We need to do SOMETHING about this. The question is what can we do that will be effective?
Building unbiased or right-leaning alternatives would be great, but takes time, network effects, and capital. Meanwhile, similar attacks on financial services firms -- the National Rifle Association is currently suing New York State for pressuring insurance companies to deny it business insurance, and MasterCard is pressuring companies like Patreon to drop conservative users -- make building alternatives more and more difficult.
Power Line writes about the Democrat party's requests to see Kavanaugh's historical papers before voting to confirm him on the Supreme Court. He thinks they are hoping to find something in his papers that can be used, probably out of context, to damage his chances of confirmation. He's not wrong, they would love to find something they can represent as disqualifying, even if they have to misrepresent it. But I think he's missing the larger strategy here.
The larger strategy is delay, delay, delay past the midterms. If Kavanaugh is not confirmed before the midterm elections, they will hope for a blue wave to sweep the Senate. If they get their blue wave, it will be used as a reason to delay confirmation until after the new Senate takes office. And then -- well, they'll claim precedent from Scalia's passing to delay until after the next Presidential election and hope they win that.
So this is not a lawsuit about public records, or even a lawsuit about delay. It's all about creating political cover for the weak-kneed Republicans to force a delay past the midterms, and then hoping for a miracle.
From that perspective, I'm sure the Democrats would rather lose their lawsuit for Kavanaugh's papers so they can make a big stink about being denied information.
They were distributing petitions for signatures with the text of the law they wanted to pass printed in illegible tiny print. Many pictures posted online showed volunteers misrepresenting what they were asking voters to sign as other initiatives on entirely different topics.
9th Circus Judge orders EPA to ban something he doesn't like
It amazes me that a judge thinks he has the power to order a federal agency to take an affirmative action. A court can legitimately strike down a ban (nullifying an agencies' action, if it lacks legal authority for example) but the courts can't point to something and say the EPA must ban it. It doesn't matter what the science says or whether the science is secret; those are policy arguments. It is up to the EPA to take action first.
The EPA has been playing sue and settle for so long this has gotten a bit distorted. It needs to be corrected. Americans are free by default.
I do not think those words mean what you say they mean. Specifically, they are not synonyms. They have different, and distinct, meanings.
Shameless refers to a person without shame. They may be doing things that would normally cause shame, but the person lacks any shame for what they are doing. They are lacking shame; shameless. They don't feel any shame for their actions, even if they should.
Shameful can refer to a person, in which it means someone who is ashamed of something. They are full of shame. They feel shame. This is the distinct opposite of shameless. They are antonyms, not synonyms.
The author's confusion stems from the common situation where a shameless person commits a shameful act. The words are still antonyms. The person is shameless; the act is shameful.
Why do they pay these people to write for an audience of millions when they can't speak english?
Banks denied hundreds of millions for gun control stance
They aren't liking the new rules already. And really, why were they getting a government handout anyway? If we can stop corporate welfare AND punish those who punish us, it's like a two for one sale where we get to keep our money.
Rosenstein said it wasn't him. The Federalist makes a good case it was Sally Yates, who resigned rather than defend Trump's travel ban in court. That decision may have made headlines at the time, but it may also have removed her from a position where she could influence ongoing events in the Spygate matter. Oops.
The Obama admin stripped a Trump-supporting Pentagon analyst of his security clearance after the analyst complained about contracts with one Stefan Halper.
We are now pretty sure what Halper was doing for the money. He was trying to rig the election. And the White House stripped his clearances to shut him up -- both in general, and to prevent him accessing anything Halper was doing with his clearances.
Never mind that the other person he complained about was Chelsea Clinton.
Seems to me like the man prefers his women liberated and capable of defending themselves.
The real objection here is that there are ordinary people in the White House rather than media-approved "elites". And it's quite telling that the media spends it time at press conferences zooming in on patches worn by bikers to try to find something offensive to complain about. They are just out to get Trump, and they literally don't see anything else.
According to the Washington Post (hat tip Gun Free Zone), 79% of crimes committed with guns are committed with stolen or straw purchased guns. In other words, all the gun control you want to put on law abiding citizens won't do a damn thing.