Did the House bill remove the restrictions on DDT and fund a project to blanket the southern united states with it? No? Then it's not a serious threat and you're just wasting money.
His core point, though, is at least worth noting: the House has passed a bill, flawed as it is; the Senate has a weaker bill, but the Democrats are filibustering it. If you're severely concerned about Zika, you probably don't understand statistics. But you can at least take comfort in knowing who is blocking money and action on it.
Link above has autoplay video; sorry. But I agree with the sentiment. The only effective defense against terrorism is a armed populace. Even that's not perfect, but it's the best we can practically achieve, and it's sufficient when combined with a good (preemptive) offense against organizers and funders and a reasonably secure border.
It wasn't so very long ago when we were told by the IRS and the FBI that it was the agents in Cincinnati who started pulling the Tea Party cases by name and ideology and created the IRS scandal, forcing the DC leadership to send a team of IRS agents to Cincinnati to "help out". Now, however, Judicial watch has uncovered documents from the FBI investigation that demonstrate what was really going on:
The imperative to slow down Tea Party applications came from DC, as did the actual implementation, and the intrusive questionaires, and everything else. That's the official FBI conclusion based on the evidence.
That's the sound of a guilty conscience when he knows he's caught.
I suspect Judicial Watch has already issued the requisite FOIA requests to obtain those directives and who exactly sent them. This is the "orders from Washington" smoking gun that the media claimed was missing.
The courses being discussed here are the basic, fundamental instruction in the legal protections required to access various levels of classified information. They are the same courses that would have explained why running your own email server for government communications is not just a really bad idea, but is actually against the law.
Will anything be done about this? Of course not. No charges, no firings, nothing.
And this is why gun owners won't trust any gun control law, or gun control advocate, with anything. They will lie about wanting to ban guns; they will lie about keeping lists of gun owners explicitly forbidden by law. That means the law is no defense. The only thing stopping the government from confiscating guns is the fact that the people have guns.
If finding someone to vouch for you or signing an affidavit is enough to vote without an ID, rampant voter fraud is both inevitable and undetectable. Imagine a busload of people traveling from polling station to polling station, voting once at each one. Imagine hundreds or thousands of those buses running all over the single votes of honest citizens.
The thing is, it's not Constitutional to shut down all mosques or ban all muslims from the United States. It IS constitutional to investigate mosques preaching terrorism and shut down those who do, particularly when those mosques are linked to individuals who then conduct attacks. Hopefully, that is only a small fraction of mosques in the US. And similarly, it is constitutional (and wise!) to reject potential immigrants who pose a significant risk of becoming terrorists.
9 government employees charged in Flint water coverup
Just because you put the government in charge of something doesn't mean the people within the government will necessarily act altruistically. In practice, it often produces the exact opposite, by placing public officials beyond accountability.
Reid admits to violating election law but government won't prosecute
There seems to be a very evident political bias in these decisions concerning prosecution for campaign law violations. Leave aside for the moment whether the rules are a good idea or a Constitutional law. Just look at the decisions. Lerner: Not prosecuted. Clintons: Not prosecuted (on many, many possible charges). All Democrats. But a left-wing prosecutor in Austin, TX goes on a revenge kick and invents something to charge a sitting Republican governor with a crime and take him out of the presidential primary. The same office charges the Republican speaker of the Texas House with campaign finance violations, ending his political career. Years later, with an expensive appeal, he is cleared of the charges. But where does he go to get his political career back?
More important than the bad methodology is the fact that the author of the study won't release either his detailed methodology or his data. Without the data, his work is worthless because it can't be independently replicated. Without the methodology, he can't even defend it in public.
The easiest and quickest ways to identity bunk science is to ask to see the data. If they won't give it to you, it's bunk.
How kind of Lankford to make the whole thing easy for us to reject.
This is the telling combination of facts that shreds the cover story. The defense in the IRS scandal has always been that it was a few low-level employees in Cincinnati who screwed up the processing and the high-level employees from Washington to tried to fix the situation; and the proof offered for this is that there is no evidence of malicious intent on the part of Lerner and other officials who were closely involved. But in Lerner's case (and to a lesser extent many other cases) that evidence was missing.
As the saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And when the attempts to recover that evidence were not only not taken seriously, but resulted in the actual destruction of evidence, the IRS has lost the presumption of innocence.
Koskinen may not be personally responsible for the destruction of evidence, but it happened on his watch and under his guidance. Ultimately, he bears responsibility.
Link goes to DailyKos so take with a grain of salt. Personally, I'm not sure how substantive the complaints actually are. Several of them look like the usual Dem arguments applied to Republicans. But if they have evidence for some of the more serious ones, and it really did swing the election...
Lerner's FBI interview summaries released to Judicial Watch
It's not clear if this team was sent to Cincinnati to correct previous issues or to participate in making them worse.
My feel for what I've read of these documents so far is that some of the players were genuinely shocked and concerned by the "tea party" targeting in Cincinnati, but others -- including Lerner -- were concerned more by getting caught trying to politically target than actually doing their jobs properly. They obviously can't tell the FBI this, but their actions and some of the recovered emails speak for themselves. They chose to cover it up by adding left-leaning groups and removing the politically-sensitive name criteria rather than address the problem. Lerner in particular was concerned about emails being available to Congress and sought to hide communications.
IRS officials knew about political targeting long before they revealed it
To my mind this establishes a couple of interesting points. First, it demonstrates that some officials in the IRS knew the targeting was going on much earlier than they admitted to it, and knew it was wrong, and yet allowed it to continue. Whether relatively low-level employees would initiate and continue such a program in the absence of management directives to do so seems unlikely. Second, it suggests to me that any non-tea-party names added to the BOLO lists after the activity was discovered were added as part of the cover-up, to disguise the political nature of the initial BOLO lists. Third, it destroys any attempt by the media or the political actors to minimize the situation. As Miller put it, this was an "oh shit" moment for any honest IRS management who found out about it.
It also doesn't exonerate any of the management involved. Some people may be able to point to these documents to demonstrate their surprise and dismay when they learned of what was going on, but the collective response appears to have been a coverup rather than a frank admission of problems and application of punishment. And despite the massive destruction of evidence involved in hiding Lerner's email trail from the public, we still have a number of juicy tidbits that suggest she was the organizing force behind the targeting all along, and actively sought to keep it secret. There are more quotes in the document linking the targeting efforts to Holly Paz.
And as a bonus, it appears that IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman likely misled Congress; he has been informed about the development letters sent to tea party groups before that point.