisome dialog in the convention notes as well that the nations founders would never foreseen how over the course of a hundred years that guns would , or could play in its undoing with excessive violence {  in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided } But the  new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon. However the NRA  to mobilize that passionate membership, over the last four decades, the NRA has used its advertising to change how many Americans see the Second Amendment–from a militia-based policy to one intently focused on individual gun ownership–and a relentlessly aggressive message that American gun rights are under threat.The word "militia" in the 2nd Amendment means the "arms" citizens have a "right" to bear are by definition weapons of war. The Constitution doesn't give us the right to own a BB gun or participate in paintball conflicts.The Constitution gives us the right to own and bear light infantry weapons. As America grapples with a relentless tide of gun violence, (5)>>pro-gun activists have come to rely on the Second Amendment as their trusty shield when faced with mass-shooting-induced criticism. In their interpretation, the amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms—a reading that was upheld by the Supreme Court in its 2008 ruling in District of Columbia. v. Heller. Yet most judges and scholars who debated the clause’s awkwardly worded and oddly punctuated 27 words in the decades before Heller almost always arrived at the opposite conclusion, finding that the amendment protects gun ownership for purposes of military duty and collective security. It was drafted, after all, in the first years of post-colonial America, an era of scrappy citizen militias where the idea of a standing army—while the militias all but disappeared , except for a few "crazies" . The idea of owning & having  a weapon now is more  problematic legally .

My Rational Compromise .

The Las Vegas massacre could have been avoided . It begins at every gun shop . When someone goes to buy massive amount of guns in a short time is a red alert to the gun shop its deeper than going to the gun shop . Now guns can be bought over the internet , crossing state lines .  Every state in the UNION has its different gun laws Nevada's least restrictive gun laws in the country may have contributed to the massacre. The state does not require firearms owners to have licenses or register their weapons and (6)>>Nevada does not limit the number of firearms an individual can possess. The argument is why would any law abiding American citizen would have to own so many weapons ? I can see those who own a gun for self protection , this has been the staple NRA defense for individual rights . Second the field and stream game hunters who have hunting rifles . I understand that , I am not a hunter or care for the sport . Federal law does not limit the number of guns a person may buy in any given time period. However, federal law does require federal firearm licensees (“FFLs”) to report multiple sales of handguns to ATF and other specified law enforcement agencies. Limiting HOW many guns a person could buy varies . I personally believe that gun ownership has to be redefined . I think all semi-& automatic- military style {bump-fire stocks} should have been banned a long time ago. Assembly Bill 1674, or AB 1674, from Assemblyman Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles), would prevent Californians from buying more than one rifle or shotgun a month. The Golden State already has a similar restriction on handguns, as does Maryland, New Jersey and the District of Columbia. “Santiago’s AB 1674 would make it a crime for someone to attempt to purchase more than one firearm of any type in any 30-day period,” the Firearms Policy Coalition, a pro-Second Amendment organization, charged. Gun ownership should be a monitored responsibility by the State and Local governments. In conclusion I believe that limiting how many guns a person can buy is the first step to a sane policy while not  infringing on the 2nd Amendment for honest gun owners . 

Our Current Presidential views.
It's unlikely that President Donald Trump will take immediate action on gun control following the massacre in Las Vegas, out of fear that he would distance himself from his base and potentially anger the National Rifle Association, an organization the president has developed a close relationship with because of their staunch support throughout his candidacy.Before he departed for Puerto Rico on Tuesday morning, Trump indicated that it's an issue he may approach "as time goes on." President Donald Trump met with victims of Sunday's mass shooting in Las Vegas Wednesday, three days after the attack that killed 58 and injured hundreds.Trump declined to discuss gun control measures, even as a bill was introduced in Washington, D.C., to outlaw the kind of equipment used by the shooter to accelerate his firing capabilities.Asked by a reporter at the University Medical Center in Las Vegas (7)>>if the United States has a "gun violence problem," the president dismissed the question."We're not going to talk about that today," said Trump. "We won't talk about that."

The gun control 'terror gap': what is it – and why hasn't Congress fixed it?

 

Read more

Because Congress refused to pass updated gun control legislation, Obama was left to tinker around the edges of the existing law, and he directed federal agencies to do a better job reporting records of people with disqualifying mental illnesses to the background-check system.

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(➜)President Obama term.The right and right wing media divided this country when President Barack Obama was elected. The GOP unabashedly and publically proclaimed that they were going to do EVERYTHING to bring failure upon his presidency. Former President Obama addressed mass shootings roughly 18 times during his administration, with some of his most damning comments coming exactly two years before this weekend's deadly shooting in Las Vegas.For Obama, it was the shooting at a community college in Roseburg, Oregon, where nine people were killed Oct. 1, 2015. President Barack Obama announced a plan for reducing gun violence in four parts: closing background check loopholes; banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines; making schools safer; and increasing access to mental health services. No new federal gun control legislation was passed as a result of these proposals.   And for President Trump, it was the Sunday shooting at a country music concert in Las Vegas, where at least 59 people were killed and 527 others injured.(⟴)>>"gun control". Gun politics is an area of American politics that is defined primarily by the actions of two groups: gun control and gun rights activists. These groups often disagree on the interpretation of laws and court cases related to firearms as well as about the effects of gun control on crime and public safety. Huffington Post reported in September

A Dangerous American Institution -
The Free and Unarmed  Revolver 
a cartoon from Puck magazine
shortly after the
 assassination of James A. Garfield

2013 that 48% of Americans said gun laws should be made more strict, while 16% said they should be made less strict and 29% said there should be no change.During a study conducted by The Huffington Post*, state gun laws were examined based on various policy approaches through the states across the US, and scored on a points-based scale to each state. The study was conducted by a non-profit organization named The Law Center to prevent Gun Violence. This is relevant as many nations drastically change their gun laws after any incident that targets civilians, so why not the US? Other high-income countries have much stronger gun laws so why haven’t the US change its laws? The background check in the United States basically just confirms the person is not a convicted felon, and it doesn’t allow for much police discretion. Other countries have a much higher bar to pass. For example, England and Japan and almost all other high-income countries with stricter gun laws require gun training before a person can obtain a gun, and once the firearm is obtained, it must be stored properly, and the applicant must have a valid reason to obtain a handgun. States were given positive points to states with stricter measures and stronger gun laws. Positive points were given for states that required background checks on all firearm sales and limit bulk firearms purchases; prohibiting sales of assault weapons and large capacity magazines; stricter evaluation on applications when issuing a handgun concealed carry license especially prohibited domestic violence offenders. On the other hand, points were deducted from states with expanded access to guns; allowed concealed carry in public areas particularly schools and bars without a permit or passed “Stand Your Ground Laws” — which remove the duty to retreat and allow people to shoot potential assailants, ostensibly in self-defense. Eventually, states were graded indicating the overall strengths or weakness of gun laws. Ten States with the Strongest Gun Laws ranked from strongest starting with California, then New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Hawaii, New York, Maryland, Illinois, Rhode Island and finally Michigan. The states with weakest gun laws were ranked as follow: South Dakota, Arizona, Mississippi, Vermont, Louisiana, Montana, Wyoming, Kentucky, Kansas, and Oklahoma.The study demonstrates a strong correlation between weak gun laws and increased gun violence deaths. The report also found that the gun death rate tends to get higher as firearms laws get weaker. Stronger gun laws can indeed save lives, the Law Center said several states will soon see such benefits(➽)background checks for the mentally ill. Federal law prohibits selling guns to felons or the mentally ill. Background checks are the only way to enforce that law. So, besides criminals and the insane, who could possibly oppose universal background checks?Gun manufacturers ? The NRA ? The NRA’s website on March 12, 2013, posted its firm stance against expanding background checks. As the gun control debate continues in Washington and throughout the nation, so does the notion of the "Gun Show Loophole." According the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the loophole includes mandatory background checks on purchases from licensed gun dealers. However private sellers do not need to complete any formal paperwork and thus do not perform investigations on their customers. Unregulated purchases typically take place at gun expos and shows. 40% of all gun transactions in the country occur under the loophole.The FBI sponsors the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). According to the FBI's website, over 100 million checks have been conducted in the past decade and over 700,000 denials have been made. Prior to the complete sale of a firearm(s), a licensed seller must contact the agency for a check to be performed on the prospective buyer.

(1)>>mass shootings . While the NRA and "other gun rights " advocates cry about their "liberties" are being infringed  . The list of the dead continues to grow . Here from Mother Jones magazine contains a full list of Mass shootings over the decades . { see this LIST here URL : http://bit.ly/1QklBf8 } .     (2)>>Even the slightest attempt on how many rounds of ammo was stopped by the NRA Republicans at Congress . Tell me one reason why any non-military person needs a fully automatic weapon. Frankly, limiting magazines to 10 or even 5 rounds on a semi-auto is fine for me. My logic: if a responsible gun owner can't hit something with 5 rounds, or 10, he should not be allowed to own a gun as he/she is incompetent at shooting.Nevertheless, who are those who really want a fully automatic weapon? 16-23 year old males that, by all appearances and actions, needing to over compensate for other shortcomings. They need to prove they are a M-A-N by having a splatter-shoot auto because it's sooooo maaaanly. Simply pathetic. (3)>>Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino.  Mass shootings also effect the stock market. Shares of casino operators fell on Monday after the Las Vegas massacre, the deadliest shooting in U.S. history. MGM Resorts International, which owns the Mandalay Bay hotel near where the shooting occurred, fell 5.6 percent Monday. Wynn Resorts slipped 1.2 percent. Las Vegas Sands fell as much as 2.1 percent before closing higher.(4)>>long ignored by the NRA. Hard to believe it’s from the same organization that helped draft the first federal gun controls in 1934’s National Firearms Act, and 1938’s Gun Control Act. In the early 90s, the NRA evolved its Us vs. Them theme, portraying the government as a 1984-like threat to individual freedoms. During the 1992 election, Bill Clinton campaigned against George H.W. Bush by pushing both the Brady Bill, which tightened restrictions on handgun sales, and a national ban on assault rifles. The NRA reacted by warning against an encroaching police state.(5)>>pro-gun activists have come to rely on the Second Amendment as their trusty shield when faced with mass-shooting-induced criticism.  The irrational of the head of the NRA reflects what how the gun culture has brainwashed not only people but many Republicans in Congress bought into it .  Pro gun activists repeat that . "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."  Guns kill people we all know that , the argument that  Guns are like climate change in a way. They both are an issue but the people complaining about them have no solution. They just complain. If you're pro-gun. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. but for gods sake work toward a solution. All you people do is cry about wanting your guns without a solution that keeps scores of people from dying every couple of months. (6)>>Nevada does not limit the number of firearms an individual can possess. The as Vegas shooter had "weapons of mass destruction " at his disposal . When a person buys a lot weapons always should be a red alert . The challenge to limiting gun ownership to 3 guns . Which is my personal option to the pro 2nd Amenders , banning of certain automatic weapons has been on the table of debates since the 1990s. Laws limiting the number of guns someone can buy within a short span of time helps reduce gun trafficking. Interstate trafficking of firearms flourishes, in part, because states regulate sales differently, and there is no federal limit on the number of guns an individual may purchase at any one time. States with weak gun laws attract traffickers who make multiple purchases, and then resell those firearms in states with stronger gun laws. (7)>>if the United States has a "gun violence problem," Really don't you think ? The obvious answer is that our nations history is rooted in guns , ever since the wild wild west guns , the frontier days have created a somewhat fascination with the gun culture in our society . In our society we don't all have normal people who want guns for self defense, but there are people that should be profiled . There are the "normal" gun collectors , but there are a certain few who are obsessed with guns . They show up at gun shows buying guns by the cartloads with boxes and boxes of ammunition . This video exposes gun shows { http://bit.ly/2fW7nH4 } check out the "weapons" being sold in this video . Watch undercover footage that shines a spotlight on these illegal sales at gun shows below.  Its all military grade weapons . In 2009, the City of New York conducted a multi-state investigation of gun shows to expose the threat posed by the “gun show loophole,” a term often used to describe the fact that federal law allows private sellers to sell firearms without background checks or record keeping. This loophole is closely associated with gun shows because they’re the largest and most central marketplaces for private sellers to connect with purchasers who are trying to avoid detection. 

Hillary's Ghost .

Hillary Clinton's frustration on why she
"really" lost is beyond
current conspiracy theories .

Hillary R Clinton's   memoir What Happened, (1)>>which examines her 2016 loss to President Trump. is a vary interesting book . Clinton might have become America’s first woman president, but she didn’t ,so we have another book .Her new  book  runs from the apathetic white lady voters to (2)>>Russian meddling theory to the inscrutable popularity of Donald Trump. When Clinton's focus turns to herself, however, she's light on culpability. (3)>>Mrs. Clinton has a long history or writing apologetic books . He last book Hard Choices was about Benghazi , the failed foreign American policy under President Obama. Living History a book that was published in 2003 reflected pretty much decrying the overly lengthy later treatments of relatively mundane events as First Lady, and criticizing the lack of candor in the sections covering controversial episodes, including those surrounding her husband and the Lewinsky scandal. These three books I have in my book collections . They sound so similar , its not about making any sense of the "why" but about the "hows" in Mrs. Clinton's  personal recollections. Don't get me wrong here . Hillary Clinton is a vary intelligent and shrewd woman.  In reality she became a epic fail in the political system having to lose the Presidency to two men who came out as the anti- establishment base . As an example of why it’s interesting,  in both cases consider the opening scenes she had to endure , about how Clinton dealt losing twice with the inauguration ceremony in which she might have expected to be sworn in herself, but instead sat there watching both Barrack Obama and  Donald Trump take the oath. She was seemed jinxed from the start when back in 2008 she was running against Obama in a vary nasty campaign . After watching the debate between her and Obama it really sank into me that Hillary had a over confidence dilemma . While she was drilling the unexperienced Obama in a debate regarding healthcare reform in 2008 , Hillary threw some punches , she was incredibly more versed on the subject than Obama was . So how could such a intelligent woman have  lost ? TWICE !? 

Why Hillary Lost to Obama.2008 AD.

What made Obama politically
smart is that he was able
to take his opponents
Like Mrs. Clinton , turn
her into  a supporter .  

Back when Sen. Hillary Clinton was just starting her campaign, top aides and advisers had a ready answer when asked if she could win the presidency."She's already winning," came the response, as repeated by chief strategist Mark Penn, campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe and other top aides and advisers, in memos, press releases and interviews as the campaign began in 2007.Obama's change message was far superior in 2008 to Hillary's experience message. With a majority of Americans telling pollsters the country is on the wrong track, Obama faced a danger, fueled by Hillary's gibes, that his change message would be too vague and rhetorical. But the combination of wonky policy speeches in early 2007 and a well-designed Web site that proved he was substantive helped him put meat on the strong bones of his themes.Much of the bombastic campaign rhetoric from 2008 — think “3 a.m. call” — proved as ephemeral as the thousands of half-melted “Hillary” candy bars Clinton’s staff handed out on Super Tuesday ,‘08 shots at Obama have had resonance far beyond the short shelf life of the standard campaign hit parade: her mockery of his vow to transform Washington in his own image, her cry of “elitism” and her skepticism about his managerial chops echo today in the form of GOP attacks and the lingering doubts of some in his own party.Clinton’s campaign attacks on Obama may have been an exaggerated version of reality, but in retrospect they were illuminating, in the way a hand grenade provides a flash of light before going boom.on Feb. 24, 2008, that represented her most stinging attack on Obama’s core hope-and-change message.“I could stand up here and say: let’s just get everybody together, let’s get unified,” Clinton said, voice dripping with contempt long since discarded. (4)>>“The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know that we should do the right thing, and the world would be perfect,” Clinton added. “Maybe I’ve just lived a little long, but I have no illusions about how hard this will be. You are not going to wave a magic wand…” From that moment on she lost to Barrack Obama.

"  BACK  UP YOU CREEP"

"'This is not OK,'" she recalled thinking in What Happened, set to come out Sept. 12. "Two days before, the world heard him brag about groping women. Now, we were on a small stage and no matter where I walked, he followed me closely, staring at me, making faces. It was incredibly uncomfortable. He was literally breathing down my neck. My skin crawled."

Here’s a partial transcript of the debate anecdote:

“This is not ok, I thought. It was the second presidential debate and Donald Trump was looming behind me. Two days before, the world heard him brag about groping women. Now we were on a small stage and no matter where I walked he followed me closely, staring at me, making faces. It was incredibly uncomfortable. He was literally breathing down my neck. My skin crawled. It was one of those moments where you wish you could hit pause, and ask everyone watching, “Well, what would you do?” Do you stay calm, keep smiling and carry on as if he weren’t repeatedly invading your space? Or do you turn, look him in the eye and say loudly and clearly, “Back up, you creep. Get away from me. I know you love to intimidate women but you can’t intimidate me. So back up.” I chose Option A. I kept my cool, aided by a lifetime of dealing with difficult men trying to throw me off. I did, however, grip the microphone extra hard.”

On Wednesday, as in the aftermath of the debate, social media exploded with reaction to the former Secretary of State's disclosures, but almost all of it was informed by users' party affiliation. Democrats who voted for Clinton championed her, while Trump supporters seized on what they saw as hypocrisy from a sex scandal-plagued Clinton presidency. The people did hear Hillary's plans and rejected them. Many, if not most, Trump voters don't like the guy. However, they reasoned that the alternative was even worse. Clinton looked more dominant than she had even in 2008 — her poll numbers were higher, her challengers weaker, her endorsements more impressive. Liberals, chastened by the disappointments of the Obama years, seemed to recognize Clinton's prescience. The GOP faced almost a Apocalypse. Till they pulled one of the greatest bloddless (5)>> coup d'état in American political history. Collusion was in their mist , they sized power on a alt-right wing platfourm that they were planning in 8 years of Obama .   In last fall's election, no matter which candidate won, the American people lost.

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

Hillary won the popular vote
in 2008 , but lost to
Obama .

(1)>>which examines her 2016 loss to President Trump.  I was "flabbergasted" when I watched Hillary Clinton lose to Donald J Trump . I saw the early polls on TV as votes were being counted , she was behind , way behind . Though the election of 2016 was fishy, troubling . Considering Trump's rather disturbing background , Hillary should have won , she beat Trump during the TV debates . Hillary was more articulate than Trump , Trump threating to send Hillary to Jail was a give away besides calling on Russia to hack her e-mails was a red flag to the voters ??  I don't think the voters knew what they were getting. Based on what we know now{ gutting the Russian meddling theory} . The 2016 presidential election is likely to share a lasting twilight-zone quality with the election of 2000. Each led to an unfortunate result, by my lights—the election of George W. Bush in one case, of Donald Trump in the other—through what was, by anyone’s lights, the interaction of a thousand factors whose relative impacts no one will ever be able to separate. So many things “made the difference” in each race that we’ll never know which specific one was most important or consequential. In each case, the loser of the popular vote ended up in the White House—something that seemed a mainly theoretical twist back before Bush v. Gore, since no living American had experienced it.       (2)>>Russian meddling theory.      This is, to put it lightly, crazy.  BLAMING the RUSSIANS is sinister in many ways . I don't believe it , first YOU have to think that if the Russians helped trump win in any way , its extremely hurtful to the Republican party . It puts the Republican GOP establishment in collusion as well . Yes, MAYBE the GOP did rig the election to have Trump win the nomination is MY SUSPICION. But as I said before Trump can't escape his Russia business dealings . I think they will hurt him .  The most amazing thing is that a Clinton campaign official essentially spells out why it’s nuts to Axios Presented By LexCorp, but doesn’t quite piece it together.“The White House was like everyone else: They thought she’d win anyway. ... If he had done more, it might have lessened a lot of aggrieved feelings, although I don’t think it would have altered the outcome. The Russia thing was like a spy novel, and anything he said or did would have helped get people to believe it was real.” (3)>>Mrs. Clinton has a long history or writing apologetic books . Her two books.  Hard  Choices , Living History are more about explaining , apologies to the American public . One of best , long lasting books was the 1996 "It Takes a Village" which redefined the American educational system . To this day it still influences public schools way beyond NCLB / Common Core . Its concept was to introduce US public schools to a global community as one world . (4)>>“The sky will open, the light will come down" .  See this video :   http://bit.ly/2kcM89b . Any body remember this one ? A day after Hillary Clinton angrily called on Barack Obama to stop mailing campaign literature she said misrepresented her positions, the New York senator adopted a more sarcastic tone toward her rival on a campaign swing through Rhode Island Sunday.If Obama was surprised by his presidency's failure to change the tenor of American politics, Clinton probably wasn't. She had always been clear that Obamaism was, in her view, shot through with naiveté about the nature of both American politics and Republican opposition. (5)>> coup d'état . Technically any sudden, decisive political act but popularly restricted to the overthrow of a government.coup d'état in Culture. coup d'état [(kooh day-tah)] A quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group.he phrase did not appear within an English text before the 19th century except when used in translation of a French source, there being no simple phrase in English to convey the contextualized idea of a "knockout blow to the existing administration within a state."