The Democrats plan to save social security: illegal aliens
Or, they could go home, and pay their own taxes to their own country and experience their own country's glorious retirement system.
The fact is, our social security system is a Ponzi scheme that will inevitably collapse as the population base needed to support ever-growing elderly retirees simply is not there. The Democrat plan to solve this is to import millions of new Democrat voters from third-world nations, convince them to vote for Democrats with identity politics, and try not to mention that becoming legal citizens also means paying taxes like legal citizens and being subject to laws like legal citizens.
In all honesty, that also appears to be the Republican plan, at least for the Establishment types. Except that they plan to lie to the people about it.
Fiscal responsibility does not seem to be an option.
I don't much care about bump stocks, but the precedent of allowing government agencies to change the letter of the law by simple dictat is not one we can let pass lightly. I'm glad there are people fighting this and I wish them luck.
It's a district court, meaning appeals are inevitable. But the ruling is narrow and based on sound Constitutional law, particularly as it is focused on possession in the home and the impossibility of compliance with the plain language of the law (eg, everyone in the home would need to have a FOID and have it on their person literally at all times).
I think the smart play by the antis would be to not appeal this. They might -- might! -- win one level up at the Illinois Supreme Court. But if this gets to the national Supreme Court, it tracks so closely to Heller that I have to image the statute is doomed -- and that would put at risk similar statutes in other states.
But, of course, they already have.
We're likely to find out what our new Justices think of the 2nd Amendment sooner rather than later.
Fake News Russian Collusion out, real Ukrainian collusion in
To be fair, the Ukrainian collusion part is still alleged. But there's tape, a court ruling, an active criminal investigation, and contacts with the Obama administration via the US embassy in the Ukraine.
In his investigation, Mueller employed 60 people for 2 years, 3000 subpoenas (!!!!), 500 search warrants, 230 requests for communication records, 50 orders authorizing "pen registers" (wiretaps that only report who you talked to but not the content), 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed 500 people. It's not clear how many of those were focused on the process crimes and unrelated criminal matters Mueller was trying to use as leverage, but it's clear he left no stone unturned and found nothing regarding the central matter of his investigation.
The President and his 2016 campaign are completely vindicated.
The individuals whose prior criminal acts made them vulnerable are not, except to the extent their association with the President brought them under unprecedented and excessive scrutiny.
Mueller chose to examine the facts concerning allegations of obstruction of justice while leaving it to the Attorney General to decide whether those facts amounted to obstruction. The Attorney General determined they did not.
The letter suggests more information will be released when possible (ie, when the material that cannot be released, such as grand jury information, is identified and removed).
It's likely Congress will attempt to seize on the obstruction issue as grounds for impeachment, but this is very plainly a step too far that can only be taken due to political desperation at this point.
And now the tables turn. Prosecute those who abused the national security and law enforcement agencies of our government while seeking to dictate the results of an election. Drain the swamp. Lock Hillary up, and her little cronies too.
UPDATE: Wait a sec. Mueller asked for help from 13 foreign governments? That seems like a dangerous intrusion on the President's power to conduct foreign policy, especially in an investigation effectively (if not formally) targeting the President.
While I don't know all the facts here, it seems obvious to me that wearing a hat is not and cannot be "inciting riotous behavior". I tend to agree with Daily Pundit that this is like blaming the victim of a rape for wearing clothing that was too sexy. You can debate the wisdom of a particular outfit in a particular neighborhood at a particular hour, but it doesn't ever make wearing it a crime, or make the rape not a rape. Same principle here with the hats.
However, given we're talking about Texas here, the real reason pretty girls wearing MAGA hats are illegal should be obvious: no hunting over bait.
So, Captain Marvel got a lot of things wrong. They pushed toxic, man-hating feminism in the promotion of the movie; they picked a character who is charitably described as unknown and accurately described as unknown, unpopular, and a repeated failure; they released trailers featuring the title character slugging an old lady on a bus; they picked a writer who wrote a Mary Sue; they tried to shoehorn the character into the culmination of their 20+ movie arc without justifying her power level or the size of her role relative to existing characters; and they offended a lot of fans, who were admittedly already pissed off about what Disney had been doing to Star Wars.
But it didn't have to go wrong. How would they have done it *properly*, going back no farther than, say, the release of Infinity War?
Put bluntly, I think I could have saved the situation -- if they had asked me. (Of course, they did not).
Al Green, Dem Rep, argues Trump's bigotry is impeachable." It's not, of course, even if "Trump's bigotry" existed, which it doesn't. You need a "high crime or misdemeanor" to impeach, and while that judgement is in theory left entirely to the House and the Senate, it would be a really hard case to make for saying mean things.
Well, it seems that Rosenstein will not be leaving as planned, but Zainab Ahmad has left Mueller's team, as has Weissman. The combination suggests that Mueller is not yet done with his report (because Rosenstein is staying), and thus the departure of Weissman and Ahmad may be prompted by direction from Barr (newly confirmed as Attorney General). Both Weissman and Ahmad were heavily conflicted, as they were involved in the Trump-Russia investigation personally. Weissman in particular has an ugly reputation for unethical tactics even aside from that. Both were the subject of a recent letter and demand for documents from Republican Congressmen.
I'm not sure Nunes is going to get very far suing individual users, except those cases that are incitement to violence. But Twitter's shadowbanning and censorship may be easier targets under fraud statutes. And discovery may be scary.
Like most other internet services, Twitter operates under a provision of the Communications Decency Act -- which I opposed at the time, and still do, except for this provision -- which exempts service providers from liability for what their users post so long as they do not exercise editorial control. Nunes is arguing that Twitter's shadowbanning and similar "algorithmic" processes are editorial control. And I think he's right.