Media chief admits to taking government orders on what to air
This is not merely a theoretical situation in the US. There have been many reports of media figures being pressured to report favorably, or stop reporting unfavorably, or generally being pressured. In some cases, journalists have been screamed at on phone calls, and had complaints filed with executives at their networks. In other cases, their phones were tapped, their computers hacked, homes bugged.
It's not as simple as government giving orders on what to cover, but it's for damn sure not the way things are supposed to work.
What, did you think the IRS had stopped putting its thumb on the scales? Why would they stop when they aren't being punished for it and they can destroy hard drives with evidence of their nefarious activities with impunity?
Obama admin to require companies to report pay by gender and race
This is how the left works: they get their foot in the government door, and then they use that to leverage more division and strife to advance their policies as the "solution" to a problem they created.
Do we really have a lot of pilots who are perfectly healthy, of sound mind and body, who have gone through a gender transition or experiencing gender dysphoria? How pressing is this problem exactly? Does the FAA have their priorities straight or are they taking political dictation from Obama? (That's rhetorical, by the way).
Frankly, I could care less whether a pilot's plumbing matches his brain cells and clothing. I do care whether any medical or psychological conditions a pilot has make him/her/it/them significantly more likely to decide that flying the airplane I'm in into the ground is a good idea.
It never happened. Let me tell you what probably did happen: a guy with long hair did some dangerously unsafe driving that pissed off someone who was almost involved in a car wreck because of it. Rather than own up to his dick move, of which he is utterly oblivious due to a fundamental lack of self-awareness, the author imagines that his long, flowing locks somehow provoke drivers to go into fits of road rage. And, when the offended driver has had his say and drives off, the author declares himself to be a white knight and the whole incident a victory for women.
In other words, he's a social justice warrior writing about a fantasy he had, half saving women in a shiny suit of fantasy armor and half being one.
There's a surprising amount of disgust involved as I consider this person. Not for growing "his" hair long, not even for indulging in a bit of gender-confusion. The disgust is for the person who engages in this fantasy, in public, pretending to a real persona he is not and cannot be, and in the process smears his stereotyped view of masculinity on the basis of nothing more than what he imagines a masculine man would do.
It's a pity he didn't name names; then someone could sue him for libel. It's also a pity he didn't pitch this article to a science fiction magazine; likely he would have won the Hugo.
Damaging to national security, they say, not to Hillary. Hillary herself is spinning the failure to release the emails as a partisan attack, which is amusing because a few days ago Hillary was spinning the investigation releasing her emails to be a partisan attack.
So is it partisan politics to leak them or partisan politics to withhold them?
Or is it partisan politics at all?
So the Obama administration has something to hide after all. I wonder what it is?
In any case, this makes it very difficult for Obama to maintain he didn't know Clinton was using a private email server. Or it would, if he had any respect for the truth to begin with.
LAPD riddle wrong truck with over 100 shots and face no charges
Notice how it took them years to decide not to file any charges in this blatant case of (negligence and mistaken identity) attempted murder. Why did it take them years? To let the presumed public attention span lapse.
I doubt the police are their only customers. The problem is, we don't have laws to address this sort of thing (whether by government or private actors) because it has never been possible to engage in this sort of widespread data collection before. Sure, you could follow someone. But you needed at least one person to follow every suspect (or potential customer, even worse). This outfit just needs a few drivers, an automated license plate reader, and a database.
When someone can't do their job -- and someone who can't access classified information also cannot be chief of intelligence for a branch of the military -- they need to be replaced immediately. Due process can be resolved later and the man restored to his post or placed into a different one without any black marks on his record if he is innocent. But the basic functioning of the organization requires that the person running it be capable and allowed to do his job, or be replaced immediately.
Not just increasing the risk of suicide, but doubling it, and also doubling the risk of aggressive behavior in teenagers.
I've always been skeptical of the idea of taking drugs to adjust your mental state; if you are depressed the better strategy is to find a way to deal with the problems in your life productively. For some people, there may really be a problem that they can address with chemical help, but I think the vast majority of people going to psychiatrists with a complaint of feeling sad, depressed, or unfulfilled are just expressing problems in their life that should be fixed by making changes in their lives. Or, at least, acknowledged as insoluble problems and learning to function despite those problems.
I don't judge individuals who choose one route or another; not being inside their head or their situation it is impossible to tell. But we should not close our eyes to the risks of medications we offer, either.
I've made these arguments myself, and I think that they make an excellent case. If the Supreme Court is honest, we will eventually see fully-automatic firearms protected by the 2nd Amendment, and the court will likely use the above reasoning to explain why the Heller dicta "in common use" does not apply as a requirement to protection for full-auto firearms.
That said, we're simply not going to win on this issue until there is substantial (and favorable) 2nd Amendment precedent on many other issues and we have had several new justices appointed on the right side of the issue.
Establishment figure Karl Rove endorses Trump over Cruz
This is interesting not because Rove somehow exposes dirty tricks from Cruz -- all the Cruz campaign did was forward a news story that made an understandable leap of logic from a campaign announcement -- but because it exposes Rove as favoring Trump over Cruz.
And Rove is the quintessential Establishment strategist.
It is obvious that the Republican Establishment has decided they can make a deal with Trump so long as they don't have to face Cruz.
Obama has shut down immigration enforcement completely
It's an explicit catch and release policy. They won't be given legal papers or work authorization (since the courts can and have issued an injunction to stop that) but, if caught, they will simply be released again without even being ordered to show up for a hearing on their status.
I've said before that, behind closed doors, the IRS was laughing at the pathetic attempts by Congress to provide oversight and respond to their political targeting. I still believe that... but they just opened the doors and are now pointing and laughing openly.
4th Circuit appeals court applies strict scrutiny to assault weapons ban in Maryland
The lower court will have to look at the law (which it previously upheld under intermediate scrutiny) again, but this time under strict scrutiny. Since most Constitutional rights are reviewed under strict scrutiny and thus required to advance a compelling government interest in a narrowly tailored fashion to survive, this is a highly positive development for gun rights in the 4th circuit. It does not overturn the law in itself, but the lower court -- if honest -- is likely to do so.
Of course, this decision could itself be appealed. I would be surprised if it isn't, since it casts a serious shadow over gun control laws if allowed to stand.