Image 01 Image 03

NRA Formally Endorses Donald Trump for President

NRA Formally Endorses Donald Trump for President

Trump vows he will defend Second Amendment that “Heartless Hillary” wants to destroy

Today at its Annual Meeting the NRA formally endorsed Donald Trump for President of the United States.  Immediately following Trump gave a nearly 30 minute speech to a packed room and was met with frequent applause and several standing ovations.

The following reflects my rapidly-typed contemporaneous notes as Trump spoke.  I’ve phrased them as if I were quoting Trump, and mostly that’s the case, but there is also some necessary paraphrasing here and there when he spoke too quickly for me to keep up.  The paraphrases accurately reflect the gist of Trump’s comments.  There are also some passages of Trump’s talk that I didn’t capture in my notes.  Finally, I came into the speech after it had begun, but believe I only missed a couple of minutes.


My sons have been members of the NRA a long time. They have so many rifles and guns, sometimes even I get concerned. That’s a lot of guns. They’re really surrogates for me, they go around.

So often we talk about Paris or San Bernardino, nobody had guns, Paris is probably in the world the toughest place in the world to have a gun France generally but Paris in particular, and when these thugs came in, not masterminds, thugs …

The press has stopped using the term, radical Islam, they are very dishonest people the press, the most dishonest I know. If you look at Paris, 130 people killed hundreds of people still in the hospital, horribly wounded, they’ll never be the same, and these people just came in, boom boom. No guns on the other side. If they had tried that here [at the NRA Annual Meeting], there wouldn’t have been 130 people killed and hundreds in the hospital, it might not have happened, but if it did happen there would have been bullets going in the other direction and there would not have been the same carnage.

Same with San Bernardino, two people, I guess she radicatlized him, who knows, we’re in a mess, radical Islamic terrorism, we have a President who doesn’t want to say it, and if you won’t say it you can’t solve the promblem. We have a president who doesn’t want to say a word. If there had been guns on the other side, it wouldn’t have been the same.

And then you have the gun free zones, the gun free zones.  Our military, they’re told to put their guns away, and this wacko came in and shot all five, killed all five of them. We’re getting rid of gun free zones.

We should have non-teleprompter speeches only when you’re running for president, you find out about people.  With tele-prompters you don’t find out about people. [Laughter.]

The Second Amendment is under threat like never before. Crooked Hillary Clinton is the most anti-gun, most anti-Second Amendment candidate ever to run for President. The NRA, and the late hero, Charlton Heston, who many of you knew, I met him a few times he was a an incredible guy, he batttled with the Clintons to protect the Second Amendment. The NRA has led the fight again and again to defend our Second Amendment.

Chris [Cox, Executive Director of the NRA-ILA, the NRA’s political arm] and Wayne [LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice President] , great guys! [They would have made talks preceding Trump’s remarks.]  Of course if they didn’t endorse me maybe I wouldn’t say that.  No, I’m kidding, I still would.



Hillary wants to reverse the Supreme Court decision DC v. Heller on the right to keep and bear arms. She said the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. That’s bad. Jus like the miners, what she said about the miners.

If Hillary gets to appoint her judges, defense is number one, the economy is important, with out defense we don’t have a country. Our military is being decapitated, what they’re doing to our military is terrible. Our fighter jets are running out of parts, these are fighter pilots they are going to plane graveyards with junk planes and cannibalizing their planes. And I’m saying is this the US, why don’t we have new equipment? The equipment, the way its maintained everything it’s like a different world. [When I’m President] nobody is going to push us around. Nobody. [Standing applause.]

And by the way, as part of that, we are going to take care of our great veterans, I have to tell you, the proper way. Thank you.

If Hillary gets to appoint her judges, one of the biggest and most important reasons to win this time, it’s very unusual, sometimes you get no judges to appoint, sometimes you go years with no judges, probably there will be a minimum, Scalia, was great, great, and you’ll probably have three or it could be four and it could even be five judges, and we’re talking about a 4-year period, and of course, we intend to make it 8 years, but we’ll make it so good in four years you’ll probably say to me we don’t need you anymore, Mr. President, it’s so good.

If it’s Hillary, assuming she’s allowed to run, because what she did with her emails is criminal and shocking that she shouldn’t be allowed to run, but it looks like she will be allowed.  And I do want to run against her, I really do.

If Hillary gets to appoint her judges she will as part of it end the Second Amendment. It’s like what she said about the coal miners.

Hillary wants to disarm vulnerable Americans in high-crime areas, Hillary wants them to be defenseless, to take away any chance thay have of survival. You have men and women sitting in apartments, and outside there is terrible crime. And if you take that gun away from them it’s going to be a very unfair situation. That’s why we’re going to call her “Heartless Hillary.”

I put forth a list of judges, who will protect and defend all of our freedoms including the Second Amendment. The judges will follow the Constitution, they were vetted by the Heritage Foundation, Jeff Sessions, Everybody is really happy, we’ve got A-plus reviews on that.

American use guns to defend themselves agains violent crime more than a million times a year, and they want to take them away. heartless Hypocrites like the Clintons want to take them and want to get rid of guns and yet they have bodyguards. So in addition to having them name judges [they plan to appoint], we’ll call on them to have their bodyguards immediately disarmed, and let’s see how they feel walking around without the guns on their bodyguards.

President Obama tries to take guns from law abiding, but has reduced prosecutions of violent criminals He is releasing violent criminals from jails, including criminals with gun crime convictions, and they are being let go by the thousands.

Many of these are also, illegal immigrants.

Two weeks ago 16,500 border patrol agents endorse Donald Trump. I have the endorsement from NRA today and the endorsement from border patrol agents. They’re told to stand back, don’t do their job, they want to do their job. Its’s the first time they’ve endorsed a Presidential candidate, and 16,500, and I’m very proud of that.

This is Hillary’s agenda to release the violent criminals from jail, she wants them all released, and whether it’s Kate in San Francisco or Jamile, was shot in the face three times by someone who wasn’t supposed to be here, a 65-year-old woman was raped and killed by an immigrant who wasn’t supposed to be here. 

We’re going to build a wall, it will be a great wall, and people will come into the country, but they will come in legally. We’ll keep our borders open, but people will come in legally. Hillary just wants the border open.

She’s putting the most vulnerable Americans in jeopardy and this is the risk we can’t afford. We’ve had enough. Can we just say that we’ve had enough? In trying to overturn the Second Amendment Hillary is telling everyone, and every woman, living in a bad community that they can’t defend themselves. That is so unfair and so egregious.

You know my poll numbers with women are starting to go up, I couldn’t believe it, but now they should really go up. My poll numbers with men are through the roof, but I like women more than men. [Laughter.] And people know that about me. [Laughter.]

I’m going to put criminal behind bars and guaranteed that law abiding mareifcan have the right to self-defense, 100%

There are 13 million right to carry permit holders in the US. I happen to be one of them. Nobody knows that. Boy, would they be surprised if somebody tries to hit Trump. If I wasn’t surrounded by the largest group of Secret Service people, who are by the way fantastic people, and our police are fantastic people, we have to give a standing ovation to police, we have to, they are fantastic people, amazing. They do such a great job, they are so unfairly treated, but they know, and they know how the people feel about them.

In the past 30 years the number of right to carry states has gone up 7-fold. These are among the most law-abiding folks, statistically, in the entire country. So they have the right to carry, they are among the most law-abiding. In fact, they are at the top of the list. In Florida they’ve issued more than 3 million concealed carry permits in 30 years, only 168 have been revoked, That’s 0.006% So very few, and no difficulty. Hillary wants to go in the opposite direction. She says Obama has not gone far enough.

Some of those terrible executive orders, they’ll be unsigned so fast, they’ll be unsigned the first hour I’m office, the first hour.

Hillary’s pledged to issue new antigun executive orders. She’s not equipped to be President in so many ways, but this is the thinking of a person who is not equipped to be the President of the united states. She’s got bad judgment, you know where it came from, it came from me, and her current opponent, who’s doing pretty well, by the way. Talk about a rigged system, he wins every week and he keeps losing. I think Bernie should run as an independent [applause,] I do.

The Second Amendment is on the ballot in November, the only way to save the Second Amendment is to vote for a person, and you all know me, Donald Trump. I will never let you down, I will protect the Second Amendment, I will protect the country, our military will be strong, our borders will be enforced, we will get rid of common core and education will be local, we will get rid of Obamacare, Obamcare is out of control, the new costs will be revealed November 1, and don’t let this happen, Obama is trying to get the costs revealed after the election, they will be so astronomical and they will show what a disaster Obamacare is, we will repeal it and replace it with something great.

Strong borders, and the greatest, every country worldwide is ripping off our great country, like we’re children, taking candy from a baby, our trade deals which I will renogetiate, we won’t have trade deficits of $5trillion, they won’t be taking our jobs and moving them to Mexico. That’s not happening with me. When they make their air conditioners and they sell them across our border, there is gong to be tax, we’re going to have great trade agreements, we’re going to become a strong national again, we’re going to save Social Security, we’re going to save Medicare, you’re going to be proud of your President, but I don’t care about that, you’re going to be proud of your country. we’re going to start winning again, we never win any more.

We’re going to knock the hell out of ISIS.

So, we’re going to start winning again, we’re going to win with military, border, trade, we’re going to win at everything, some of you are going to come to me and say Mr. President, we can’t take it anymore, please we win too much, and I’m going to say we’re going to KEEP winning, we’re going to make American great again.

That’s all I’ve got folks.

[Featured image via Twitter]

–-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

BREAKING! The fully updated newest edition of our best-selling book has launched, “The Law of Self Defense, 3rd Edition”!

Attorney Andrew Branca and his firm Law of Self Defense have been providing internationally-recognized expertise in American self-defense law for almost 20 years in the form of books, live seminars & online training (both accredited for CLE), public speaking engagements, and individualized legal consultation.
“Law of Self Defense, 3rd Ed.” /Seminars / Instructor Program / Twitter /Facebook / Youtube


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


    Ragspierre in reply to jennifer a johnson. | May 20, 2016 at 4:39 pm

    Don’t be too hard on the NRA, Jenn. They have a long history of supporting anybody who APPEARS to support them.

    See McAnus, John; see also McConnell, Mitch.

    Here’s McConnell, waving HIS Kentucky Long Rifle…

      snopercod in reply to Ragspierre. | May 20, 2016 at 5:16 pm

      Don’t forget Harry Reid. They endorsed Reid over Sharon Angle in 2010. That’s when I cancelled my membership.

        Ragspierre in reply to snopercod. | May 20, 2016 at 5:39 pm

        Wasn’t that the same election where T-rump contributed to Dirty, Filthy Harry?

        I lose track…

          snopercod in reply to Ragspierre. | May 20, 2016 at 6:25 pm

          Yes, you seem to lose track a lot these days. Trump contributed the massive sum of $4,800 to Reid in 2010…IOW, Trump Change. You lost. Get over it.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | May 20, 2016 at 6:32 pm

          You mean forget facts? Sorry. Won’t happen.

          You can swallow hard and learn to like the taste. I won’t.

        I understand on this particular issue Reid is pretty solid.
        Trump has a long anti-gun history.
        I also don’t understand the point of siting a long speech of his when he can start backtracking the day after, just like he did with “his” SCOTUS list. That he still needs to ponder to the base is remarkable.

    “Goodbye NRA.”

    You’re so brave, standing up to the NRA and Trump all by your self with Hillary.

      “With Hillary”. The mood in the country is and is increasingly pro-Second Amendment. Obama is anti-gun, and where did he get? What threatens 2A most is not a Democratic president, not the liberal media but a certain liberal anti-gun buffoon running as a Republican. He and he alone is perfectly positioned to usher in gun control.
      And yes, he will appoint liberal justices.

        Hitting the bong again I see.

        You supported Romney. A gun grabber.

        I am going to enjoy laughing at you charlatans after trump is president and does the opposite of everything you say.

        You think Obama is anti-gun. That’s cute. He plays the part because that’s what his party wants, but there’s much he could have done if he were serious about it, especially during the first 2 years of his presidency when he enjoyed a majority in the chambers.

        Hillary on the other hand is the real deal, and wants all us dirty proles disarmed.

    The NRA is using my financial support and paid membership to endorse Trump. I will not support Trump, and not by proxy, either.

    The NRA is going to the Ruling Class trough to gain deference and power. I refuse to align myself with the Ruling Class.

    It was foolish for the NRA to affiliate with Trump. The Second Amendment stands on its own.

    Trump and now the NRA with its endorsement does not represent me. Mitch McConnell does not represent me.

    I have my guns and a conceal carry permit. I’ll support those who do not align themselves with the Ruling Class and big government and the godless.

    Common Sense in reply to jennifer a johnson. | May 20, 2016 at 9:41 pm

    “The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization which advocates for gun rights. Founded in 1871, the group has informed its members about firearm-related bills since 1934, and it has directly lobbied for and against legislation since 1975. It is also the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization in the United States.”


    Fat Chance

The NRA has to latch onto the Trump Train. To be fair Trump will certainly be better than H on guns. He’s evolved since supporting the ban on assault weapons, right?

Good job Andrew, did you start your law career as a court reporter?

    I used to be able to type with precision at 120 words a minute. I can still type at 120 words a minute, but the output is not exactly English–so I just go in and clean it up. 🙂

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

VaGentleman | May 20, 2016 at 5:26 pm

I see the Al Qaeda Wing of the Conservative Movement (AQWCM) has already spoken. Didn’t MCConnell hold the Rs together to block Obama’s gun control? Who is the viable alternative to Trump? Please tell us who you support and show us how he/she stands a chance to win in Nov. Put up or shut up time is here. Honorable surrender is still surrender – it only emboldens the enemy.
Joining Al Qaeda in claiming to be the sole source of truth and showing a willingness to destroy everything to maintain that self conferred righteousness is certainly not a virtue. If you have a solution, please offer it. If you have a way to defeat a known evil, please tell us. Marginalizing yourself by not getting involved only denies you a seat at the table, and there will be a table you want to sit at. If all you have to offer is sanctimony, please move aside and let the adults try to win this. If circumstances this year are such that Hillary’s defeat is the only thing we can get, so be it – I will work to get we can get.

    Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | May 20, 2016 at 6:25 pm

    “If all you have to offer is sanctimony, please move aside and let the adults try to win this.”

    Two terms for you to look up…

    1. self-parody, and

    2. shutupery

    “I will work to get we can get.”

    Nobody is trying to stop you, or even shut you up.

    In fact, the only thing anyone here’s done is not show adequate “love” for your choice. Screw that.

    You won’t shut me up with your stupid name-calling. So, really, don’t try.

      VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | May 20, 2016 at 6:59 pm

      Like most of your posts, this one’s long on ad hominem and short on substance. I did destroy your argument the the NRA was wrong to support McConnell. I’m not trying to shut you up. In fact, I’m asking you to speak. Who is your viable candidate and what is your solution? How will we win in 16? What path to victory do you have to offer? I really want to know. I would love to be proven wrong and have someone lay out a way to get a known conservative in the WH. Can you do it? Can you show me how?

      Children think mommy and daddy are perfect. Adults learn that mommy and daddy are just trying to do the best they can with what they have. It’s trying, even when you know you won’t reach the top, that makes the result better than the beginning. And then there are bad parents who get discouraged and give up. Adults keep going, even in tough times.

      The AQWCM demands perfect candidates. One misstep and it’s out the door. But there will never be a perfect candidate because there is no perfect human. The best we can do is keep trying to reach higher. If you have a way for us to reach higher than Trump, now is a good time to speak.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | May 20, 2016 at 7:09 pm

      “The AQWCM demands perfect candidates.”

      And THAT is YOUR fantasy. Don’t try to impose it on others.

      It’s just stupid.

        VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | May 20, 2016 at 7:19 pm

        At least we agree on the rest of what I posted – you don’t have a solution, you were wrong about McConnell, and you use ad hominem to hide your lack of an argument.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | May 20, 2016 at 7:33 pm

        You are full of shit.

        First, I give McConnell his due on those occasions when he has any “due” coming.

        Not so much when he does not commit political suicide, as in support of gun rights. But, still, yeah. Same=same with McAnus and others of the GOPe. I ALSO note that the NRA is a single-issue outfit, and they are good at that. They make no pretense at being “conservative”, or ferreting out only conservatives to support. Look at the Deemocrats they ALSO support.

        I have made my positions clear regarding T-rump (Collectivist fraud, New York City). I won’t vote for a stinking, lying, Collectivist fraud. (See the period?) He isn’t “less than perfect”. He’s a Collectivist.

        Now, you CAN vote for a stinking, lying Collectivist fraud, and that’s both your choice and your responsibility.

        Do I have a magic wand here, to provide your demanded “solution”? Nope. Just my choice. And my choice is AT LEAST as valid and supported as YOURS, asphole.

        Finally, you don’t even understand the proper use of “ad hominem”. But you DO understand the use of condescension without any excuse for it.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | May 20, 2016 at 8:20 pm

          I’m glad to see that you agree with my position that McConnell was good for the NRA.

          I do wish that you had a solution to go with your candidate criticisms. I know it’s a character flaw on my part, but I have a hard time taking seriously arguments that don’t offer solutions. Pointing out the problem is, I think, only the first step.

          You may be right that my understanding of ad hominem is incomplete. I’m sure that if I keep reading your posts it will improve.

          I was concerned with the scatological references you made about me, but then I read your reply to another post here where you said, “You can swallow hard and learn to like the taste.” Suddenly, it became clear. I want you to know that you are among friends here and that, if the closet door opens, I will support whatever gender identity you choose.

          Here we go again: do your parents know you’re using potty language? Do they even know you’re using the computer unsupervised? And aren’t you supposed to be in bed by now, anyway?

        Exactly. I’m more than willing to vote for an imperfect candidate. Trump is just not qualified to be our president. I will not sell out conservatism for party loyalty.

Excellent. Trump is gaining steam just as I thought would happen. The Dems are in disarray (see Nevada State Convention) while the Republicans are uniting to elect Trump. And the media completely missed some of the great hires the campaign has been making over the last 14 days. Best week of the year for Trump.

JimMtnViewCaUSA | May 20, 2016 at 6:49 pm

Does Hillary ever do self-deprecating humor?

Thank you Andrew. I much prefer reading a speech to some out of context sound bite. I guess I’m a C-SPAN guy at heart, if that’s even a thing anymore.

Republicans made this Trump mess and they shouldn’t expect anyone else to clean it up. Since Trump is the nominee the NRA’s choice is easy. In fact half his speech is reminding them that Hilary is worse so he’s pretty much their only choice.

But at least the other half of his speech seems to have some understanding that legal gun ownership isn’t the cause of crime, it’s a way to prevent it. It’s not a Michael Bloomberg speech by any means. The fact that he showed up, told them what they wanted to hear, and is happy to have their endorsement is a good thing, but since he has no record of course you can’t read anything more into it than that.

When faced with Clinton, Sanders, or Trump, it was an easy decision by the NRA.

Are they gonna support someone who’s a self-professed enemy of the 2nd Amendment and has sworn to destroy it immediately upon gaining office (Clinton), or are they gonna support someone who has waffled in the past on the issue, but is now saying they will support the 2nd Amendment (Trump).

    Barry in reply to Twanger. | May 20, 2016 at 8:41 pm

    “…or are they gonna support someone who has waffled in the past on the issue, but is now saying they will support the 2nd Amendment (Trump).”

    Trump supported a ban on “assault weapons” and supported waiting times for purchase, something he shares with a lot of other conservatives. He was not for getting rid of or going around the 2nd. He has noted that by assault weapons he meant assault weapons, not scary looking guns.

    I happen to disagree with that stance, but I hardly think it is an assault on the 2nd amendment. He has always supported the rights guaranteed by the 2nd. If you take the view that any restriction is an ‘assault” on the 2nd, then I might understand your point. You should acknowledge that other republicans have had the same view, and I would guess you voted for them (Romney, bush, among others). Were they also “wafflers”?

      PaulM in reply to Barry. | May 21, 2016 at 11:34 am

      Barry wrote,”…Trump supported a ban on “assault weapons”…
      I happen to disagree with that stance, but I hardly think it is an assault on the 2nd amendment…”

      If that’s what you believe, then IMHO you do not understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

      Hint: It’s not about hunting, target shooting, or even home or self defense (from criminals). Also, so-called ‘assault weapons’ would actually have a stronger case against a ban, under the original intent of the 2nd, than handguns or common hunting rifles and shotguns.

        Barry in reply to PaulM. | May 21, 2016 at 11:53 am

        I know precisely the intent of the 2nd.

        Read with an open mind and in context. As I said “If you take the view that any restriction is an “assault” on the 2nd, then I might understand your point.”

        I have no problem at all with unrestricted rights to “bear arms” which is not just gun rights. And I think this is the clear meaning of the 2nd. There should not be any restrictions, no waiting list, no permits, no registry, etc.

        The point is that many of the so called “conservatives” have supported some restrictions on the right to bear arms, and I do not recall all the TDS loons saying they were assaulting the 2nd.

The NRA didn’t endorse George W or McCain so this is actually a big deal.

Trump’s nationwide concealed carry proposal could be a fantastic master stroke to keep guns legal.

So there is no confusion, here’s what I mean by “Ruling Class”:

I will not support popinjay Trump, a wannabe card-carrying member of the Ruling Class.

    “I will not support popinjay Trump, a wannabe card-carrying member of the Ruling Class.”

    From your article it is clear that Dole, McCain, Bush (2), and Romney are all part of the “ruling class”. Did you vote for any of them?


      PaulM in reply to Barry. | May 21, 2016 at 1:29 pm

      Barry wrote, “From your article it is clear that Dole, McCain, Bush (2), and Romney are all part of the “ruling class”. Did you vote for any of them?”

      Did you?

      I ask, because I know some Trump supporters who refused to vote for one or more of them because they were, “Tired of voting for the lessor of two evils.”

      So, while I agree it’s hypocritical to have voted for all of those lessor evils and now refuse to do so for Trump – I think it’s no less hypocritical to have refused to vote for one of more lessor evils and now suddenly start berating others for making the same choice.

      Of course, that’s assuming they actually believe Trump to be the lessor evil.

      Obviously you, and many others, think Hillary is obviously the greater evil. That’s based mainly on her extensive political record.

      Trump, like Obama in 2008, has virtually no political record. But, also like Obama, much of what he does have is troubling.

      The assumption Trump is the lessor evil seems based on little more than his unsupported and often contradictory words, and the belief he couldn’t possibly be as evil as Hillary. I think that he may well be the lessor evil, but that’s just my unsupported opinion – and I can’t say with any certainty that those who consider him the greater evil are wrong.

        PaulM in reply to PaulM. | May 21, 2016 at 1:34 pm

        LESSER, not lessor. My auto correct doesn’t seem to like LESSER – except in all caps.

        Barry in reply to PaulM. | May 21, 2016 at 4:46 pm

        “Did you?”

        Yes, as I have answered before. I voted republican in every election starting in 1972 with Nixon. I voted for McCain, a man I despise, because I knew how bad Obama was. But, I did not vote for Romney. That was the tipping point for me. it is not that Romney was any worse than McCain, Bush, Dole, etc., it was that the R party would nominate the one person incapable of mounting a challenge against Obama based upon Obama care. One might get the idea the R party was just as happy to have Obama in office.

        There are no “pure” candidates. And I do not advocate for voting Trump if you find him lacking. OTOH, 90% of the TDS loons happily voted for those staunch “conservatives” dole/bush/McCain/Romney and now want us to believe they are #nevertrump due to integrity. Just BS.

          I love this post, Barry. Having reluctantly voted for McCain, I stood on the edge of my “tipping point” with Romney, and I ended up going ahead and supporting him despite months of writing about what a big spending big government progressive he was (and still is, I believe). I just thought he’d be better than a second Obama term (and I think I was right, particularly given what Obama has wrought with Iran and across the Middle East, not to mention the truly awful things he’s done and continues to do domestically).

          It’s funny, I spent a lot of ink on trying to convince what were in effect #NeverRomney Republicans and conservatives to go ahead and take it on the chin, arguing that we just needed to focus on electing more and more actual conservatives at the local, state, and federal level (which we did, though many turned out to be grasping sell-outs). They all had good arguments for not voting for him, many of which are now being repeated about Trump (who to me is just as awful, if not worse, than Romney), but I just couldn’t “vote for” Obama (as I said, the same arguments as now). This is my tipping point. As you remember yours so well, perhaps you can cut us some slack?

          Barry in reply to Barry. | May 21, 2016 at 8:29 pm

          “As you remember yours so well, perhaps you can cut us some slack?”

          Fuzzy, I have no real problem with anyone who doesn’t vote for Trump. I have a problem with those who say he’s “not conservative”, but then, we know you voted for the non-conservatives the party has thrown out since Reagan. Now, if you take a moment to explain, as you have just done, and Jennifer has done, then I have no issue with you. I may, and do, disagree with you about Trump, but it is your decision.
          If you continue to refer to the man as a fascist as you have done, then I will continue to call crazy on that. 🙂

          As for “This is my tipping point.”, OK, I get it. However, for many, it is not their tipping point at all, it is simply vile hatred of anything Trump. And for the #nevertrump punditry class, it is for the most part, just a moneymaker, or a fear their moneyed positions might be in danger. I have known for a long time they were not interested in a better America, just in lining their own coffers. Trump has exposed them.

          On this blog, LI, all I have read is the disparagement of anyone (LIV’s) that has a different and supporting view of Trump. A few that supported someone else have made it clear that they will vote for trump as the “lesser of two evils” or as an OK choice. There are a few threads in Trumps history I find very consistent, they are “conservative” and the items we must address if we are to remain the America I grew up with. That Trump says those things in a way you disapprove does not bother me. The other side is winning. I’ll take a chance on Trump. He cannot possibly be worse than Romney or jeb!, or GWB for that matter.

          And you really, really have to be off in the weeds to think there is no difference between Trump and shrillary, or that Trump would be worse.

          Calling him a fascist or “collectivist” is simply employing rhetorical trickery not born out by any evidence.

          This is a bit of a garbled mess, Barry, but I’ll attempt to reply. Trump is not a conservative, by his own admission (until recently, anyway), so people who say he’s not are not some sort of crazed loons. They/We are simply acknowledging what Trump himself has acknowledged. There is nothing hypocritical about that, even for those of us who held our noses and voted for Romney in our doomed effort to save our country from four more years of Obama.

          I have called Trump a fascist on these pages once that I recall, and I qualified it with “for want of a better term.” What do you call a potential leader who sees himself as “managing” America and Americans, seeing us, as Mussolini put it, as “The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill”; who advocates public-private partnerships in the interest of the greater good; who sees private property as only so if the state doesn’t need it for . . . oh, say, a private millionaire’s limo parking lot; who sees a nation’s people as “employees” of the state; who seeks to dictate where the nation’s businesses build and produce their product; who has explicitly stated that the state will plan and “manage” all economic activity, including that from the private sector; who wants to “tax the rich” so that “excess” income is allocated to the state; whose primary strategy for tackling unemployment is large public works projects like “our infrastructure”; who seeks to manage, as top state priorities, national health care and education; who foreground nationalism (not patriotism) as means to control the populace; who find and revile scapegoats for all the nation’s problems (for some fascists this has been Jews, for others, racial minorities); who seek to control the media (i.e. sue journalists for writing “horrible” things about them); and on. And on. I can and will provide links to Trump’s statements on or reports of his actions regarding each of these points if you wish (I’ve actually already provided them, many times in many threads).

          Fascism, like socialism, comes in many varieties, and that is why I qualified my statement about Trump being a fascist. One thing about Trump, however, is crystal clear: he is not a freedom-loving, limited government, Constitutionally-minded person. In fact, he’s stated throughout this primary process (and going back decades) that he is exactly the opposite of that. I have no problem with your taking a chance on that, on Trump, but I will not.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | May 23, 2016 at 1:18 am

          “Trump is not a conservative, by his own admission (until recently, anyway), so people who say he’s not are not some sort of crazed loons.”

          And I have never called anyone that says trump is not a conservative a “loon” or any other derogatory term (for that reason). I have acknowledged he is not a conservative according to your, and others, definition of conservative. I no longer call myself a conservative. Some of you have decided conservatism includes things I find wanting, such as trade deals that have been poorly drawn, harming the USA. But if anyone complains we’re lectured on “free trade” being one of the “bedrocks” of conservatism. I have been doing business internationally for 40+ years. I sold machinery into China 30 years ago. I know how these deals are working. I benefit from NAFTA as an exporter to Mexico, but I know the average American does not. He/she loses their job.

          “I have called Trump a fascist on these pages once that I recall, and I qualified it with “for want of a better term.” ”

          More than once, I made note of it. And the first time I recall, you did use qualifier “for want of a better term”, what little that matters.

          As for the rest of your dialogue, when your disgust with someone is so strong, it clouds your thinking, it leads you to conclusions that support your disgust. That’s it. Nothing more. There is simply not one iota of evidence that Trump is a fascist. Since he will be the next president, you will get to see for yourself.

          “One thing about Trump, however, is crystal clear: he is not a freedom-loving, limited government, Constitutionally-minded person.”

          It’s crystal to you because that is what you want him to not be. What he is, is a imperfect American businessman. The emphasis is on American. You take his flaws and try to paint with a broad brush. That is your failure. The one thing that is clear to many of those who support him, he believes in America and the capability of its citizens. It is government that is causing our problems and he has, over and over, expressed a desire to fix that.

          And I don’t care who you vote for, or against.
          You, and I, will have to live with those decisions.

      In order to understand why things are growing worse in Washington, I’ve read dozens of books and articles in the past year, including the one posted above. And, Daniel J. Mahoney’s The Conservative Foundations of the Liberal Order by. I am currently reading Scalia’a Court.

      Since then and now I have made up my mind to not support any of the Ruling Class including its lobbyists. I am still finding out who is connected to the Ruling Class. Are you?

      I am Country Class – a Conservative Libertarian.

      The hypocrites: the ones desperately wanting to destroy “the Establishment” while supporting a false flag candidate such as Trump. Hillary is already outed as Ruling Class.

      King Trump is well pleased with your support, Barry, his mirror says so.

      Our Democracy gives people the impression that they have a choice. Think again: Trump or Hillary is no choice like Mark Kirk or Tammy Duckworth is no choice in Illinois.

        Jennifer, I’m curious, what exactly is a, “Conservative Libertarian?”

        OK Jennifer. If you are saying you have learned your lesson and regret voting for those recent R candidates, then I’ll buy your reasoning for not voting and actively opposing trump even if I disagree with you on trumps “qualities”.

        Is that what you mean?

        I find the term conservative libertarian rather confusing however.

        “A Conservative Libertarian?”

        I am a Milton Friedman capital “L” libertarian with regard to liberty and finances and a self-governing Kingdom-of-God Christian.

        As such, I do not sanction legalizing drugs, homosexual behavior/marriage, etc.

        IOW, I am a Classical Liberal who is a Christian.

        IOW, I am a Christian.

          O.K., I think I understand. Fiscal / Small government conservative with socially conservative beliefs. Although I’d call that a Paleo Conservative, or ‘true’ conservative – but I suppose conservative libertarian is just as appropriate a term.

          “As such, I do not sanction legalizing drugs, homosexual behavior/marriage, etc.

          IOW, I am a Classical Liberal who is a Christian.”

          I think you need to find a better term. A libertarian you are not, not even close. A fundamentalist perhaps.

          I abhor the use of drugs. The only thing worse is having the government make the decision.

          I am not a homosexual. But I cannot be in someone else’s head to decide for them what they are. You wish to use the government to enforce your morals. I prefer to let society make that decision.

          You are certainly no libertarian. You do not wish for liberty, you wish for government control.

          By the way, one can be a Christian without requiring government to enforce your Christian views. In fact, many Christians believe just the opposite. That government should stay out of religion. Novel concept I know.

          Barry, your sanctimonious condescension toward Jennifer is getting on my last nerve. Would you say that murder should not be illegal because it’s a sin and therefore a Christian value that should not be enforced by the government? What about robbery, theft, etc.? Same thing? It should not be punished by government, there should be no laws against it? I think you will find that the majority of Christians are just fine with laws against such sins. Before you answer, consider that in many cultures murder and theft are not crimes at all. In fact, there are aboriginal cultures that have no laws, per se, or even traditions (typically the model in lawless cultures) that frown upon murder and theft in many circumstances.

          But let’s get back to social engineering, a topic with which you relentlessly bashed Jennifer about the head and shoulders. What law or policy, any law or policy, does not in some way act as a tool of social engineering? Would you say that giving tax credits for being married does anything but “reward” married couples, thereby encouraging marriage as a social norm? Would you say that similar credits for advanced education or having children or owning a home are not a form of social engineering? What about drunk driving laws? Are these not a form of social engineering, however logical and reasonable? What about privacy and trespassing laws? Do these not encourage and enforce a particular socio-cultural behavior? Obama’s bathroom rules and EPA rules and all his other executive branch rules are designed with an eye to social engineering. Ditto every other law on the books. Okay, except maybe jaywalking. 😛

          A nation needs laws, and ours happen to be based on Judeo-Christian values.

          Get over yourself.

          Huh? Barry did you read my comment? Did you understand my comment? You even quoted part of it and still you misread me. PaulM understood.

          No, I do not think that government should legislate my morals. Period.

          I do no think government should coerce the acceptance of homosexual behavior onto me under the guise of non-discrimination. And, I do not think government should outlaw homosexual behavior. Do you understand now?

          And calling me a “fundamentalist” is you using a derogatory term the Left uses to denigrate Christians.

          The Left says that because I have absolutes, that I believe in one true God and his Word that I am not a free thinker like them. They will say that as such I am belligerent, stupid, ignorant, non-science and not “loving.”

          As a Christian women who works in electrical engineering I am not ignorant or stifled. I have values that don’t shift with every TV commercial or with culture.

          I am not for OK-ing drug use. That is where my Libertarianism ends. Milton Friedman would OK drug use under liberty. I would not.

          If you want to know what I think then read my blog.

          The end.

          “No, I do not think that government should legislate my morals. Period.”

          OK, perhaps I’m misreading you. OTOH, “As such, I do not sanction legalizing drugs, homosexual behavior/marriage, etc.” implies legislation to criminalize these very items.

          You don’t need legislation unless you wish make something illegal. By definition, breathing air is legal, no legislation is required. The government isn’t “legalizing” it, they simply do not make it illegal.

          “I am not for OK-ing drug use.”

          As stated above, you are not OK-ing anything. You are simply not making it illegal. I could make the case that making it illegal is OK-ing it based upon the result…

          “I do no think government should coerce the acceptance of homosexual behavior onto me under the guise of non-discrimination. And, I do not think government should outlaw homosexual behavior. Do you understand now?”

          Perhaps. I’ll take a wild guess and figure you reference making it legal for gays to marry, something you do not like. Of course gays could always “marry”, they just did not get the legal benefits that couples of the opposite sex get when they marry. I do not find that to be coercing your acceptance. I do understand you find it to lead to acceptance by others and this is what bothers you. I cannot say the SC decision was absolutely within constitutional bounds or not, but I do not see how the result harms you or any other person on this planet. It only seems to harm your sensibilities. In most states a homosexual can be fired from their job simply because they are gay. I think that is plainly wrong and discriminatory. So, yes. I find some of this to be in the arena of “non-discrimination”.

          “And calling me a “fundamentalist” is you using a derogatory term the Left uses to denigrate Christians.”

          I had no intent to denigrate your belief. I have several friends that are and describe their selves as fundamentalist. And they are, without question. I have no problem with their beliefs, but I would not elect them to positions of power in the government. Their beliefs are deeply held and they would not violate them. My apology as to the offensive nature of the use of the term. It was not my intent nor did I think it was offensive.

          I’m not “the left”, far from it. I just don’t think that you are anywhere close to being a libertarian, or a classic liberal. That you align your thinking on the economic front does not a libertarian make.

          I don’t need your approval Barry.

          Barry, that’s what authoritarian fundamentalists do – legislate approval.

          “Barry, your sanctimonious condescension toward Jennifer is getting on my last nerve.”

          LOL, you need to take yourself less seriously. I make no pretense about being morally superior to Jennifer.

          “Would you say that murder should not be illegal…”

          Well no, I made no such argument. Laws against murder, theft, and many of our other laws are there to prevent harm against someone else. It matters not if they are based upon Christian principles. Even the prohibition against jaywalking is designed to protect others, not just the jaywalker. We allow people to drink, and get drunk, in spite of the fact that they might cause harm as a result of such. We have other laws to protect people from the resulting behavior. I find this line of argument to be a bit silly. We have laws against drug use. The plain reality is they do not work. IMO, they add additional harm. With prohibition, which required a constitutional amendment, we discovered this simple fact. Drinking would still occur, and a criminal class would develop to provide it, creating a new problem. Now, since it bothers you so much, please explain why we needed a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol consumption, but need not for drug use.

          “But let’s get back to social engineering, a topic with which you relentlessly bashed Jennifer about the head and shoulders.”

          I think you need to read again as I have not “relentlessly bashed” Jennifer about it. I responded to Jennifer’s assertion that she was, in part, a libertarian: “I am Country Class – a Conservative Libertarian.”. This is a confusing description given the nature of Jennifer’s beliefs, which are not at all libertarian except in the very narrowest sense (economic). Jennifer then clarified this with “IOW, I am a Classical Liberal who is a Christian.” A “Classical liberal” is very liberal on social issues, so this would be at odds as well.

          “What law or policy, any law or policy, does not in some way act as a tool of social engineering?”

          Once again you create a thought I don’t have. All laws act as a tool of social engineering, for good or bad. Good or bad will of course depend upon your particular point of view. Yes, even jaywalking could be construed as designed to keep people orderly.

          OK, so what tweaked you on this issue? Ah, got it. Homosexuality. Jennifer said “As such, I do not sanction legalizing drugs, homosexual behavior/marriage, etc.”. Now, the way I read that, homosexual behavior should be against the law, and that is how I responded since Jennifer was declaring to be, at least in part, libertarian. Jennifer then said that is not what was meant by the statement.

          So, in this case, the “social engineering” would be perceived good by some, but probably not by most of those who are homosexuals.

          Last, and unmentioned by you, I suggested Jennifer might more generally be a fundamentalist. Jennifer took exception to this. As I made very clear, I meant it in no harmful manner, having a couple friends who are, and describe themselves this way. I did not find it to be derogatory. And apologized since Jennifer found it so.

          “A nation needs laws, and ours happen to be based on Judeo-Christian values.”

          I don’t believe anything I’ve written could be construed otherwise. As with any group larger than one, we will have some disagreement on what are good and useful laws and laws that are harmful or unnecessary.

          “Get over yourself.”

          You owe me an apology.

I’m not a lawyer, but doesn’t the congress pass bills that are sent to the president for his approval or denial? If the congress doesn’t have the balls to submit a budget, are they going to mess with the 2nd Amendment?

    It’s the Republican congress that doesn’t dare cut spending which, of course, Barry would veto anyway. The Republican congress is unlikely to mess with the Second Amendment, but who said that Trump will get a Republican congress?
    Both Hillary and the Don are likely to appoint liberal justices to SCOTUS and those justices will likely gut out the right to bare arms. Hillary’s nominees will face some kind of opposition from the GOP, but Trump’s will not.

      “Both Hillary and the Don are likely to appoint liberal justices to SCOTUS and those justices will likely gut out the right to bare arms. Hillary’s nominees will face some kind of opposition from the GOP, but Trump’s will not.”

      Explain to us why the republicans in congress will oppose the Hillary liberal appointment but not the trump liberal appointment.

      Try to use some consistency in your ramblings.

      So, just so I can write it down and laugh later, you are saying that Trump’s list is all for show, that he will appoint a liberal along the lines of a Hillary?

      Old0311 in reply to edgeofthesandbox. | May 22, 2016 at 9:28 am

      To hide under the porch like a whipped dog is neither honorable nor acceptable for a representive of the people.

I see LI remains a nesting ground for the kooks and tortas de fruta of the dwindling #NeverTrump-ers seeking to help elect Hillary.

Lots of comments about Romney. Did you notice that anti-Trumper High Priest Eric Fatboy Erickson wants Romney to run now?

See why Trump keeps going up in the polls and nobody takes the #SniffleSobNotTrumps seriously?

“Ahem, yes we simply cannot tolerate anything less than a pristine and pure conservative — that’s why we’e backing Mitt Romney”.

ROFL! You can’t make this stuff up!

    Barry in reply to DaMav. | May 21, 2016 at 8:42 pm

    It truly is a popcorn moment.

    Erickson cannot get paid with a Trump in office, thus Romney, that staunch conservative…