“Suddenly, without prior notice, YETI has declined to do business with The NRA Foundation saying they no longer wish to be an NRA vendor, and refused to say why. They will only say they will no longer sell products to The NRA Foundation. That certainly isn’t sportsmanlike. In fact, YETI should be ashamed. They have declined to continue helping America’s young people enjoy outdoor recreational activities. These activities enable them to appreciate America and enjoy our natural resources with wholesome and healthy outdoor recreational and educational programs.”
I can’t begin to tell you how bad of a move this is for Yeti, and I’m surprised Yeti didn’t throw the idea — as well as the man or woman who had it — out of the boardroom the moment it was brought up.
Yeti is what’s known as a lifestyle brand. People pay exorbitant amounts of money for their products because having a Yeti cup not only fits in with their lifestyle, but it says something about them. Something along the lines of “I lead a more rugged lifestyle and I need a product that can keep up with me.”
The fact here is that people who buy Yeti products tend to be outdoor types. Hunters, fisherman, sportsman, construction workers, etc. The punchline is that Yeti coolers were primarily bought by people who tend to appreciate a middle American lifestyle, and middle America loves guns.
The punchline to this bad joke of a decision is that by rejecting the NRA, Yeti essentially turned its nose up to the idea of the gun rights the NRA heavily promotes and defends. Many in middle America tend to look at the NRA as a heavily defended wall that keeps the gun control wolves in the hills.
And Yeti, without rhyme or reason, turned its back on it. That’s not going to sit well with Americans.
Gun control is a losing issue for anyone who gets too close to it. Yes, there are those who would be so absurd as to strip all gun rights away from the populace thinking it will solve our problems — you can ask London how well that’s working — but for the most part, America wants to keep its gun rights right where they are. This was Yeti’s customer base.
Keyword “was.” Now it’s probably Rtic Cooler’s, as their marketing team seems to fully understand who their customers are, and what they like. Also, their Twitter banner is just better, but I digress.
In response to Yeti’s decision to toss it and leave it, Rtic pulled up quick to retrieve it and made it a point to let their customers know that they’re not pushing away their values by posting a picture of the 2nd Amendment on their Facebook page.
We’ll keep an eye out on how the sales are affected, but in the meantime, enjoy your new Rtic coolers, everyone.
As Trump fans and NeverTrumpers head into the midterms, what can bring them together? The GOP is banking on the power of the Other: Hillary Clinton. Fox News:
Hillary Clinton won’t go away.
So conservatives are giving her a seat at the table.
Clinton is starring in the Republican Party’s 2018 midterm strategy. With no Democrat to attack in the White House for the first time in nearly a decade, Republicans are betting big that the ghost of Clinton will serve them well in 2018.
Even if she avoids the spotlight moving forward, the Republican Party plans to evoke her early and often in key congressional races, particularly in regions Trump won, which feature most of the midterm season’s competitive races.
. . . .
“We’re going to make them own her,” Republican National Committee spokesman Rick Gorka said.
With control of Congress up for grabs this fall, the GOP’s most powerful players are preparing to spend big on plans to feature Clinton as a central villain in attack ads against vulnerable Democrats nationwide.
The power of the Other is one reliable way to make enemies work together. Think about it: what kind of event would it take to get Russia, China, and the U.S. to cooperate? One possibility comes to mind: an invasion of our planet by green, scaly, multi-tentacled Martians with oozing pustules and sixteen roach-like legs.
And if you wanted to elect one of those pus-filled Martian vermin to nationwide office? Simple: present it as a binary choice between the repulsive purulent alien and Hillary Clinton.
I don’t blame the GOP. If you have someone on the other side so bad she can make normal people vote for Donald Trump, why not exploit that forever? Especially when, as the Fox News article notes, she won’t go away. New York Times:
In her first public appearance since James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, began his book tour, Hillary Clinton made only a glancing reference to him in a speech on Sunday night and instead focused most of her attacks on President Trump, once again likening him to authoritarians.
Mrs. Clinton gave the Arthur Miller Freedom to Write Lecture at PEN America’s World Voices Festival in New York City. She spoke at length about threats to journalists around the world before turning her attention to domestic matters. She criticized Mr. Trump, not so subtly comparing him to authoritarian leaders who had suppressed journalism in their countries.
“Today, we have a president who seems to reject the role of a free press in our democracy,” she said. “Although obsessed with his own press coverage, he evaluates it based not on whether it provides knowledge or understanding, but solely on whether the daily coverage helps him and hurts his opponents.”
Even correct things sound stupid and wrong coming out of her mouth. If she’s going to keep putting herself in the spotlight, why wouldn’t the GOP take advantage of that, and make her the villain of their story?
It’s better than, say, running on the GOP record of policy successes. (You can picture me rolling my eyes as I type that.)
(They told me if I didn’t vote for Donald Trump, the next President would explode the budget and keep ObamaCare. And they were right!)
Will Trump voters realize that Hillary won’t be in office regardless of whether they vote for some milquetoast GOP backbencher? Sure, some will. But the propaganda will work on others. That’s why they’re using it.
We get the government we deserve. And man, are we undeserving.
As our Hollywood celebrity set is revealed to be a growing inconsequential political faction they continue to hector and lecture as if they are socially relevant. Undeterred by the fact their overwhelming support of Hillary Clinton helped contribute to her defeat, the luminary Illuminati continue to offer up their unbidden opinions.
Since the election the famous have led the #Resistance — leading to zero change. They have loudly backed the Women’s March — and their donning of vagina hats has provoked for more laughter than change. Celebrities have blatantly supported the latest surge of gun debate following the Parkland school shooting — and the result has been increased gun sales and membership to the NRA spiking.
This has led to a crowd of celebrities addressing that particular result, all while remaining oblivious how they were the inspiration behind this wave of pro-gun support. The formation of The NoRA Initiative is meant to be a direct salvo against the NRA. By way of introduction this outfit crafted an open letter to NRA President Wayne LaPierre, and it is a marvel of ignorance and misinformation, all delivered in a demeaning and angry tone.
This letter — signed by a lengthy list of actors, performers, and dozens of other deeply important people — wastes no time in being an easily disregarded missive of mirth. It begins by addressing the Columbine High School shooting, and our celebrities fall on their collective faces by sentence Two. “Three of the four guns used in the shooting were legally in the possession of the shooters.”
Uh, no. Sorry, Hollywood gun experts, but the two killers at Columbine — Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold — were below the age to “legally” own their firearms. The guns were purchased by another individual, and despite the claim by NoRA, the straw purchase for underage individuals was illegal.
The letter then mentions the NRA held its convention in Denver weeks later. This is another wild inaccuracy. Rather than marching in behind the tragedy, the convention had long been planned for Denver and following the shooting then President Charlton Heston canceled most of the event activities, save for his legally mandated annual speech. This was done out of respect of the victims. Then NoRA engages in more sophistry.
It offers up a quote from LaPierre delivered in 1999: “You insisted that your organization believes in ‘absolutely gun free’ schools. You lied.” This is a very selectively-pulled quote, absent full context. What LaPierre referenced was preventing students from bringing guns into a school campus, and he noted the lax enforcement contributing to the problem. It is telling that groups like NoRA, and Everytown run just three words, as they feel the need to truncate his full quote. This is LaPierre’s full comment, as he continued:
Of the 6,000 young people the president acknowledges were caught with a gun at school during the past two years, we believe all of them should have been prosecuted. But the truth is only five were prosecuted in 1997. And just eight were prosecuted in 1988. That’s not zero tolerance.
The letter later states the NRA fights for Stand Your Ground Laws that, as they wrongfully claim, “allowed Trayvon Martin’s killer to go free.” This is patently a lie. SYG was not invoked by George Zimmerman’s defense team. It’s notable however this crowd feels that anyone defending themself from an attack is considered unseemly.
But let’s look at the overriding claims being made by this group of entertainment dignitaries. When it comes to the NRA they routinely charge numerous social effrontery:
The NRA promotes gun use
The NRA profits from guns
The NRA fetishizes and glorifies gun violence
Now, as a visual aid to put the stance of the notable members from the list into perspective, look at how dedicated to the anti-gun cause they appear to be professionally.
Sure, it could be considered brevity to merely show some notables brandishing weapons. But this is more than merely illustrating hypocrisy. Consider the charges being made by this group, then look over their profession in the same light.
Please explain, how can an industry that features and promotes content with weaponry turn around and accuse a Constitutional organization of being evil — for promoting weaponry? How can studios demonize the NRA as profiting off of violence, while studios reap profits from ticket sales to movies displaying gun violence on screen? How do they demean a group claiming they are fetishizing guns, when some Hollywood films are so laden with lead delivery they get described as “gun porn”???
Hollywood loves guns. They feature guns with such fanaticism as to be considered unhealthy, according to their own accusations. If they expect anyone to take their claim to desire an end to gun violence in this country seriously they should begin with their own industry.
This will never happen, however. As they lecture that anyone profiting from guns is inherently evil, they cannot cut off their own gun profit stream. Celebrities are perfectly entitled to have armed security usher them to movie sets because they need to make it on time and make millions firing their weapons.
You and I meanwhile are considered vile for buying into the very message that they display with wanton glee on screens across the country.
And somehow collude with Trump to rig the elections. Never defined is “collusion” – or “rig.” Or anything else remotely tethering this fantasy to Reality. This is the Left responding to delusion – with delusion.
Born was the utterly corrupt Robert Mueller independent counsel investigation. To look into a situation any third-rate district attorney would throw out of his office for lack of evidence.
More than a year later – there remains zero evidence of Trump-Russia collusion. Yet the Mueller Delusion Express shambles on.
Another scary sounding lie. In more than two decades, the examples of blocking and throttling can be counted on one hand – and were nigh totally justified under the circumstances in which they took place.
Yet another scary sounding lie. “Fast lanes” – is an intentional misrepresentation of what is actually paid prioritization:
“(T)he examples of private sector ‘paid prioritization’ ‘fast lanes’ – are nigh endless. Let’s examine just one.
“When you send a letter or package – are you limited to one delivery speed? Of course not.
“To chose but one private sector provider at random:
“UPS offers seven different delivery options: UPS Next Day Air Early, UPS Next Day Air, UPS Next Day Air Saver, UPS 2nd Day Air A.M., UPS 2nd Day Air, UPS 3 Day Select and UPS Ground.
“Heck, the government post office offers five different delivery options – right there on its government website.
“These are all variations of ‘paid prioritization’ ‘fast lanes.’ And no one is demanding the government ban them – because anyone who would do so would look titanically stupid.”
But the Left is demanding a ban on the Internet – because it turns out they don’t mind looking titanically stupid after all:
“(T)he Left wants to have the government…ban ‘paid prioritization’ ‘fast lanes’ on the Internet.
“But again – only for ISPs. For the Big Tech companies, Internet “paid prioritization” “fast lines” – are just fine.
“In fact, there are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of them – and they have for years and years been an intrinsic part of the World Wide Web.
“Behold the Content Delivery Network (CDN): ‘(A) geographically distributed network of proxy servers and their data centers. The goal is to distribute service spatially relative to end-users to provide high availability and high performance….
“‘CDNs are a layer in the internet ecosystem. Content owners such as media companies and e-commerce vendors pay CDN operators to deliver their content to their end users. In turn, a CDN pays ISPs, carriers, and network operators for hosting its servers in their data centers.”
Get all the facets of this particular Leftist lie?
“Fast lanes” – aren’t actually fast lanes. And they are nothing new. They have nigh always been intrinsically woven into the Internet fabric.
And the Left only wants to ban the practice for their political enemies – while allowing their political cronies to continue to build and use them unabated. Enjoy some cronyism with your delusion.
The Left lied – telling us the Internet was being murdered by Trump’s December FCC vote. But we woke up the next day – and the Internet was just fine. And has been every day since.
Well, the FCC vote didn’t mean the deregulation was actually in place. Because the Left was lying to us.
So now, today, the deregulation actually goes into effect.
The anti-gun left embraces the idea of being cowardly. They revel in it. The anti-gun left wallows in cowardice.
I know, now you’re offended. How dare I? And what the hell am I even talking about?
Look, it’s not to say that a person who refuses to own a gun is a coward, or even that it is cowardly to be anti-gun. It instead means what it says, which is that the anti-gun left embraces being cowardly. They indulge in it.
Before you run off to prove me right on Twitter, at least me explain what I’m saying.
It is frequently the case in life, and particularly so online, that in opposition to something or support of it, people will take up certain rhetorical standards to represent their cause, or that they think help sell it. Likewise, people have a deeply ingrained tendency to revel in the satisfaction one gets from taking something to its extreme, particularly in the face of opposition.
To put it more succinctly, people have a tendency to want to the most thing of whatever thing they’re part of. If one is a Patriot’s fan, one strives to be the most Patriot’s fannest fan of all fans. A geek to be the Platonic geek ideal. Even when the most of something means the worst version of that thing.
I am sure you can think of political movements in this country today where that tendency is regularly on display.
In the case of the anti-gun left, the refrain that guns are inherently dangerous in and of themselves, that they exist as an entity of evil notwithstanding the nature of their possessor, is incredibly pervasive.
I’m sure somewhere in the recesses there is dimly a recognition that this absurd anthropomorphizing of an inanimate object is an extreme overreaction or affected political pose, but only very dimly. In practice, the embrace gets only more extreme and cartoonish as time goes on and peer-feedback remains positive.
So it is that we see irrational reactions to perfectly innocuous behavior. A woman poses for a photo with a handgun safely tucked away, not brandished, and it becomes a national news story as people melt down over it.
An actress (who plays a law enforcement officer) poses with a gun and it becomes a national “shame” moment as people melt down.
A Senator supports the Second Amendment and is called a mass murderer on a CNN townhall.
This is an utterly recognizable trope, a long-standing, exaggerated joke about the protectiveness of daughter by father. The kids, in on the joke, smile. The gun, pointed down and held at arm’s length, to make it more subtle and maybe delay your chuckle when first seeing the picture. Nicely done. Cute, even.
BUT OH LORDA MERCY THAT GUN IS A GUN! CALL EVERYONE! THIS IS NOT A DRILL, TWITTER!!!
Let's see…Daddy poses for a photo by standing between daughter and her date, while holding a hand gun!? The clear message is what? That you own a gun? You make a strong case that MANY GUN OWNERS SHOULD NOT OWN A GUN!! Totally irresponsible.
Look I could post these all day, (be patient, I’m getting to the coward bit.), but I’m sure some of you are gnashing at the bit to dismiss tweets as irrelevant. It’s a pretty nonsense argument on its face, especially if it comes from the left. Obviously they think tweets matter a great deal as you can see if you’ve ever read the replies to a Trump tweet or heard the threats of lawsuits over being blocked by him. And national movements that are recognized on lists of the most influential leaders survive largely on Twitter buzz.
Our natural Luddite inclinations aside, the tweets obviously do matter, both as a barometer and a form of mass communication. More so than the inherent noteworthiness is the fact that, thanks to the replies, this photo in turn becomes a national story.
The story travels. And as it travels, and people see the reactions, they feed off of them. The people who defend him defend the most. The people “offended” by him are offended the most. The anti-gun left, which must see a gun as a force of evil irrespective of the nature of him to whom it belongs, whose argument against that object is inherently one of extremes, who establish the emotional appeal of their entire movement on the singular basis of fearing that object, must become the most afraid.
Thus, the coward.
There are many examples, but this one you’re about to see is absolutely pristine in its wantonly guttural primal scream qualities, and fantastically compact in its journey from offended to afraid to preposterously overblown reaction. A true gem of the art form.
JUST LOOK AT THIS BEAUTY.
So, again, the phenomenon of embracing the most absurd caricature of oneself is neither new nor unique to the anti-gun left, but in their case it is particularly striking because of the dark and stupid place it takes them. Being the most Patrioty Patriots fan may be extreme, but it’s not craven. The race to be the most insanely unsettled flower in the garden is objectively more galling and less appealing than almost any other extreme self-caricature. (Relax, I said almost).
Here is a story, because I don’t think I’ve belabored the point enough. I used to work with a guy here in North Carolina who was pretty … rural. I don’t want to dwell too much on the visuals here, but he was from a place called “Booger Swamp” so you get the picture. One afternoon he earnestly tried to convince us that he didn’t know the alphabet. Had never learned it. “I can read I just don’t know the alphabet,” he kept saying. It was a point of pride for him, you see. He was calling himself “Deplorable”, embracing the worst aspect of the stereotype. Not in defiance, either. In self-indulgence. He wanted to be that stereotype.
I have thousands of examples I could give you along these lines. And in reply to Feely we see the same thing. They want to be terrified of that inanimate object held without menace or malice in Feely’s hand.
It does not matter that he has no ill-will, that it is not only a readily apparent joke based on the visible elements of the photo, but it’s a well-known joke that’s as old as dirt and has been recreated literally thousands of times by fathers everywhere. They know that. They can read. They just want you to think they don’t know the alphabet.
They don’t have any actual fear of Feely shooting a kid. If they did, what kind of monsters would they be simply whimpering about it on Twitter for attention instead of intervening on behalf of those poor kids? Complicit monsters.
“Oh my God he’s threatening to murder a child and holding his daughter against her will like a piece of property. Anyhoo, The Voice is on so I gotta run.” What kind of person is that?
But of course, that’s not what’s happening here. As with most cases of the Twitter mob taking offense, they aren’t actually offended. They’ve merely spotted an opportunity to take offense. To act offended. To embrace the coward.
They’re the online version of sending a child home from school because he bit his sandwich in the shape of a gun.
It’s a shame what we’ve come to. Social media does amplify some of our worst impulses, but they are still our impulse. Our crappy, stupid humanity. And we should try to overcome it.
Be better than a coward. Admit you know the alphabet. Don’t perform the “I’m offended” circus show just because you can. Don’t wallow.
Your first test is to read this and then not whine on Twitter about being called a coward. I expect most of you will fail. Until that changes, expect the polarized atmosphere you sometimes pretend to lament to continue uninterrupted, and resolution for the actual problems society faces to remain unsolved, unresolved and, for the most part, not even rationally or honestly discussed.
Feely, by the way, eventually apologized for taking a humorous photo with his daughter.
The prom picture I posted was obviously intended to be a joke. My Daughter has dated her boyfriend for over a year and they knew I was joking. I take gun safety seriously (the gun was not loaded and had no clip in) and I did not intend to be insensitive to that important issue
From a book no one will really read to a series of memos that don’t really do much of anything, James Comey appears to have worn out his welcome. Republicans don’t like him because he is leading a PR campaign against Donald Trump, and Democrats aren’t quite ready to forgive him for re-opening the Clinton investigation so late in the 2016 campaign.
For Trump, this should be a moment that he can celebrate a victory – one of his enemies is basically taking himself out by doubling down and going on a disastrous media tour. However, letting Comey take himself out is just not Trump’s style. He has to get the last word in, even when the conversation is so very clearly over.
James Comey’s Memos are Classified, I did not Declassify them. They belong to our Government! Therefore, he broke the law! Additionally, he totally made up many of the things he said I said, and he is already a proven liar and leaker. Where are Memos on Clinton, Lynch & others?
This, from Saturday, is not only a dubious claim but an unnecessary one. There was no real reason for Trump to even go there. But, he couldn’t stop. Here he is on Sunday.
Kim Strassel of the WSJ just said, after reviewing the dumb Comey Memos, “you got to ask, what was the purpose of the Special Counsel? There’s no there there.” Dan Henninger of the WSJ said Memos would show that this would be one of the weakest obstruction cases ever brought!
Why on earth are you still on this, Mr. President? You are extending Comey’s news cycle by merely commenting on him.
Sure, I mean Trump’s logic isn’t that hard to figure out: He needs… no, he craves an adversary. There are two types of people in Trump World, after all, and those are people who agree with Trump and people he can set up as an opponent to trash as much as possible just to get a rise out of his fans.
That’s not saying Comey isn’t a real adversary – he’s made it abundantly clear that he does not like Trump and his words and actions of late betray the already obvious politicization of his former job. Still, that doesn’t mean that Trump even has to acknowledge Comey. It’s very clear his star is falling at a rapid pace. He’ll be a footnote in history before much longer.
That is, of course, if Trump stops tweeting about him.
Trump has this obsession with constantly tweeting about things that anyone who isn’t slavishly devoted to Twitter or political gossip probably don’t care about in the grand scheme of things.
It isn’t just Comey. He does this all the time. Take this tweet for example.
The Washington Post said I refer to Jeff Sessions as “Mr. Magoo” and Rod Rosenstein as “Mr. Peepers.” This is “according to people with whom the president has spoken.” There are no such people and don’t know these characters…just more Fake & Disgusting News to create ill will!
I had no idea about this story. I’ve been away from my computer all weekend. I find the idea of calling Jeff Sessions “Mr. Magoo” hilarious, and I am sad I missed it. But, the real world happens and on the weekends, many ordinary Americans are working, spending time with family, resting, and other non-political things. How many people actually read the Washington Post story?
Not nearly enough to warrant a response from the President of the United States, that’s for certain. But still, he goes out and comments on it. He can’t stop himself.
And when it comes down to issues like Comey, all Trump does is breathe new life into the subject when it should have died already. Every denial or response from Trump is just one more flood of “WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?!” reactions from the #Resistance waiting to happen.
I saw something truly fascinating and infuriating happen on social media on Sunday. Country music legend, Shania Twain, — a Canadian — was figuratively lit on fire over comments she made in an interview with The Guardian.
Twain, who is not an American citizen and therefore cannot vote, said in part:
“I would have voted for him because, even though he was offensive, he seemed honest,” Twain told The Guardian. “Do you want straight or polite? Not that you shouldn’t be able to have both.”
“If I were voting, I just don’t want bullshit. I would have voted for a feeling that it was transparent,” Twain added. “And politics has a reputation of not being that, right?”
Twain doesn’t like politicians who hide who they really are. She thinks that’s what most voters usually get and she doesn’t like it.
So, regardless of Donald Trump’s positions on issues — does anyone really know exactly what they are? — Twain liked the fact that he was a more candid and true-to-himself candidate in 2016 than anyone else. I’d wager she liked deceased Toronto Mayor Rob Ford as well. Just a guess.
Again, remember Shania Twain cannot actually vote in any elections in the United States.
Anyone who was angered over this simply marked themselves as someone who prefers being lied to. That is the singular point in the outrage here.
Because Twain said she would’ve voted for Trump because he’s shown people who he is, no matter how despicable that person is, she finds it politically preferable to most politicians.
There is an absolute library of content one could point to where Trump’s prime adversary and her husband have been precisely the opposite of what they’ve claimed. Anyone with a clear outlook knows Hillary Clinton’s non-support and outright attacks of women who get in her way for any reason — even if her husband has abused them — is in direct conflict of the person she and her sycophants declare she is.
Shania Twain eschewed the idea of hypothetically voting for Clinton over Trump.
Are you kidding me?
This is what is causing an angry mob to form? Anyone upset about a non-U.S. citizen who cannot vote saying they would vote for one candidate over the other because they seemed more honest about who they are is FANTASTICALLY RIDICULOUS.
I’m sorry for yelling, but this is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard of.
But, you know what? Well done to the Twitter mob.
Well done to the thought and speech police that actually hounded her to the point she actually apologized.
I would like to apologise to anybody I have offended in a recent interview with the Guardian relating to the American President. The question caught me off guard. As a Canadian, I regret answering this unexpected question without giving my response more context (1/4)
I am passionately against discrimination of any kind and hope it’s clear from the choices I have made, and the people I stand with, that I do not hold any common moral beliefs with the current President (2/4)
I was trying to explain, in response to a question about the election, that my limited understanding was that the President talked to a portion of America like an accessible person they could relate to, as he was NOT a politician (3/4)
My answer was awkward, but certainly should not be taken as representative of my values nor does it mean I endorse him. I make music to bring people together. My path will always be one of inclusivity, as my history shows. (4/4)
So was this the “real estate deal” Fox News’ Sean Hannity alluded to, when it was revealed last week that he was Michael Cohen’s “third client”?
A new report in The Guardian notes that Hannity has investments in foreclosed homes, as well as low-income housing in seven states: North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Texas, Vermont, and New York.
Some of that investment help came with an assist from the Department of Housing and Urban Development – something not disclosed when Hannity had HUD Secretary Ben Carson on his program
The records link Hannity to a group of shell companies that spent at least $90m on more than 870 homes in seven states over the past decade. The properties range from luxurious mansions to rentals for low-income families. Hannity is the hidden owner behind some of the shell companies and his attorney did not dispute that he owns all of them.
Dozens of the properties were bought at a discount in 2013, after banks foreclosed on their previous owners for defaulting on mortgages. Before and after then, Hannity sharply criticised Barack Obama for the US foreclosure rate. In January 2016, Hannity said there were “millions more Americans suffering under this president” partly because of foreclosures.
There’s nothing wrong with seeing a deal and making an investment. There’s a lot wrong with slamming Obama for Americans suffering under foreclosure, then quietly swooping in to take advantage of that.
So what are the details about the properties?
Among the most valuable are two large apartment complexes in Georgia that Hannity bought in 2014 for $22.7m. The developments are in the cities of Perry and Brunswick, which have higher poverty rates and lower median incomes than the US averages. One- and two-bedroom units in Hannity’s apartment complexes are available to rent for $735 to $1,065 per month, according to brochures.
The Georgia purchases were funded with mortgages for $17.9m that Hannity obtained with help from Hud, which insured the loans under a program created as part of the National Housing Act. The loans, first guaranteed under the Obama administration, were recently increased by $5m with renewed support from Carson’s department.
Hannity has brought up the housing issue on his program before, falsely claiming that home ownership was at a 51-year low. He’s done this several times.
The Georgia mortgages supported by Hud were guaranteed as part of a program aimed at protecting investors such as Hannity who buy rental apartment buildings. The government promises to cover losses if borrowers default on their mortgages. Borrowers pay an insurance premium to Hud in return. Bigger loan guarantees are available if the building houses low-income families.
Paperwork relating to the agreements with Hud, which was filed to county authorities, named Hannity as the principal of the shell companies used to buy the apartment complexes and to borrow the funds. Hannity personally signed several of the documents. A Hud source said Hannity was identified in non-public filings as the 100% owner of the apartment complexes.
Late last month, Hannity’s mortgages were replaced with loans for $22.9m that were rewritten with Carson’s Hud and a new bank. There was no indication that Carson was personally involved in the process. Carson does, however, have the authority to allow Hannity from 2019 to convert the rental complexes into condominiums for sale, which could be lucrative for the television host.
The companies behind the purchases are limited liability (LLCs), and Hannity is listed as either the manager or principal of the companies.
Some of the homes listed were also noted to be lived in by some member of Hannity’s family, or Hannity, himself.
The list of properties bought by the Hannity-linked companies includes multimillion-dollar homes used by Hannity. It also features single-family units priced as low as $50,000 in relatively poor suburbs. In at least two cases, batches of homes were bought simultaneously at a discount, after they were repossessed by banks from their previous owners in foreclosure proceedings.
The entire portfolio connected to Hannity comprises at least 877 residential units, which were bought for a total of just under $89m. Another seven properties bought by the companies over recent years have subsequently been sold on for more than $4m, according to public records.
So he’s raging at President Obama, while benefitting off of those foreclosed homes, and he’s praising Carson on his show, without disclosing that Carson’s department had given an assist with purchasing some of those low income houses he looks to benefit financially from.
So is this illegal?
I don’t think so, but at the very least, it’s rather hypocritical, and you have to wonder if there’s anything else that the “third client” may be hiding.
The NYPD is looking for a man wearing “Make America Great Again” gear who pushed a hispanic man onto subway tracks after a violent altercation in which racial epithets were used. The police noted the MAGA hat because the suspect was wearing it on security camera footage. It made national news because headlines could be written suggesting fascist, anti-immigrant violence was occurring.
WANTED: Black male wearing a red hat and red shirt both with the words "Make America Great Again" , blue overalls, a black ¾ jacket, and jewelry around his neck. Wanted for assaulting a male on the 4 train platform in Union Square. Call #800577TIPSpic.twitter.com/FliEXrrxNZ
Police say the suspect got into a verbal dispute with another man at about 8:15 Friday night while on board a northbound 4 train approaching the Union Square/14th Street stop.
During the dispute, police say the suspect made multiple derogatory statements about the ethnicity of the victim, described as a 24-year-old Hispanic man.
He followed the victim when he got off the train at 14th Street and punched him on the head multiple times while on the 4 train platform.
He then pushed the victim to the track bed before fleeing to the Brooklyn-bound L train platform, police said.
The victim was helped up onto the platform by his friend and another person and was transported by EMS to an area hospital for treatment of a laceration to his head that he sustained when he fell onto the tracks.
Police describe the suspect as a black man with a heavy build, wearing a ‘Make America Great Again’ hat, a red shirt with ‘Make America Great Again’ in white letters, blue overalls, a black jacket and jewelry around his neck.
You seldom hear what political gear a criminal suspect was wearing unless it involves someone on the right. I have to believe that a great many crimes were committed by people wearing Obama gear without making national news. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Malcolm X or Che Guevara swag in local lockups. That isn’t newsworthy though because it extrapolating what those criminals were wearing to a whole movement wouldn’t fit the media’s agenda.
That The Hill’s tweet mentioned the MAGA hat and the ethnicity of the victim but failed to mention that the perpetrator was black. Very clickbaity and reminiscent of—but not as bad as—when Contessa Brewer was on MSNBC clutching her pearls because we had a black president and white tea partiers were legally carrying guns in public. Andrew Breitbart shamed her for cropping the footage to avoid showing that the man carrying the gun at the tea party rally was black.
I have no problem believing that a certain percentage of any political movement is capable of gross misconduct or violence. I’m not prepared to tag the whole barrel with the crimes of one apple though. I’m not even prepared to take it for granted that this perpetrator wasn’t wearing the MAGA hat ironically or as a misdirection.
By now, you’ve probably heard the tragic (and bizarre) story of a nearly-nude man entering a Tennessee Waffle House in the early morning hours of Sunday, opening fire and killing four people.
The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation have identified the shooter as a 29-year old Travis Reinking, of Morton, Illinois. He’s now added to their Top Ten Most Wanted List.
As it happened, Reinking approached the Waffle House in Antioch, Tennessee at around 3:25am, fired several rounds with an AR-15 through the window, then entered.
At the time, he was nude, except for a jacket.
A hero on the scene, 29-year old James Shaw, Jr. described a chaotic scene, where what they first heard sounded like plates crashing, only to find out moments later that someone had shot through the windows.
After killing 4 (2 on the outside of the restaurant) and injuring 7 more, Reinking either stopped to reload, or the gun jammed, but Shaw saw an opportunity and managed to wrest the gun away from the shooter, burning his hand on the gun barrel, in the process.
He tossed the gun behind the counter, as Reinking made an escape.
If his nude attack wasn’t bizarre enough, it turns out that he was previously arrested by the Secret Service.
In July 2017, the U.S. Secret Service arrested Reinking for being in a “restricted area” near the White House, according to the Secret Service. After the arrest, his Illinois firearms authorization was revoked and local Illinois police seized four weapons.
“Among the weapons seized by those authorities was the AR-15 rifle used at the Waffle House today,” said Nashville police spokesman Don Aaron at a Sunday afternoon news conference.
Remember the story from last summer about a man in a restricted area around the White House, and how after searching his car they found firearms?
This is that guy.
During that event, he was instructed to move away from the restricted area. He informed them he had to speak with the president. They told him he would have to get with a tour group to do that. He reiterated that he was there to speak to the president, referred to himself as a “sovereign citizen” and said he had the right to “inspect” the White House grounds.
For those with questions, “sovereign citizens” are this freakish new, subculture of anti-government people who don’t want to live by the rules of the nation. They want to pick and choose what rules they feel apply to them, ignore everything else. They’re particularly against taxation, and claim no authority but their own.
This is the truly maddening part:
The weapons he had confiscated by authorities were given to Reinking’s father. His father gave them back to him, including the weapon that was used to shoot up the Waffle House.
Reinking remains at large. There is a $2,500 reward for his capture.