They try this every time they get into power. Every single time.
The genius of the federal system of the United States was that it would be practically impossible for the Left -- or any political faction, really -- to gain permanent control of the government in all the states. With each state controlling its own education locally, there will always be competing narratives.
That's what Common Core is for. In theory, there are some benefits to having a unified ideologically neutral educational system, like being able to test students against a single standard to see what approaches work best and gaining economies of scale. In practice, the virtues of competition and local control produce far superior results than a single unified system. And the local control also provides immunity to poisonous ideological indoctrination.
Jade Helm is a military exercise run by the US military special forces within US territory, and is designed to operate in populated areas rather than dedicated training grounds. The exercise designates Texas and Utah as hostile states, a designation that is uncomfortably close to political opposition to the President. This has raised concerns about the exercise sufficient to prompt the Texas governor to instruct the Texas State Guard to independently monitor the exercise. Hopefully, the concerns will turn out to be groundless and the exercise will run smoothly and conclude without any nefarious plots. However, even if it does, that does not mean that the concerns were necessarily unfounded:
I find it pretty interesting that the Spectator is calling for the search for a villain to be put aside just when the recovery of Lerner emails from the targeting period suggests we may actually get a villain.
So Hillary did have classified material on her email server... sort of
OK, classified information on the server is bad for Hillary. But what's that bit about "has now been"?
So it wasn't classified at the time, but has now been classified in order to justify the redaction. Interesting.
But Hillary is still going to take some political damage:
So, that demonstrates that she knew -- or should have known -- about deteriorating security conditions before the attacks. It also demonstrates that her possession of the information on an unsecured server posed a national security threat if any attackers managed to access her emails on that server.
Just accept that the company can do whatever they bloody well want to with whatever information you are foolish enough to give them and stop paying lawyers to lie to your customers.
Defense Distributed and 2nd Amendment Foundation sue over 3D firearms printing info
What SAF doesn't call out in their press release is that there is already some fairly positive precedent on this issue. There were a number of free speech cases in the 90s related to encryption technology -- software source code that individuals wished to publish. The government regulated such software under the same regulations that covered export of physical armaments. The government lost those cases, though it wasn't a total loss; as I recall it took political pressure to relax the regulations as well as court rulings.
Although I don't know the details of current regulations in this area, with both the 1st and 2nd Amendments to draw upon and the fairly recent encryption precedents already in place, it will be difficult for the administration to maintain a legal ban on publication of 3D printed firearms designs.
House rep requests IRS probe of Clinton Foundation nonprofit status
I suspect this will interact in interesting ways with the ongoing investigation into IRS targeting. Does Koskinen refuse the request and try to claim the moral high ground? Does he accept it and invite charges that Republicans are now seeking to use the IRS to target their political opponents (which would be to his political advantage)?
I think the right answer is that the Clinton Foundation is an unusual case in a number of ways, and credible, specific allegations have been made concerning Hillary's time as Secretary of State and the donations flowing into her foundation; not to mention the very excessive overhead expenses the foundation occurs. We're not dealing with a whole class of political opponents seeking to participate in civic life; we're talking about a single organization that has legitimate questions raised and a close association with a cabinet member to draw additional scrutiny.
Obama continues to push climate change as a national security threat
He's doing it to justify using already scarce military funding to fund various "green" research projects, like growing gasoline from algae. But even the IPCC doesn't claim there is an immediate threat; they foresee serious impacts in about a century, not immediately. It's like Obaam doesn't even understand the words he is using; for him, "immediate" means "important".
Was Blumenthal the source for the Benghazi youtube video blame?
He followed it up the next day with an email saying the "protest" was a cover and the attack had been planned for a month by Al Qaeda, but the White House narrative seems to have been established.
Does this make Hillary look better or worse? Hard to say. After that second email, it sounds like she remained silent while the White House lied to the people about the cause of the attack and put someone in jail for something completely unrelated.
Click through the link above to read the whole thing and decide for yourself.
An explanation of the issues with disclosing Clinton's emails on Benghazi
When you read the whole thing, you should notice a couple things.
First, Clinton has already claimed to have removed any purely personal emails from this collection before turning it over (which should represent a red flag to investigators, but never mind). The State Department is also claiming that part of their process is to remove purely personal emails. This work is being done twice by two separate sets of people with different incentives to remove emails they don't want the public to see, and they will both claim "purely personal" for any such emails they want to remove. Who will double-check the State department in this removal process? (It's impossible to double check Clinton's removal process, which is why you usually don't trust someone to search their own emails and instead make them use the official server).
Second, the State Department is making a big project out of putting the emails in a searchable database. Great, a searchable database is nice, but it's not required for document production. The process is simple. Scan the emails. Publish the images (redacting if necessary). Then OCR the images and release the results in text format. Viola. Searchable. If you want a fancy searchable web thing, do that later.
Third, there are a LOT of hand-processing steps here. In particular, I note that the email header fields (To, From, CC, Subject, etc) are being manually entered for indexing. This process is wide-open to potential errors, and combined with the "searchable database", I suspect emails that have the To or From address incorrectly entered -- manually, remember -- will not be discoverable easily because the search will run on the indexed fields rather than the full content of the emails. Which means that documents with incorrect index information will be effectively invisible, and it's very easy for that manual process to effectively remove emails from the "searchable database" and there appear to be no plans to release the entire archive as a simple text file.
This all adds up to both Hillary and the State Department doing everything they possibly can to make it possible to hide information while pretending not to.
I was wondering what the motive for this sort of deception could possibly be, but it turns out that there was grant money involved that apparently did not get spent on what it was supposed to be spent on.
It's interesting to consider why the apparently faked results were what they were, too. Is the claim that a gay canvasser seeking to change people's opinions on gay marriage could successfully do so supposed to support the idea that prejudice and bigotry are behind opposition to gay marriage, and that contact with an actual gay individual would be enough to overcome the stereotypes and bigotry?
By faking the study, and producing three followup studies that all failed to replicate the key results, the person involved here has done their cause actual harm. He has invited people to prove his thesis incorrect and demonstrated that opposition to gay marriage is not based on simple stereotypes that contact with an actual gay individual can dispel.
I don't object to two people of legal age, of any gender, deciding they want to live together in peace and harmony and having some sort of ceremony to mark the occasion and announce it to society. I think that if those people want legal recognition and benefits for their relationship, they should petition the legislature the same as everyone else does. There are issues that need to be worked out by legislatures rather than judges.
I do think it's better for children to be raised by their biological parents, preferably both of them, preferably one of each gender, for a variety of reasons. There's room for disagreement and discussion about that, and I want to keep it that way. When one side of the argument is holding a legal club and threatening to beat me with it if I don't agree with them, I consider that a suboptimal outcome.
And that's exactly where the crusades against photographers and wedding cake bakers are going.
I can't imagine that Hillary has thought this one through. Sure, complaining about Citizens United is popular on the Left, mostly because the Left doesn't realize that it was Obama's unilaterally refusing public financing for his campaign that unleashed the very monster they fear. (Not that I favor such public financing, mind you). So for Obama to complain about Citizens United is demogogery.
But for Hillary to complain about Citizens United is hubris, because Citizen's United was about a group of citizens who wanted to criticize Hillary, and the Supreme Court said they were allowed to. When Hillary draws attention to that case, she draws attention to her own unique role in it. When Hillary demands that potential Supreme Court Justices pledge to vote to overturn that case, she is a party to the case -- morally, if not legally. If Hillary were a judge, she would have to recuse herself. She would be wiser to avoid the issue entirely.
But wisdom has never been her strong suit.
(Her strong suit is hanging in the closet next to the pants suit and the law suit).
I ran across the following passage in Sharyl Attkisson's Stonewalled:
This is intriguing to me, because in my early blogging days I noticed exactly the same pattern. Never having been on the "inside" of journalism, I had no idea whether it was an official policy (making the organizations biased) or just media groupthink that no one really questioned. I did know that it was obvious and widespread.
Seeing the above account indicates to me that not only was I right and this was a real thing, it was a real thing that was being imposed upon the writers and reporters as a matter of, if not a formal policy, than certainly an informal one.
Some of my friends, who used to be quite skeptical about systematic media bias, will be receiving this quote in their inbox...