That part about fast-tracking the legislation means it could come up for a vote at any time. I'm going to write my Senators about this right away, and I suggest you do the same. Don't wait for it to come up for a vote. You can always write them again.
Remember when the White House was the People's House, and the President was only a temporary resident? Remember when we made fun of Europe for having their rulers live in castles so villagers with pitchforks could not depose them?
Personally, I hope we get the iconic YouTube video of a protester impaling himself on the new spikes before Obama leaves office, so the blame can be properly placed.
I think not. This is yet another application of the virtue of selfishness. Private property rights are real and important, and children and not automatically entitled to use or borrow or simply take everything they see. How would we treat an adult who behaved that way and threw a temper tantrum any time they were refused? (See: Occupy Wall Street).
Children need to learn that some things are theirs, personally; some things are owned by someone else but are voluntarily shared; and some things are owned by others and they are not allowed to use them.
DOJ mental defective list includes lots of veterans
I've reported on the letters being sent out about this previously. It's basically the VA opportunistically adding people to a list of potentially violent individuals to ban them from gun possession when many of the people involved aren't dangerous or incompetent -- just didn't bother to read the back of the letter where it talked about adding them to this list unless they protested.
I suspect the idea is to get as many functional veterans onto this list as possible to prevent them becoming part of the civilian gun culture, but doing it in such a way that no one notices in time to stop it.
Hillary's first campaign stop is filled with astroturf
I'm actually a little curious here. Is this mostly a Hillary thing, or do other campaigns do this on a regular basis and it just doesn't get reported? And second... was Hillary in on the fake, or were the astroIowans brought in with prepared issues to talk to Hillary about?
That would be an interesting way to manage a candidate, wouldn't it?
Rubio can't imagine undoing an Obama executive order on amnesty
Bill Quick asks whether a Ted Cruz ticket would solve that problem. I say yes; in fact that's pretty much what I've been hoping for. It could well be an act of political genius on the immigration issue. What you do is simple: you run Cruz on the top of the ticket. He promises to undo what Obama has done, revoke the executive orders on immigration, and secure the borders. Then he actually does it, funding and all. He serves his two terms, and with Cruz having prepared the way, Paul can run on enacting some form of immigration reform to address people who have already crossed the border in a much better environment for it. This reform could not be amnesty, but after 8 years of Cruz and a secure border, there might be room for discussion.
If they are careful, they can both moderate their positions a little towards each other and gain the support of both constituencies.
The thing that concerns me here is not so much that this sentiment exists -- it always exists -- but that people are openly expressing it without shame; and that attempts to block people from serving in student government based solely on their religion are predictable.
So, it is generally accepted that you don't call full grown male politicians a "boy"? It seems to be, right? Especially if the politician is a minority, then the term "boy" is racist. There are many examples of this principle.
Coloumbia Journalism Review tells us what really happened in the fake UVA campus rape story; Sheryl Attkisson tells us why it happened. It is exactly the same principle that the scientific method is designed to prevent: the reporter, and quite likely her magazine, went into the situation with a story they wanted to tell, and then looked for evidence that would confirm their story instead of falsifying it. Finding examples of this cognitive fallacy in other major stories is left as an exercise for the reader.
Senator Hatch writes letter to IRS on targeting, threatens further investigations
On the one hand, he's calling out the IRS on their motivations and deceptions. On the other hand, it's too little, too late, and his tongue-lashing has all the impact of a wet noodle. On the gripping hand, he calls for the IRS to actually implement a document retention system in anticipation of the White House moving forward with the plan, which is exactly the sort of thing that should have been said years ago and which the IRS will immediately turn around and demand more money to implement.
Attorney finds trojan software on police-provided hard drive
The casualness of this attempt, and utter lack of concern for leaving evidence of the attempt behind, is shocking. The broader point is that the police are not angels or moral paragons; if they are motivated they will lie, cheat, steal and even kill just like anyone else.
Moms Demand used trick photography to inflate the number of people that showed up to their protest. Let's not forget that the person Bloomberg hired to run the group is a professional PR figurehead. What amazes me is why Bloomberg keeps paying for it when it doesn't seem to be, you know, fooling anyone.
He gave a speech to the NRA convention recently in which he said he was extremely pro-Second Amendment.
But in 2013 he said something different.
And in explaining the difference, he said:
Nice try, Ben, and we appreciate the effort, but here's the thing.
You were wrong in 2013. You said you wouldn't want someone to have a semi-automatic weapon in the midst of a lot of people because it might fall into the hands of a crazy person. That suggests you don't support 2nd Amendment rights for those living in urban areas. And if you don't support 2nd Amendment rights for everyone, it's not really a right, is it? Worse, your wording suggests you don't understand what semi-automatic means in a firearm context. Hint: It doesn't mean machine gun. One bullet per trigger pull, just like a revolver.
And then you said, in 2015, that you did not change your views. Even though from what you are saying, it does sort of sound like you are changing your views, or rather, trying to pretend your new pander is the truth while your old views, probably those you still hold in your secret heart, are not.
We had a guy with a similar opinion once. His name was Zumbo, and he called AR-15 rifles "terrorist rifles" and didn't approve of people hunting with them. He lost his job for it, but he went out and he learned and he made his way back into the community because he admitted his error and honestly changed his views.
Ben, we don't like being lied to, and we're good at spotting it when it happens. You need to be honest with us if you want us to consider you. And that means admitting that you said something stupid and explaining how and why you changed your opinion.
Lerner volunteered to take blame, pushed IG to back off
She volunteered to take the blame, but when called before Congress, she took the 5th instead. And emails recently released indicate Lerner was pressing the IG to change the targeting conclusion in its report and trying to argue that delaying a group's application did not itself constitute discriminating against that group. It would be one thing if Lerner was simply seeking to protect her subordinates; but her continued, repeated emphasis on hiding things from Congressional investigators and educating employees on the "harm" that can come from full disclosure to Congress is strong evidence that Lerner knew what she and her employees were doing was wrong and would be discovered by Congress if they investigated. She sought repeatedly to instruct and train employees to conceal information, in these new emails seeking a training program, and in earlier emails seeking to ensure that the IRS instant messaging system was not archived and was thus safe.
This. combined with her taking the 5th before Congress, constitutes substantial evidence of a guilty conscience. The repeated emphasis on avoiding disclosure bolsters the argument that she deliberately destroyed her hard drive to avoid the disclosure she feared.
For those gun owners who are found of the parable of the three boxes, and especially for those gun control activists who think gun owners are racists, Wikipedia claims that saying originated with Douglass:
And I hope the feminists are paying attention, because the same person who cites Frederick Douglass in support of Democrats also has this to say about women:
Such respect for the female governor of a state and Vice Presidential candidate.
I'm glad that Obama supporters are starting to consider that Obama may be wrong, now that it's too late. Is it too much to hope for that they take a closer look at how the history of their party compares to their professed ideas, and stop discounting people who care about the rights enshrined in our Constitution as moose hunters?
In all honesty, I can respect a man who would rather bet on an untried first-term Senator than McCain. McCain was a known mediocrity. Romney was a known squish. But anyone paying attention could understand that Obama was a known quantity even before his first term, and by his reelection campaign, it was plain as day what he wanted.