Gun Control Advocates Melting Down Over Barrett Nomination

H/T Bearing Arms.

These anti-gun groups are afraid the Supreme Court will actually become Second Amendment friendly.

As Democrats sharpen their rhetorical knives in preparation for the upcoming confirmation fight over Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals judge Amy Comey Barrett to the Supreme Court, gun control groups are already attacking the nominee over her views on the Second Amendment. At USA Today, Moms Demand Action’s Shannon Watts is doing her best to scare suburban moms by portraying Barrett as a judge with “an alarming interpretation of the Second Amendment” who would put countless gun control laws at risk with her view that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of Americans.

Judge Barrett’s dangerous views were on full display just last year, when she and two other judges heard an appeal from a man who claimed his serious felony conviction should not have prohibited him from possessing firearms. Dissenting from her two colleagues — both appointed by President Ronald Reagan — Judge Barrett sided with the plaintiff, taking an outlier approach to Second Amendment analysis that no federal appeals court has ever adopted. She even went out of her way to endorse a gun lobby-backed interpretation of a 14th century English firearms law — a law unrelated to the case at hand but central to many recent and ongoing challenges to public safety laws regulating the carrying of guns in public.


Dangerous? Hardly. Watts makes it sound like Barrett would give violent felons a firearm as they leave prison, when it fact the case involved a Wisconsin man who was convicted of one felony count of mail fraud for allegedly getting Medicare reimbursement funds through sales of unapproved shoe inserts. That’s not a violent crime, and Barrett’s dissent in the decision to bar the man from legally being allowed to own a firearm was soundly based in both history and tradition, as National Review‘s Ed Whelan recently pointed out.

Based on her extensive marshalling and analysis of the historical evidence, Judge Barrett concludes that the Second Amendment leaves legislatures the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns but that felons do not lose their Second Amendment rights solely because of their status as felons. The federal government and the state of Wisconsin failed to show that disarming all nonviolent felons is carefully tailored to the goal of protecting public safety, nor did they show that mail fraud is substantially related to violent behavior. They also failed to demonstrate that anything else in Kanter’s history or characteristics made him likely to misuse firearms. Therefore, they could not bar him from possessing a firearm.

It’s true that Amy Coney Barrett would likely take a dim view of many of the gun control laws that Shannon Watts and her fellow gun-banners have put in place over the past decades, but that’s because of Barrett’s not-so-shocking view that the Second Amendment actually means what it says; the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the People that can’t be infringed by the government. For the gun control movement, that’s the true danger of having Barrett on the Supreme Court, as Watts makes clear.

Over the past few years, Moms Demand Action volunteers have taken on the NRA at the ballot box, in statehouses and in Congress. Our movement is winning. But our progress on this public health crisis, and on racial justice and so many critical issues, can be halted — and even reversed — with one more Trump-appointed Supreme Court justice. Every one of our nearly 6 million supporters will fight like hell to make sure that the American people –– not President Trump and Sen. McConnell –– get to decide who picks Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement.

Justice Ginsburg fought for us for decades. Now, it’s our turn.

It’s not the job of a Supreme Court justice to fight for gun control groups or the NRA. In the case of the Second Amendment and gun control laws, it’s the duty of justices to determine whether or not those laws violate our constitutional rights. We know that Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Shannon Watts, Michael Bloomberg, and the rest of the gun-ban crowd view the Second Amendment as an anachronism; a right to own a musket for service in a well-regulated militia. Unfortunately for them, that view of the right to keep and bear arms was rejected by the Supreme Court back in 2008 and 2010 in the Heller and McDonald cases.
Barrett’s views on the Second Amendment certainly don’t align with Shannon Watts, but they’re solidly in line with Supreme Court precedent and the plain meaning of the amendment’s text and tradition. Far from being dangerous, Barrett’s legal analysis of the right to keep and bear arms indicates that she’s a thoughtful and thorough judge who’s unwilling to serve as a rubber stamp of approval for gun control at the expense of the Constitution.


Feds Bust Felon Who Threatened To Shoot Cops During Livestream

H/T Bearing Arms.

The big question is why  was this thug still on the streets?

He should have been behind bars for his bust in 2019.

A 29-year old Louisville man who threatened to shoot police officers during a livestream on Facebook is now facing federal felon-in-possession charges for illegally possessing a handgun.

Cortez Edwards was seen on the social media platform on September 23rd displaying an AR-style pistol and offering to shoot police officers who were outside of his home investigating a nearby disturbance if someone paid him $30,000.


“Louisville needs healing and safety for its citizens, not armed felons seeking bids to shoot police,” said Coleman. “Federal law enforcement here will continue to respond as one to swiftly mitigate threats to our city.”

When agents served a search on Edwards’ home on Sunday, they didn’t find the AR-style pistol that was seen during the livestream, but they did turn up a Glock 19 handgun.

This is actually the second time in two years that the 29-year old has faced charges for illegally possessing a firearm. Back in February of 2019 Edwards was charged with a lengthy number of felony drug and gun-related offenses, including two counts of enhancement trafficking in controlled substance in first degree, enhancement trafficking in controlled substance in third degree, enhancement trafficking in marijuana in first degree, three counts of enhancement possession of a handgun by a convicted felon and complicity to possession of firearm by a convicted felon.

Why wasn’t Edwards in prison on those charges instead of in his home waving around a gun that he’s not legally allowed to own? Unfortunately, we don’t have any details yet as to the 2019 charges and why Edwards wasn’t behind bars for the serious offenses. It’s possible that the suspect’s case hasn’t yet gone to trial even though it’s been more than a year since his first arrest, but it’s also entirely plausible that Edwards was offered some sort of plea deal or that prosecutors suspended prosecution for some reason.

Regardless of his previous criminal history, the current charges could land Edwards in a federal prison for a decade, and he’ll have to serve at least 85% of his sentence before he’s eligible for release.

The federal charges against Cortez Edwards comes as Donald Trump’s Department of Justice is seeking to crack down on violent criminals in cities beset by violence. Also on Monday, the U.S. Attorney in Cincinnati announced that 16 convicted felons in the city will be facing federal charges for illegally possessing a firearm as part of the DOJ’s Operation LeGend, a coordinated effort targeting violent offenders across the country. From July through early September nearly 500 suspects have been charged with federal crimes, even as some Democrats have criticized the operation as an election year stunt on the part of the Trump administration.

I don’t think too many people would classify the arrest of Cortez Edwards as a stunt. If nothing else, it should be a warning to other convicted criminals that it’s a truly terrible idea to threaten the lives of law enforcement officers while holding a gun you’re no longer allowed to possess.


NYC Boroughs Double Down on Failed Gun Buybacks

H/T AmmoLand.

With these gun buybacks Comrade Little Billy de Blasio is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

U.S.A. -( New York City has a violent crime problem and accidental Mayor Bill de Blasio is shuffling deck chairs in attempts to address it. After proposing to cut $1 billion from New York City’s law enforcement budget just as crime skyrocketed, he’s throwing taxpayer money at failed policies. That includes gun buyback programs that don’t reduce violent crime and waste money. Worse, they give a false impression to the public that something effective is being done to reduce the criminal misuse of illegally possessed firearms.


Criminals Taking to the Streets

New York’s crime problem started much earlier but was literally set on fire with the coronavirus response. New York was quick to release criminals from prisons. The result? In one instance, more than 1,500 criminals were back on the streets. Many were re-arrested for committing more crimes. Add to that the rising violence from riots and looting and the city has seen some of the worst violent crime surges. The violence was exemplified when a father was gunned down in broad daylight while walking in a crosswalk hand-in-hand with his seven-year-old daughter.

Mayor de Blasio watched it all and heard the “defund the police” cries. He cut a billion dollars from the budget of the men and women risking their lives to keep the cities safe. “I’m excited to say we have a plan that can achieve real reform, that can achieve real redistribution,” the mayor said while announcing the cuts. Now, he wasting what’s left.

Brooklyn hosted a gun “buyback” event. Men and women could trade in their firearms and receive $25 bank cards for rifles and shotguns and $200 per each handgun or so-called “assault rifle.” This was the first buyback held in Brooklyn since 2016 when 60 firearms were recovered. This year’s event netted 33.

Leaving police departments without necessary resources to address violent crime leads to unserious and ineffective attempts, like “buybacks.” Studies show they fail in their goal and criminals are largely not the ones participating. A significant majority of law enforcement officials rate them as ineffective in reducing violent crime. On gun buybacks one researcher, Scott W. Phillips, an associate professor of criminal justice, put it bluntly. “Does it work?… No. Should they keep doing it? I wouldn’t waste my time.”

If Mayor de Blasio needs more feedback he can look to the Obama Administration, which concluded buyback programs are ineffective in its National Institute of Justice memo.

Window Dressing

The simple reason these don’t work is criminals aren’t turning in their guns. The guns that are turned in are broken or in disrepair from years of neglect and those that are collected are never tested against any ballistics databases to verify if they were used in a crime.

This playing fast and loose with taxpayer money isn’t limited to mayors tanking in their own cities. Democratic nominee Joe Biden embraced a national mandatory gun buyback program as part of their antigun platform. Together with Mayor de Blasio, these unserious officials continue to bandage over serious issues and push gun control policies that only infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

The firearm industry has Real Solutions that work with law enforcement. These initiatives have proven successful at keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and reducing unintentional firearm accidents. These are initiatives such as Don’t Lie for the Other Guy , Operation Secure Store, and Project ChildSafe that are working. The same can’t be said for the “buyback” window dressing that doesn’t address the problem of crime.

House Votes To Edit VA’s Abraham Lincoln Quote Motto

H/T Western Journal.

Instead of messing with a quote from Abraham Lincoln fix the Damned VA.

There are a lot of things that need changed about the VA and Lincoln’s quote is not one of them.

The VA needs to be changed from top to the bottom.

On March 4, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln addressed a nation in the final days of America’s divisive Civil War.

With the war nearly won, the president turned his speech to confront the difficult process of recovering from such a bitter feud.

“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right,” Lincoln told the crowd, “let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

In 1959, the Civil War-era affirmation of the government’s role in caring for veterans and the loved ones they leave behind was made into the motto of the Veterans Administration, now called the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Plaques with Lincoln’s promise “to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan” were promptly installed on the department’s buildings, where they remain to this day.

After surviving decades, the motto could soon be gutted under a bill passed by the Democrat-led House of Representatives.

H.R. 3010, the Honoring All Veterans Act, was passed Sept. 22. Under the act, introduced by Democratic Rep. Kathleen Rice of New York, the VA’s mission statement would be: “To fulfill President Lincoln’s promise to care for those ‘who shall have borne the battle’ and for their families, caregivers, and survivors.”

It’s unclear what impact, if any, this legislation would have on the problems America’s veterans currently face.

As it stands, veteran suicides are uncomfortably high. Exacerbated by a bureaucratic VA and the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the deaths of former service members shows no sign of slowing.

According to The Connecticut Mirror, the suicide rate for veterans is 24.8 per 100,000, nearly twice the national rate.

While the bill would make the VA’s motto more inclusive, it fails to confront dire leadership and spending problems faced by the department.

A slew of other veteran-related bills passed by the House on the same day as the Honoring All Veterans Act seem to offer only minor changes to the department, such as pilot programs for information handouts and medical billing.

One act, H.R. 6092, appears to be on the right track.

This bill, the Veteran’s Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research Act, would cut through much of the red tape involved in getting prostate cancer treatment from the VA. The legislation would open a clinical pathway for sufferers of the disease, which according to the bill is the “number one cancer diagnosed in the Veterans Health Administration.”

The cancer, it was discovered, can be caused by exposure to herbicides like Agent Orange.

While this bill is welcome news for those suffering from prostate cancer, those with other diseases will apparently have to wait for legislation that will help them in getting fast and effective treatment from the VA.

With a growing generation of veterans suffering from physical and psychological wounds at the hands of a brutal and unconventional war on terror, a solution to the VA’s larger shortcomings will be needed sooner rather than later.


Why We Need the Supreme Court Back in the Second Amendment Business

H/T The Truth About Guns.

With Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court hopefully the high court will get in to the Second Amendment business finally.

Some readers were surprised to learn from my previous article on this subject that the Supreme Court of the United States has not made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is protected outside the home. “How can that be?” they asked. Further perplexed, they wondered, “But what about the SCOTUS decisions in the previous decade that supported the Second Amendment as an individual right to keep and bear arms?”

Well, yes, in a 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban, and in McDonald v. Chicago in a very similar 5-4 decision, it struck down Chicago’s draconian handgun ban.

But these 5-4 decisions have been hanging by threads. Chief Justice John Roberts has become an unpredictable vote and unreliable as a constitutionalist. Moreover, the liberal justices’ dissent at the time provided a clear warning: the Supreme Court is just one vote away from reversing Heller and McDonald.

But even with these decisions standing, the courts and Congress seem to have abdicated their duty to vigorously interpret the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms in light of these two affirming decisions. Incredible as it may seem, some courts have interpreted them as protecting the right to firearm ownership in the home, but not in the streets, or during transportation from one’s home to a shooting club or anywhere else, depending on the state.

And yet, when we look at the other natural or God-given rights supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution, we see that all of them apply to individuals both in and outside the home, including the prohibition against the quartering of soldiers in people’s home, a right enumerated in the Third Amendment. And when it comes to the First Amendment, we have to admit that we have also moved in an authoritarian direction.

We can go to churches, although this right has been curtailed by the farce of the COVID-19 lockdowns. We have also been guaranteed freedom of speech, although this right has been curtailed by insidious political correctness and the mere accusation of hate speech, as determined by the Thought Police, Marxist academicians, and the liberal media.

As for peaceful assemblies and the redress of grievances, anarchists and communists infiltrating Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa have been given a go-ahead for not-so-peaceful assemblies — or rather riots with violent looting and burning! Thus, as in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, some animals are more equal than others.

But ignoring these recent inconsistencies brought about by political correctness, and not by judicial precedent, the Supreme Court has held that when the phrase “the people” is used in the context of the Second Amendment, it means “individuals,” meaning “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” (U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez). And these are the same “people” and individuals empowered in the other Amendments, including the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

The question should then be asked is, why can’t the Second Amendment be a full and complete right, like all the others in the Bill of Rights?

We need to proceed with filling the vacancy left by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and let SCOTUS get back to the business of the judiciary branch of government, particularly bringing the Second Amendment on par with the rest of the Bill of Rights. And there is a lot of that business that needs to be transacted.


Supreme Court gun control new york state rifle & pistol

(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)


For example, the Supreme Court has turned down several attempts to challenge various Circuit Court decisions upholding restrictive concealed carry legislation in Maryland, New Jersey, and California. In California, the Ninth Circuit Court denied that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry concealed weapons in public.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch expressed regret that the Supreme Court failed to take up the challenge of the California case and believed it was high time SCOTUS ruled on the issue of concealed carry legislation and affirm the Second Amendment right outside the home.

“The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.” Thomas further wrote in his dissent, “For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense.

Open carry is another issue that hasn’t been settled to the satisfaction of gun owners, and the topic came to the forefront in Florida, the state that interestingly enough in 1987 passed the landmark concealed carry legislation. The case was that of Dale Norman, a Floridian with a concealed carry permit who in 2012 was arrested in Fort Pierce openly carrying a gun in a holster. He was fined and convicted of a misdemeanor and appealed on constitutional grounds.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case and effectively let stand a Florida Supreme Court ruling in March 2017 stating that the open-carry ban of the state did not violate the constitutional right of citizens to bear arms. Attorneys for the state successfully argued that lawful citizens may already carry concealed weapons legally by obtaining permits without undue burden. They also cited the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule that the Second Amendment protects open carry in public.


(AP Photo/Jessica Hill, File)


And then there’s the constitutionality of “assault weapons.” These popular and beneficial semi-automatic firearms with paramilitary-style looks have been under attack on both the federal and state levels. Despite their usefulness for sport shooting, hunting, as well as being life-saving tools during natural catastrophes, urban unrest, and self-defense against multiple criminal assailants, these firearms have been so maligned that some courts are yet to rule favorably on their constitutionality.

On November 27, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up Maryland’s assault weapons ban. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013, banning the AR-15 “and other military-style rifles and shotguns.” Apparently, semi-automatic “assault weapons” were confused with fully automatic “assault rifles” and characterized as military weapons, and thus excluded from Second Amendment protection.

Interestingly, the Fourth Circuit judge who wrote the majority decision stated, “Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.” Curiously, it was precisely in Miller v. U.S., the last major federal ruling on the Second Amendment from 1939 until the Heller decision in 2008, that ownership of military-style weapons were specifically protected as a pre-existent individual right by the Second Amendment.

With a new Trump-appointed conservative Justice, the Supreme Court should finally be able to allow the Second Amendment to sit in the front of the bus with the rest of the Bill of Rights.


Homeowner Shoots 2 Gang Members During Invasion; 1 Dead, 1 Questioning Life Decisions In Hospital

H/T Concealed Nation.

The homeowner made one good gang banger.

PICO RIVERA, CALIFORNIA — An armed homeowner took matters into his own hands when a pair of gang members tried breaking into his home. One got into the home, and another didn’t even make it that far.

The homeowner opened fire on one of the suspects who broke into the residence through a window, wounding the suspect, according to the department.

The homeowner then stepped out onto his back patio, where he confronted the second suspect, who he believed was reaching for a firearm. The second suspect, who has not been identified, was shot and killed.


The injured suspect was taken to the hospital by the getaway driver, who was also arrested. The injured suspect underwent surgery as a result of his encounter with an armed citizen.

Happening just after 1 am, you never know when trouble may try to break in. I’m not sure if this homeowner was asleep or awake at the start of this attempted home invasion, but it seems that he was quick to react and get his hands on a firearm.

One thing to note here is the part of the story where the homeowner stepped outside of his house and onto the patio. Putting yourself out in the open like that can invite more trouble, as you don’t know if the person outside is armed, or how many people there are.

Staying inside is usually your best option, getting to a location that gives you an advantage, if the person decides to attempt entry into your home.

Armed Clerk Shoots And Kills Armed Robber At FL Gas Station

H/T Concealed Nation.

Store clerk- 1 robber- 0.

The clerk made a good thug out of this bum.

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA — An early morning attempted armed robbery turned out bad for the robber, because the clerk he was trying to rob was armed as well.

According to authorities, a call came in just after 5 a.m. Sunday in regard to an armed robbery in-progress at 2400 West Sunrise Blvd, the gas station’s address.

Deputies said upon arrival, they located the suspected subject suffering from multiple gunshot wounds at a McDonalds restaurant next to the gas station.



The suspect was pronounced dead after being transported to the hospital.

The owner of the gas station spoke with reporters and told them the clerk acted in self-defense after the suspect entered the store.

Police on the scene of an apparent self-defense shooting at a gas station.

The clerk was not injured during the incident.

Ted Crosby – An Ace in a Day

Pacific Paratrooper

n a dramatic painting by Roy Grinnell, Lieutenant (j.g.) Willis Hardy, a member of Crosby’s VF-17 Squadron from the carrier USS Hornet, flames a Japanese kamikaze plane that was on its way to attack the American naval task force off Okinawa, April 6, 1945. The Hellcat’s distinctive “white checkerboard” markings show it belongs to the USS Hornet (CV12).

As Ted Crosby watched, Yamato’s giant, 18-inch guns hit the water, their enormous weight probably helping the battleship capsize. Suddenly, Yamato’s No. 1 magazine exploded, sending up a huge coil of smoke and flame that could be seen for over 100 miles. It was a strange foretaste of the atomic mushroom clouds that would envelope Hiroshima and Nagasaki a few months later.

Watching from above, Crosby had no feeling of elation. “I was thinking of the Japanese crew,” he said in a 2011 interview. “Three thousand lives lost.”  As a former…

View original post 1,428 more words

Grandma Foils Intruder’s Plans: “I reached over and got my shotgun, and I cocked it”

H/T Concealed Nation.

I bet when the punk got to jail he had to clean his pants after he crapped in them when grandma cocked her shotgun.

SPANAWAY, WASHINGTON — There isn’t much that’s better than an armed citizen being able to defend themselves when trouble comes to their door. This Grandma did just that, and she relied on her shotgun to help her get the job done.

The 78-year-old came face to face with an intruder, and she jumped into action.

Sandy said her neighborhood has been plagued by crime recently, resulting in her car being prowled twice. When she came face to face with the intruder, she wasn’t about to let him run away.

“I reached over and got my shotgun. And I cocked it, and I told him to stay right there,” she said. “Told him to go sit on the steps. I followed him out, and I just stood here with the shotgun waiting for the police to come.”


Years ago, Sandy says she got the shotgun to protect her family. When faced with a real threat, she says that she was scared at first, but then a sense of calm came over her.

“But then I was totally calm, really and truly. I thought, ‘This is amazing!’ I said, ‘You know, I’ve got grandchildren your age!’”

Sandy did a great job here, but I will critique one action that she took: She declined to press charges against the intruder.

After police arrived, they found that the suspect was not impaired and ‘did not seem distressed.’ And since Sandy didn’t want to press charges, police had no choice but to let the suspect go.

I understand that Sandy is in the line of thinking that this man had learned his lesson after having a gun pointed at him, and I truly hope that’s the case. Thousands of stories tell us otherwise, however, but we can only hope that this man is the exception.

One thing is almost certain; he won’t be coming back to Sandy’s house looking for an easy target.

New York Times Claims POTUS Paid Only $750 in Taxes During First Year in Office, Trump Lawyer Says NYT Facts Are ‘Inaccurate’

H/T Western Journal.

If the New York Slimes said day was light and night was dark I would not believe the lying bastards.


President Donald Trump is disputing a New York Times report that he paid just $750 in federal income taxes the year he ran for president and in his first year in the White House.

Trump, who has fiercely guarded his tax filings and is the only president in modern times not to make them public, paid no federal income taxes in 10 of the past 15 years, The Times reported Sunday.

More recently, the president’s financial disclosures indicated he earned at least $434.9 million in 2018, but the tax filings reported a $47.4 million loss.

The report, which the Times said comes from tax return data it obtained extending over two decades, comes at a pivotal moment ahead of the first presidential debate Tuesday and weeks before a divisive election against Democrat Joe Biden.

Speaking at a news conference Sunday at the White House, Trump dismissed the report as “fake news” and said he has paid taxes, though he gave no specifics. He also vowed that information about his taxes “will all be revealed,” but he offered no timeline for the disclosure and made similar promises during the 2016 campaign.

The president has fielded court challenges against those seeking access to his returns, including the U.S. House, which is suing for access to Trump’s tax returns as part of congressional oversight.

During his first two years as president, Trump received $73 million from foreign operations, which in addition to his golf properties in Scotland and Ireland included $3 million from the Philippines, $2.3 million from India and $1 million from Turkey, The Times reported. The president in 2017 paid $145,400 in taxes in India and $156,824 in the Philippines, compared to just $750 in U.S. income taxes, according to The Times.

Trump has taken tax deductions on personal expenses such as housing, aircraft and $70,000 in haircare. Losses in the property businesses solely owned and managed by Trump appear to have offset income from his stake in the television show “The Apprentice” and other entities with multiple owners.

During the first two years of his presidency, Trump relied on business tax credits to reduce his tax obligations, according to the report. The Times said $9.7 million worth of business investment credits that were submitted after Trump requested an extension to file his taxes allowed him to reduce his income and pay just $750 each in 2016 and 2017.

Trump, starting in 2010, claimed and received an income tax refund that totaled $72.9 million, which The Times said was at the core of an ongoing audit by the IRS. The president has declined to release his taxes because of the audit.

A lawyer for the Trump Organization, Alan Garten, told The Times that “most, if not all, of the facts appear to be inaccurate.”

He said in a statement to the news organization that the president “has paid tens of millions of dollars in personal taxes to the federal government, including paying millions in personal taxes since announcing his candidacy in 2015.”

The New York Times said it declined Garten’s request for the tax filings in order to protect its sources.

During his first general election debate against Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016, Clinton said that perhaps Trump wasn’t releasing his tax returns because he had paid nothing in federal taxes.

Trump interrupted her to say, “That makes me smart