Judicial Watch is suing for documentation on how the IRS handles document preservation, under the theory that they will take any opportunity they can to destroy records. Specifically, Judicial Watch wants to know about the IRS policies and procedures for records retention, any changes to those policies and procedures since 2010 (and we know already that there were some, and even some in which Lerner was involved), and any communications about preserving or retaining those records. So far, the IRS is lending credence to the Judicial Watch hypothesis by ignoring their FOIA request, thus resulting in the suit.
In the True the Vote case, lawyers provided by the Department of Justice are still stonewalling even after Trump's election. Trump's appointees at Justice need to make some heads roll until behavior changes in this case. Or simply retain outside counsel, since Justice was itself involved with the targeting and is likely compromised. How likely is that? Trump doesn't even seem to know the IRS exists, aside from paying his personal taxes and bitching about being audited. We're not likely to see Trump pushing this issue personally, but if we can get the attention of someone lower on the totem pole, we might see something happen.
Judicial Watch is also pursuing records recording the BATFE's attempt to ban AR-15 ammunition as "armor-piercing".
I'll take this one step farther. If you can't improve your position in life by working a legitimate job for fear of reducing your welfare benefits, but you still want to improve your position in life, what career paths are open to you? Illegitimate ones. That means crime, whether theft, smuggling contraband (ie, drugs), or low-skilled under-the-table labor that isn't reported to tax agencies.
Sure, working in the criminal sector bears a substantial risk of being caught, convicted, and put in prison. But it also bears a substantial potential upside: successful criminals star in Hollywood movies or have careers as rap artists or get away with successful complex heists that result in billions of dollars in loot. No, not really, but that's what Hollywood sells as the upside to a life of crime. I happened to be browsing Netflix last night, and there must have been two or three separate file projects about a widow whose husband ran a drug business and how she had to take it over when he died. Two or three different ones just about that one scenario. Quite a few others about the more broadly viewed drug trade, even more about various heist movies, and so on.
Sure, on one level it's just entertainment. On another, what do the options and incentives look like for a man or woman on welfare considering what they can do to improve their lives? Work hard for years, keep their nose clean, go back to school to learn a skill (and what if their experience of the school system tells them they don't learn very well?), get a job (possibly hampered by criminal history), pay taxes... or make a few quick criminal scores and relax until you need to make the next few quick criminal scores?
So let's put aside the massive, indeed unprecedented, arguably literally insane response from both the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) to Trump's electoral victory. Obviously such a temper tantrum will work up Democrat partisans and the media -- but I repeat myself again -- to a fever pitch of disapproval and disgust. That accounts for the 45% right there: they were stupid enough to vote for Hillary Clinton, so obviously they aren't happy.
What about the rest?
Well, 14% say "great" start, 21% say "good" start. That's 35%. That covers the portion of the Republican base that actually liked Trump. Add the 19% who said "fair" start and you get 54%.
The above is from a lengthy article that claims to be about how to repeal Obamacare. I tried to read the whole thing, but when I got to the above passage, my tolerance for stupidity ended.
The Democrats passed Obamacare through reconciliation. Therefore, Republicans can repeal it through reconciliation. The whole thing, not bits and pieces. It may be politically difficult, but increasing the political difficulty by insisting on respecting political hurdles the Democrats do not is just a way to lose.
The Byrd Rule (by which he means the filibuster) objection is likewise absurd. Yes, the "rules" require 60 votes on some issues. Yes, the Senate parliamentarian may rule that 60 votes are required. The Republican majority can then vote to overrule the parliamentarian with 51 votes, just as they did recently to put Justice Gorsuch on the bench. Collecting 60 votes is harder; collecting 51 votes is not as hard. Insisting on 60 votes is just another way to lose.
And what does the author recommend as a way forward?
Why is it so hard to just repeal the whole damn thing -- like they have been promising since it passed -- and then try to pass specific reforms issue by issue? Why does everyone insist on a "master plan" for healthcare? Why can't we have a free market?
Even if we can somehow use pervasive global surveillance to identify terrorists ahead of time, it does not help us if we cannot then do something ahead of time. The logical thing to do is to deport anyone (not already a citizen) who poses a terrorist threat.
FBI oficial will not recuse himself after half a million donation from Hillary
He didn't "need" to recuse himself from investigating Hillary's email server, either, and we saw how credible that investigation turned out to be. This is, by the way, the same "investigation" that was going to pay for a Democratically-sourced anti-Trump "dossier" that our own intelligence agencies regarded as bunk, yet the FBI used that document to justify their FISA warrant on Carter Page.
So in other words, after donating $700,000 to a Deputy Director at the FBI, Hillary's campaign got away with chronic felonius mishandling of classified information and deliberate violations of the federal records act, got the FBI to "investigate" the presidential candidate of the opposing party, used a faked Democratic party hit piece to justify a national intelligence wiretap, AND turned the intelligence agencies of multiple allied nations into pawns.
So Hillary's defense to the whole email server fiasco was that she didn't know anything about how email worked and just relied on technical employees to manage things for her. But a recent campaign-autopsy expose suggests she knew what she was doing and understood what it meant to be the person who owned the email server, because she took advantage of that after her 2008 campaign and downloaded the emails of her top aides to find out who was leaking and backstabbing her.
That's paranoid and creepy, but it also contradicts her earlier defense about just not knowing what a server is.
Someone should double-check her statements about that while under oath. Just in case she, you know... perjured herself.
Trump should withdraw from the Paris climate treaty
Actually, the fastest way to withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty is to point out that it was never ratified by the Senate and simply refuse to abide by any of its terms, including (especially) refusing to pay any money and clawing back as much as possible from the funds Obama illegally transferred.
But read the whole thing to find out why getting out is a good idea, whatever the mechanism.
That's certainly a lot of terrorist threats. But an "all time high"?
I hate to say it, Adam, but total numbers like that one do not ever diminish. There have been 37 (according to your source) ISIS linked plots. If they find a new one, there will be 38. Then 39. Then 40. They don't go away if the FBI closes an investigation. They just keep getting higher and higher.
The number of open investigations and active plots is concerning, but let's not abandon numerical literacy in order to hype the threat.
Buying American (as required by law) is a good thing when you're talking about government purchases. And starting with "detailed reports" on the H1B situation is a good idea. It collects data which can be used to act effectively, and it puts companies that use extensive amounts of H1B labor on notice. If they aren't following the rules -- and many of them aren't -- they may well attempt to clean house voluntarily before the government begins actually enforcing the law.
Over at Liberty's Torch, there's a great description of the parallels between the current political environment in leftist-controlled states (think California) and the rise of the Nazi party. It's not yet at the level of genocide, but in those states, the police are deliberately leaving the streets to violent leftists. The left's public opinion leaders are openly calling for denying "white men" the vote (and only backing down because they discovered the author doesn't exist).
We've not there yet, but the leftist cause advanced quite a ways under Obama, taking over the Democrat party (which used to respect free speech) and replacing it with thinly disguised fascism. The election of Trump is causing those leftists who remain in regional power to rip off their masks and expose themselves. Everything from desperate attempts at impeachment, to frantically trying to pass laws to declare Trump invalid, to literally rioting on the streets with the tacit support of the police.
Remember, the Nazis lost, politically. Their party had support, but not control of the government. They used street violence and created crises to claim temporary power, and then consolidated until temporary became permanent.
We're in for a rough 4 years if the Left doesn't change course and return to seeking political power democratically.
If I was a betting man, I'd lay down a substantial sum in favor of the proposition that the sender, when identified, turns out to be a black Muslim.
And I won't allow this incident to distract me from mentioning that the three people shot in Fresno were shot by a black Muslim shouting "Allahu Akbar" whose Facebook page includes posts attacking "white people".