This is not bad advice, and Republican leadership has unfortunately failed to follow it. Trump at least attempted to address this problem, but was thwarted by Democrat states refusing to provide voter roll information (which should be public record).
I think we need a comprehensive approach this problem:
1) State governors and law enforcement commit to investigating and prosecuting vote fraud -- illegal aliens voting, mysterious ballots appearing, all of it. This will require cleaning up voter roll data.
2) A federal system for allowing states to clean up their voter rolls by coordinating with other states to detect to detect voters who move, die, or are convicted of felonies (where applicable) and deactivate their old registrations.
3) In the lame duck session, while Republicans still control the House, amend Motor-Voter act to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
4) Republican party officials commit to using party funds to fight races that land within the margin of fraud and the Democrats try to steal. These races need to be fought for tooth and nail, not conceded gracefully after three days of ballot-discovery leads to a narrow Dem lead.
Good news. If Saudi Arabia is to modernize, it will need to avoid casually murdering its citizens and implement justice for those who commit such acts -- and those who order them. I doubt their taste for justice extends to those high enough in government to order such a thing, but it's a start.
She will have control of the House for the next two years, so this should be a matter of significant concern for us. She's specifically talking about gun registration in the form of so-called "universal background checks". In practice that means that every time anyone buys or sells a gun, they have to be background checked, and that check creates a government record of the sale. Transferring a firearm without a background check would immediately become a felony, and any firearm in your possession without a matching record with a manufacture date after the legislation took effect would be a presumption of guilt.
Now, the good news...
Pelosi's comments came immediately after a mass murder in California, which already is practically a gun control paradise. That won't help her argument and passion is likely to cool before the new Congress is seated.
Furthermore, gun control has passed the House before. The Senate is the more difficult hurdle. Republicans still hold the Senate, and even increased the margin a little. However, many of our Senators are a bit wobbly on this, and Trump is a bit of an unknown. He's already backed a bump-stock ban and he has New York attitudes about guns. We don't want this to get to Trump's desk.
Schumer probably can't count to 60 on this, but "universal background checks" are a recognized point of political weakness. We know they don't work but politicians find it hard to vote against them.
It seems likely Pelosi's real goal is to excite her base and force a vote on the record, then use it to fundraise and go after vulnerable 2020 senators.
Worse, this is a declaration of war from the Democrats. They no longer believe that gun control loses elections.
Universities have gone completely nuts. First they pay to bring a porn star to campus to speak about porn. Then there is a controversy since the money came out of ... well, that's not quite clear, but we all know that students, parents, and loans pay tuition, right? Then they invite an anti-porn speaker.
The right answer is to invite none of the above. They should be inviting engineers, scientists, and other people whose core competency and speaking topic includes the advancement of knowledge.
The problem with DACA is that people who are prone to break the law in one way (to enter the country) are also prone to break the law in others (murder). It's not always such a dramatic escalation, of course. But not everyone is a good citizen, and it sure would be nice to have the chance to pick and choose which foreigners we allow in. If nothing else, we could refuse those who are credibly accused of murder.
Democrats propose semiauto confiscation backed by nuclear weapons
Does anyone remember the Democrats, as a party, seriously campaigning on gun control this cycle? Sure, a few folks mentioned it. But apparently the real program is mandatory buybacksbacked by nuclear arms. That seems extrema and not what voters were promised.
The population is Texas is approximately 30 million people and the state is solidly Republican. When, not if, Texas says no to confiscating their semiautomatic firearms (note: rifles and pistols both), will the Democrats nuke Texas? According to the CDC (not exactly a gun-friendly source), there are 12,979 firearm homicides per year in the United States. If the goal of firearms confiscation is to save lives, and the cost is nuking Texas, it would take two thousand, three hundred, and 11 years to save a single life... and that's assuming none of those 12,979 firearm homicides was justified or replaced by an alternative weapon.
Luckily the nuclear button is in Trump's hands. Bet you never thought those words would be written here.
Trump may be unpredictable, but he's not crazy.
What the Democrats are proposing would lead immediately to civil war, if passed and implemented. Luckily the chances such a confiscation bill would pass the Senate are low. Luckily, Trump is in a position to veto it for now. But losing 2020 could have dire consequences, and we'll have to watch the Senate like a hawk to make sure nothing gets to Trump, who just might be unconventional and New York enough to sign it.
We will fight you on our soapboxes, our microphones, our websites. We will fight you in the House. We will fight you in the Senate. We will fight you in the White House. We will fight you on the streets in protests and petitions. We will fight you at the ballot boxes. We will fight you in the courts. If necessary, we will fight you from our rooftops, in the back alleys of your cities, in the tanks and aircraft and naval vessels based on those states which remain free, and in every place you don't expect us to be. We will pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to this cause. Should your nuclear fire rain down upon our nation, burning friend and foe alike, from our backyard bunkers our answer shall resound throughout history, soaked in the blood of your abbatoir altar: NO.
When you read those numbers, it is important to take them with a grain of salt. The media is a profession that heavily values "neutrality" and "objectivity" in its self-image, which will make it very hard for media figures to self-rate themselves as anything other than neutral, with perhaps a mild lean one side or the other. And yet the reported lean was overwhelmingly liberal, and the real numbers are likely even more liberal than those reported.
If, in fact, those thousand people are dead -- or even some significant fraction of them -- then we are looking at the largest terrorist attack since 9-11. Even the Vegas mass murder only killed 58, though it wounded over 500 more.
I won't be trying to read the tea leaves here. But it would be nice to see a gun case or two reach SCOTUS soon to see how the justices vote. We may have a solid five votes now, but if not, it would be nice to find out on a case that isn't for all the marbles.
Hillary to be required to answer questions under oath
I don't really care what Hillary does at this point in her life, except that she's indicated she intends to run again in 2020. And if she intends to try to evade recordkeeping laws and FOIA laws in the same way she did as SecState, that's a problem.
The imaginary date suggests December, ie, next month. BATFE is going to do this without legislation, and it will have a significant economic impact (hundreds of millions) even ignoring the fact that the law will take probably thousands of people who bought legal products for their firearms and turn them until felons unless they destroy their property for basically no reason, all sparked by a shooting that the government continues to hide details about -- and can't even prove the shooter actually used bump stocks, because they did not examine any of his firearms.
Trump should step in and smack this down hard. But he probably won't, because it's not really his issue.
Maybe the NRA can wake him up... except they are kinda-sorta-agreeing.
Paypal suspends UKIP members' accounts without explanation
Whatever you think of the party, access to financial services is necessary for humans to exist and live, at least in the modern world. Using membership in a political party as a criteria to shut down financial accounts is beyond the pale. This is the modern version of Stalin's purges-by-famine.
Acting AG said in 2016 a special counsel was required for Clinton Foundation
In 2016, a special counsel would be needed because Clinton served as a cabinet official in Obama's administration. Also, we've seen since then exactly how deep Clinton's influence even within the FBI has penetrated. Even now, a special counsel seems necessary if a full and proper investigation is to be performed.
Of course, as acting AG, he can initiate such an investigation himself.
The Democrats are clearly terrified that replacing AG Sessions with acting-AG Whitaker will have dire consequences for their control and the dual sword and shield role he has played in preventing Trump from draining the national security swamp. They are openly threatening Whitaker should be exercise oversight over Mueller and his witch hunt. Given Mueller's utter lack of results related to the President and his campaign, that terror strongly suggests that Rod was covering for them and they know it. Without Rod and with Mueller neutered, their goose is cooked.
Luckily, Rod himself has already established the precedent for how the DOJ can handle subpoenas from the House of Representatives. Silence and counter-investigations.
What infuriates me is that Republicans held the House for years and held endless hearings without ever seriously taking the issues to court or otherwise seriously challenging the swamp creatures in DOJ and FBI. They had the chance to blow this thing wide open and they wimped out.
But this situation may not play well for the Democrats in 2020. When Republicans held the House, the Senate, and the White House, they were uneasy allies... a mix of true believers and swamp creatures surrounding Trump, a slugger with nothing to punch because they all pretended to be friends. If the Democrats give Trump something to punch for the next two years, they may end up regretting it.
Note: I don't endorse those tactics in general, but the Democrats badly need several large doses of their own medicine.
This is a pretty clear example of libertarians trying to encourage or recruit younger voters using an analogy to a more modern situation. While there's nothing in it that is blatantly wrong, I think it's going to fail... mostly because I think the younger generation of voters doesn't have the historical background to appreciate the bill of rights. They may not even know what it is, because no one in the educational system ever taught them.