Peters gets almost all the way there, but doesn't quite make it. The left thinks doing background checks is wrong because it offers a credible way to refuse to employ black people (who have committed crimes, as a group, disproportionate to their numbers in the population). An employer could, in theory, use background check results to hide racial prejudice in hiring.
However, that's not the real problem. The real problem for the left is that background checks remove racism as a factor at all. Suddenly, instead of the employer not hiring someone because of racism, instead he's not hiring someone because they have a criminal record -- an element of their individual behavior. In order to keep their grievance industry alive, the Left needs to keep the spectre of racism alive, and that means finding ways to prevent employers from discriminating on the basis of individual traits istead of group traits.
In short, the Democrats are have become so dependent on firing up their voters with claims of racism that they are actually working against race-neutral solutions that would allow those individuals (of whatever color) without criminal records to be recognized and rewarded for their positive behavior. That's going to result in more racism rather than less, as employers will be forced to use the only information they are allowed to have as a proxy for what they really care about: criminal behavior.
Lawsuit alleges Assange claimed Seth Rich was source of DNC emails
Conveniently, Assange has been indicted and is in custody, ensuring he won't be able to comment on this matter without being vulnerable to leverage, if you know what I mean.
Read the link. The ability of the Deep State to control the narrative is starting to fall apart.
Bear in mind that, while we have multiple people claiming (via hearsay, in this case) that the DNC emails published by Wikileaks did not come from the Russians and may have come from Seth Rich, we don't really have evidence or even a public statement by Assange to that effect. What we do have is a lot of smoke around Assange -- smoke that seems designed to hide the fact that there's no fire.
I've noticed, without really thinking about it, a number of cases where Snopes is "fact checking" stories at Babylon Bee, an explicitly satire rather than news site. The general argument for this from Snopes is that people are mistaking satire stories there for real news stories, which seems... unlikely.
But when I finally did stop to think why Snopes might consider this a useful use of their time, I remembered reading an article about how Facebook, Google, and other Big-Tech sites were going to use Snopes as part of their ranking and filtering systems to avoid propagating "fake news".
So went looking for the article I had read (or at least something like it) using google. No luck. In fact, the whole first page of google results consisted of links to snopes claiming they were not censoring conservative news, links to snopes attacking conservatives for random things unrelated to my query. I did eventually locate a link to a Vox explainer trying to claim the fact-checking deal was biased towards the conservative point of view because one organization (the Daily Caller) supposedly has links to white nationalists. That article also listed the other members of the deal.
Turns out Snopes backed out of the deal with Facebook. But they may well still be involved with other Big Tech sites doing similar filtering, and if so, fact-checking sites rating satire sites as "false" might have the effect of reducing the audience of such sites.
Especially if, as alleged, Snopes is only fact-checking the stories on Babylon Bee satirizing left-leaning topics.
It's like a distributed, unaccountable, invisible censorship.
I don't know what to make of this. I think this part of the story hasn't had much clarity so far.
UPDATE: Conservative Treehouse has a new post with analysis. Basically Marina Butina was being introduced around as a walking FISA virus -- anyone she talked to could be spied on, and anyone they talked to, and then anyone the last person talked to also (two-hop rule). Introduce her to Trump, Cruz, Rubio, etc, and those campaigns become an open book to the FBI. And the FBI, per Byrne, wanted her introduced at high levels of all those campaigns, and wanted her involved in the Trump campaign. They weren't warning the campaigns off, they were facilitating the introduction of this alleged spy.
So not only did the US and UK intelligence agencies collude to spy on Trump, not only did Steele -- if you believe him -- dish made-up Russian dirt on Trump to the FBI, but the British ambassador -- who would be responsible for dealing with Trump on behalf of his country should Trump win as in fact Trump did -- not only hated Trump and wrote about it in diplomatic cables, but leaked highly classified intelligence information to reporters. All in an effect to interfere with the election in the United States, when we are supposed to be close allies.
I'll take "poorly written survey question" for $200...
If you put your underwear on when you get up at 7am, and take it off when you go to bed at 1am, you technically wore it for 2 different days. Not 24+ hours straight, mind you, but technically, say, both Monday and Tuesday.
And, of course, I doubt the survey really clarifies how often this happens.
An insightful piece about the temptation to hold hands in a circle and dance in a ring. It's symbolic of something else, of course: the totalitarian impulse to imagine everyone gets along because everyone is singing and dancing the same thing, and if they don't, then by gosh we better make them be happy and sing along too.
I think the whole singing and dancing in a circle together is probably a bit more than just a symbol. It's a persistent image and idea that probably goes all the way back to dancing around a campfire in the wilderness. The people who danced with you are your friends and allies, your tribe members. The people who don't know the steps are enemies...
This is not something that works very well in a modern society, where honest people can and do disagree about many things while remaining willing to peacefully coexist and trade.
AG Barr orders IG investigation into Epstein's death by "suicide"
When the AG orders an IG investigation before the FBI's initial investigation has even started, it's a sign the chances of malfeasance and corruption are so high as to be practical certainties.
I don't doubt that Epstein had very strong motivations to kill himself. After all, he was in prison facing trial and almost certain conviction for decades of crimes against children.
On the other hand, he probably had a little black book with hundreds of powerful political figures and other prominent people in government and society who he could call for help... or implicate in crimes. They would have every motive to shut him up and the money to pay someone to do it, or to look the other way. And there's no doubt Epstein was going to be under serious pressure to name names and provide evidence.
None of the possible outcomes here (suicide, suicide-with-guards-looking-away, or murder) would surprise me.
Folks, remember when the anti-gunners yelled that they wanted to take away our guns, and we told them that if they tried that, people would see that as the first move in a tyrannical dictatorship and shoot back?
That just happened.
Everyone who has claimed that the gun-rights side doesn't take this seriously and won't resist a gun confiscation operation when the police actually do show up at their door?
Giuliani: Deliberate efforts to cover up wrongdoing
Meaning in History thinks Giuliani is pointing at Wray as the coverup artist. I'm not so sure that's what Giuliani is saying here, necessarily, but I do think Wray is neck-deep in covering up elements of SpyGate. What I think has been happening is that people in Europe (Ukraine, Italy at least, maybe in the UK) have been trying to reach the FBI to tell their side of the story, and the FBI has been ignoring those requests. That could be Wray, it could be underlings. As far as I can tell, it took these people (Mifsud in Italy, some elements of the Ukraine government) going to the media and getting media attention before they got officially noticed.
Targetting political opponents for intimidation tactics
Exactly. The purpose is political intimidation: the coerced silence of public support for the opposing side, on pain of social ostracism and even, potentially, physical attacks. If donating to Trump gets you put on a list for targeted ostracism and violence, who will donate to Trump? And that leaves out the social side, when perhaps the social side is even more important.
By coincidence, earlier this week I was at a business lunch with most of my immediate coworkers. Of those 20-30 people, one of my coworkers mentioned, I was the only one generally known to support Trump. A few others admitted to having voted for him in 2016 but they were quick to add they would not do so again. Most remained silent, even though I knew there were Trump supporters among them (from private conversations). And this is in the very red state of Texas.
The continuing media attacks and intimidation are draining. No one wants to be on the political defensive constantly when they are just living their life. And when you conduct those informal polls of those around you, the Trump supporters mostly remain quiet while the Democrats (supported by the perceived media dominance) are outspoken and aggressive.
That translates into a perceived disparity of support, which has the tendency to intimidate people into silence, making them much less likely to vote or get involved in supporting their candidate.
Twitter suspends Sen Maj Leader McConnell's twitter account
They suspended the account because McConnell's team posted videos of protestors outside McConnel's home calling for him to be murdered. Apparently, Twitter does not allow public figures to call out those threatening them with death.
This is certainly a moment of political danger for gun owners -- followed shortly by intense, personal danger as ex-girlfriends, ex-wives, "triggered" liberals, and potential boyfriends of young daughters all call in to "red flag" anyone they think might own a gun and seems angry. But the fact is, so-called "red flag" laws won't change anything (at least not in a positive way) and are likely to instead make things dramatically worse.
Right now, we have laws against making violent threats, laws in many states enabling involuntary commitment of people who pose a danger to others, and most of those laws come with a prohibition on firearms ownership. They are already of questionable legality in some cases for lack of due process, they are already on the books, and they don't work. Every time this happens we hear about the warning signs, the calls to police, the threats. But no action is taken... and not for lack of legal authority. Sometimes the police don't bother. Sometimes they bother, but don't add the murdered to the NICS list. Sometimes the government sponsors straw purchasers smuggling guns to criminals (see Fast and Furious under Obama's watch).
Bottom line, background checks don't actually stop criminals from getting guns. Hardened criminals can get guns on the black market anyway. The people who commit mass shootings have usually come to the attention of law enforcement in myriad of ways before their mass murder but without being added to the appropriate lists or any serious action being taken. Adding red flag laws into the equation will do nothing but increase the false reporting rates and harass peaceful gun owners during divorces or even just a bad breakup with a girlfriend.
If Trump wants to win re-election in 2020, he absolutely cannot afford to piss off gun owners. He's going to have enough problems with the NRA sidelined, and he's already taken some actions that have pissed off the 2nd Amendment community. All we have to do is stay home, and he's a one-term president.
That said, other presidents -- both Bushes, for a recent example -- have danced around this issue successfully. They publicly supported assault weapons bans which Congress never sent to them to sign. At the moment, though, the Democrats control the House, and the Senate is in Republican hands by a very slim majority. The GOPe -- who hate Trump despite sharing his party -- might well send him a gun control bill hoping he would sign it and destroy his re-election chances. Without the NRA to speak up, Trump might not have the instincts to realize how bad an idea this would be.