The UK votes to become the UK again, leaving the European Union. Exact consequences of the vote are unclear, but the UK is likely to move in the direction of increased sovereignty and closing the borders to unvetted Muslim immigrants.
The leadership of both parties seem to be behind this so-called compromise legislation. We need to be making sure that our senators hear from us that this legislation, like ALL gun control legislation, is unacceptable and must be stopped.
This one was significantly less successful than the one in Orlando, but it came right on the heels of the Orlando attack, and has gotten basically zero press. Normally, I would think that is preferable, but again, in this case it looks like the press are deliberately covering it up.
I think that message has never matched reality; it's just that the Left is in a position to dominate the media and Americans are generally reluctant to express their feelings of doubt and concern regarding Muslims for fear of being called racists. But the truth is that Islam is a choice, not a race. It is certainly possible to judge someone based on the religion they choose to practice. And while many followers of Islam living in the West seem generally reasonable, those living in areas where Islam is the dominant religion are frankly terrifying.
It is eminently reasonable to look at the fanatical followers of Islam and conclude that they are not welcome here. And the more the followers of Islam who are already here refuse to speak up about their troublesome coreligionists, the more the rest of us wonder if there is that much of a difference after all.
There's a new "compromise" piece of gun control legislation, being pushed by what looks a a gang of six. I think this is the legislation that Mitch McConnell said he would be open to, which means it has a better chance of passage that anything else that's been offered. McConnell would probably love to get this issue off the table before the election by passing something he can point to when Bloomberg starts running ads with his pocket change.
As if that wasn't bad enough, there's a new surveillance bill in the works. Among other things, it would allow someone's web browsing history to be collected without a warrant -- something that inherently reveals the content of the pages they were wearing. It would also make certain provisions of the Patriot Act permanent, which would be a disastrous mistake given what the original legislation does to civil liberties. The FBI, never one to be shy about surveillance requests, is claiming that the current requirement to go to a secret court and get a court order before obtaining browser history is a typo.
My gut says there's an informal deal going on to pass both pieces of legislation together; some gun control to placate the Democrats and some surveillance to placate the Republican Establishment. As usual with these deals, the liberty-loving folks are left out in the cold.
When the leadership wants something like this to pass, they usually rush it through as fast as possible to people won't have time to read it and mobilize opposition. That means we need to start objecting immediately.
UPDATE: Word is that the surveillance legislation failed by just one vote and they haven't given up on it yet. (You can check how your senator voted at that link) No word yet on the Ayotte-Collins gun control legislation. Rumors swirling about Obama calling for a new assault weapons ban despite Pelosi saying they couldn't win that fight.
Susan Collins and Kelly Ayotte working on gun control legislation with Democrats
Kelly Ayotte is also working on the legislation. This, I think, is the real Republican push. New legislation, supported by the usual Republican squishes (Jeff Flake and Lindsey Graham, in addition to the above) and Mitch McConnell.
We need to keep the pressure on the Senate to block gun control, including so-called Republican compromise bills.
Muslim Mayor begins to impose sharia law on London
He was all very nice and moderate-sounding while trying to get elected, but once in office he's going full Muslim, including segregating women at the back of his rallies. When a Muslim is running for political office, voters would do well to consider the risk that he is less moderate than he appears.
Now, the subtext here is that if the Russians have their hands on Trump's opposition research, they will be able to blackmail the candidate after the election. But then, anything the Democrats can find in opposition research they would use during the election, so the value of any information left over from that effort is probably low.
For Hillary, however, it's unlikely that the relatively scrupulous Republicans hacked her private email server, and it's unlikely that the FBI will leak any emails they recovered from her server after the mass deletion event.
The Russians, on the other hand, had every incentive to hack it and ever incentive to keep the emails around for blackmail purposes.
"Ambiguity" like talking about killing people all the time, stalking coworkers, attending mosques with terrorists, attending online "seminaries" with terrorists, beating his wife, and likely quite a bit more that they haven't found yet. It sounds to me like the FBI investigated this murderous terrorist, learned that no one had given him direct orders to commit murder yet, and decided that he was safe... because, I suppose, he would never ever come to the conclusion that he had to commit murder on his own.
Normally, I'm all in favor of people of avoiding imprisoning people (especially US citizens who cannot simply have their visa revoked and be returned to their home country) for "precrime" situations. In this case, however, the murderer appears to have committed a number of acts (assault and battery on his wife, stalking and threatening his fellow security guard) that would have justified criminal charges and a conviction, as well as the loss of his license as a security guard. The domestic violence charges, in particular, would have placed him on the list of prohibited persons.
This wouldn't have stopped him from obtaining a firearm by illegal means, but it would have been something, and at least made it harder (because he likely lacked the usual criminal contacts).
I second this message without reservations (and edited only for region). We may have policy differences about cakes and marriage laws, but we share a basic human right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The Senate has scheduled votes on four gun control measures today. Two of them are Democrat proposals for gun control, one for background checks on all gun sales ("gun show loophole" bill) and the other a proposal to allow the Attorney General to block gun says to people on the watch list without due process. Two of them are Republican proposals for more reasonable changes to the background check system (one a proposal to block watch list sales with at least a nod to due process, and the other focused on mental health reporting improvements to the background check system).
To be honest, based on the information I have about the proposals, I'm not sure I want any of them to pass. The watch list is useless as an attempt to block gun purchases; remember that the Orlando murderer that created this crisis wasn't even on the watch list when he bought his guns. The "gun show loophole" bill is even more useless, because the terrorist bought his guns from a licensed dealer and passed not just one background check when he bought the guns, but multiple background checks in his career as a security guard, despite raising red flags going all the way back to his high school.
The Republican watch list bill is better, but still puts the buyer on a secret list preemptively and forces them to put a lot of effort into getting off the list. That reverses the presumption of innocence. And, again, the terrorist wasn't on any lists when he bought his guns and passed multiple background checks.
The Republican mental health bill is sort of the definition of "We must do something, this is something, therefore we must do it." The Orlando attack at this point seems to have little to do with mental health. The legislation might make some improvements to the background check system that would be a good idea, but it certainly doesn't address this particular situation at all.
But the votes are going to be held today, so write your Senators and tell them to vote no on gun control. Consider calling, too, but write them first; you may have a hard time getting through on the phone.
It seems to me that when there is a lone shooter trapped in a building without any hostages, patience is likely to produce the same outcome without the excessive destruction of what turned out to be an innocent family's home.