Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 28, 2016, 02:52:06 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
97994 Posts in 2335 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 758
151  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: California on: September 30, 2016, 02:32:50 PM
Good news out of Sacramento.

With only one day left to spare, Governor Jerry Brown has signed the last pro-gun bill on his desk.

SB 443, by Senator Holly Mitchell, reforms current civil asset forfeiture laws which allow law enforcement to permanently seize your property, including your firearms, without due process.

As a civil rights organization that represents the interests of some of the most regulated, tracked, and legislated classes of people, we believe it is imperative that our supporters have access to their constitutionally guaranteed private property and due process rights.

That is why we have supported this contentious bill in the Legislature and it is why we actively fought to have Governor Brown sign it. 
152  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Pakistan buys President Bill via Hillary on: September 30, 2016, 02:25:52 PM
153  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Biden on Immigration on: September 30, 2016, 02:10:14 PM
154  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: September 30, 2016, 09:56:43 AM
You Can’t Help a Man Who Can’t Help Himself
Between 3 and 5 a.m. this morning, the Republican nominee for president offered some thoughts on Twitter, urging those believing the tale of Miss Venezuela to “check out her sex tape and past.” He declared any stories about his staffers being dissatisfied with his debate performance must be false — “There are no sources, they are just made up lies!” He also misspelled “judgment.”
Hillary Clinton wanted to make this week about Alicia Machado; Donald Trump agreed. That’s on him.
Many good right-of-center friends are on the Trump bandwagon, and are working for his victory, and fervently hoping he can reach those 270 electoral votes. I think they are working harder, and smarter, and showing more judgment than the candidate himself.
From coverage of his preparation for the first debate:
He has paid only cursory attention to briefing materials. He has refused to use lecterns in mock debate sessions despite the urging of his advisers. He prefers spitballing ideas with his team rather than honing them into crisp, two-minute answers.
If you knew you were going to speak before 84 million Americans, wouldn’t you do everything humanly possible to maximize your chance of success?
Tuesday morning, he told Fox and Friends, “I really eased up because I didn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings.” Assuming that’s true, he didn’t maximize his chance of winning over voters . . . before an audience of 84 million people . . . because he didn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings.
Now he gets sensitive?
This is the lamest excuse imaginable. “I could have done a lot better, but I chose not to do that.” Trump thinks he’s saying, “Look at what a nice guy I am.” What he’s really saying is, “look at what catastrophically egregious judgment I have.”
Why should anyone be emotionally invested in this man’s victory, if he refuses to learn, refuses to improve, and refuses to avoid making the same mistakes, over and over and over and over again? I’d love to see Hillary Clinton defeated. I just have no faith that Donald Trump is capable of doing that. Every now and then, he gains some traction, the polls get closer . . . and then he goes and does something stupid. And all of his supporters insist it doesn’t matter, and that we should all avert our eyes, and that we’re betraying something good and righteous by noticing what just happened right in front of us. And then they insist it’s not stupid, that there’s some brilliant nine-level chess going on that we can’t possibly understand from the outside, and if we just wait and see, Donald Trump will win in the end. Unless he doesn’t, because the election is rigged.
That’s not a campaign; that’s a cult.
155  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Veiled woman assassin on: September 30, 2016, 09:28:32 AM

156  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Libertarian and Green candidates on: September 30, 2016, 01:07:52 AM
We are so fuct if she wins , , ,
157  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Whose side are you on DHS? on: September 30, 2016, 01:01:30 AM
158  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / We are linked on Hotgas? on: September 29, 2016, 04:38:12 PM
"Our forum linked in the 'major media':    )"

Where, where? 
159  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: September 29, 2016, 04:32:54 PM
On FOX last night they were talking that she had been a narco's squeeze and that she had driven the getaway car when her brother tried murdering someone.  Apparently he threatened the judge in question and somehow nothing happened.

PS:  In her own words she admitted packing on some pounds after winning the crown ("I was super anorexic in order to win, but then I got healthy again.")
160  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / JASTA politics on: September 29, 2016, 03:24:14 PM

By James Taranto
Sept. 29, 2016 2:01 p.m. ET

“Congress Disses Obama One Last Time” reads a Politico headline. “Diss” (or “dis”) is a slang term for “disrespect,” so the implication is that lawmakers have personally slighted the president, when in fact all they have done is exercise their authority under the Constitution.

And what they did is more aptly characterized as a first than a last. The House and Senate both easily mustered the two-thirds majorities required to approve the only veto override in Obama’s more than 7½ years in office. In this column’s view Obama is right on the substance—the new law is a bad one—but the story of how it came to pass is one in which everyone in Washington, including the president, looks terrible.
More James Taranto

Follow James on Twitter

    Trump and Iraq Sept. 28, 2016
    Trump Is Now Normal Sept. 27, 2016
    ‘Donald Trump’s Special’ Sept. 26, 2016
    The Campaign to Normalize Terrorism Sept. 23, 2016
    Labor of Lovitz Sept. 22, 2016

The new law, styled the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act or Jasta, “would allow victims of terrorism on U.S. soil to sue foreign governments found responsible for those attacks,” as Politico explains. Its main target is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and it is supposed to benefit one of the most sympathetic groups in America, survivors of the victims of the 9/11 attacks.

Unsurprisingly—and necessarily for a successful veto override—the act had wide bipartisan support. The vote to override was 97-1 in the Senate; Minority Leader Harry Reid was the sole dissenter, and it is probably no coincidence he is retiring at the end of the year. (Virginia’s Tim Kaine and Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, off campaigning for Hillary Clinton, missed the vote.) The House vote was 348-77, with only 18 Republicans and 59 Democrats voting against.

So what’s not to like about a bill that helps terror victims at the expense of our friends the Saudis? The Wall Street Journal made the case for the president’s position in an editorial last week: “If Jasta becomes law, crucial decisions affecting U.S. foreign policy will be influenced by judges and tort lawyers, instead of the U.S. President and diplomats.” The editorial further noted that “the anti-Saudi posturing is building at the moment the Saudis are showing a greater commitment to domestic reform and the antiterror effort.”

The president did not make his case so strongly. In fact, the text of that Politico story suggests that it was he who “dissed” Congress more than the other way around:

    Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said he and other senators repeatedly requested meetings with White House officials to hash out a potential deal that could accommodate some of the administration’s concerns.

    But he heard nothing back, Corker said. It’s just been “dial tone,” the senator added.

    “There’s been zero involvement from the White House. Zero,” Corker said, forming a “zero” with his fingers to underscore his point. “When you have a veto like this, it takes involvement, constructive involvement. I mean, there’s nothing.”

But Corker and his colleagues look equally feckless. Twenty-eight of them, from both parties, signed a letter yesterday to Sens. John Cornyn (R., Texas) and Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), the legislation’s lead sponsors, promising to “work with you in a constructive manner to appropriately mitigate” the bill’s “unintended consequences.” Why not do that before passing the law?

The president made that point Wednesday night, in a CNN “town hall”: “We found out some of the people who voted for it said, frankly, we didn’t know what was in it. And there was no debate of it. And it was, you know, basically a political vote.”

It’s more than a little rich for the man who gave us ObamaCare to be complaining now about lawmakers’ failure to read legislation without knowing what was in it. But the president is right on this point, notwithstanding his lack of credibility. Though it’s a bit silly for him to complain that it was “a political vote.” When is a vote not political?

Obama also said: “It’s an example of why sometimes you have to do what’s hard. And, frankly, I wish Congress here had done what’s hard.” Fair enough, but perhaps they would have if he had done the hard work of private persuasion that he seems to think beneath him.

“This is the single most embarrassing thing the United States Senate has done possibly since 1983,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said yesterday, according to the Hill (the House hadn’t yet voted):

    Earnest was responding to a reporter who told him Wednesday’s vote was the most overwhelming since a 95-0 veto override vote in 1983. In that year, the Senate overrode President Ronald Reagan’s veto of a land bill to give a few acres to six retired couples who paid for it, but later learned that it was still government property because of a surveying error.

The Washington Post contemporaneously reported on that veto, which “came under attack . . . from Republicans and Democrats as an act of insensitivity to the elderly.” Reagan’s veto message said the bill “ ‘would create a clearly undesirable precedent’ by encouraging other landowners to claim federal land at no charge.” We’re at a loss to understand why Earnest is siding with Reagan on that question 33 years later.

So here we have a law passed by congressmen who acknowledge it is likely to have deleterious unintended consequences and self-righteously denounced by a president who couldn’t be bothered to make the case to lawmakers ahead of the vote. And some in the press—we’re looking at you, Politico—portray it as just a big personal spat.

Is it any wonder many voters are fed up enough with Washington that they are willing to consider sending a man to the White House who lacks the basic experience and knowledge that one would think would be a prerequisite for the presidency?

For that matter, is it any wonder other voters, having done exactly that eight years ago, worry about repeating the same mistake?
161  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Another brain fart from Johnson on: September 29, 2016, 02:35:50 PM
162  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Comey on Clinton payroll? on: September 28, 2016, 04:10:36 PM
Can anyone confirm or deny?  I do not know this site.
163  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Baraq's November Surprise? on: September 28, 2016, 01:41:10 PM
Obama's November Surprise
by Gregg Roman
The Hill
September 26, 2016
President Obama is contemplating a surprise move to permit anti-Israel action by the UN Security Council during his final months in office.

There is growing speculation that President Obama will spring a diplomatic surprise on Israel during the interregnum between the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 8 and his departure from office in January.

Some say the surprise will be a speech laying down parameters for a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute or some type of formal censure of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but the scenario generating most discussion is a decision to support, or perhaps not to veto, a UN Security Council resolution recognizing a Palestinian state.

This would be a bombshell. Washington's long-stated policy is that a Palestinian state should be established only through an agreement negotiated directly between the two sides. In practice, this would require that Palestinian leaders agreed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and concede the so-called "right of return" for refugees of the 1948 war and their descendants to areas within Israel's borders, a prospect which would mean the demographic destruction of Israel.

Past administrations understood the folly of recognizing Palestinian statehood before a peace settlement.

For decades, Palestinian leaders have made it clear they won't do this: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas doesn't mince words, telling a gathering of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo in November 2014, "We will never recognize the Jewishness of the state of Israel." Efforts to win recognition of Palestinian statehood by foreign governments and multilateral institutions are designed to skirt this precondition for statehood.

Any state that comes into existence without Palestinian leaders formally recognizing Israel will be a brutal, unstable train wreck, with areas under its jurisdiction likely to remain a hotbed of terrorism. On top of whatever existing factors are producing the endemic corruption and autocracy of the Abbas regime (not to mention the Hamas regime in Gaza), unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state will vindicate radicals who have been saying all along that there's no need to compromise.

On the other hand, official Palestinian acknowledgement once and for all that Israel is not just here to stay, but has a right to stay, would deprive Palestinian leaders of time-honored tools for manipulating their constituents – appealing to and inflaming their baser anti-Jewish prejudices, promising them salvation if they'll only shut up 'til the Zionists are defeated, and so forth. Instead, they will have to do things like govern well and create jobs to win public support.
Palestinian incitement to violence starts early. Above, the second grade Palestinian textbook Our Beautiful Language depicts Israelis uprooting trees from Palestinian land.

Previous American administrations have understood that recognizing Palestinian statehood before Abbas and company allow Palestinian society to undergo this transformation would be the height of irresponsibility. This is why American veto power has consistently blocked efforts to unilaterally establish a Palestinian state by way of the UN Security Council.

Notwithstanding his apparent pro-Palestinian sympathies and affiliations prior to running for the Senate and later the White House, President Obama initially maintained this policy. The expressed threat of an American veto foiled Abbas' 2011 bid to win UN member-state status for "Palestine." He settled for recognition of non-member-state status by the General Assembly in 2012.

As moves by the PA to bring the issue of statehood to the UN picked up steam last year, however, it appeared to walk back this commitment. While U.S officials privately maintained there was "no change," Obama and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power refused – despite the urging of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid – to state publicly that the U.S. would use its veto to stop a resolution recognizing Palestinian statehood.

The conventional wisdom was that Obama's refusal to make such a public declaration was intended to exert pressure on Netanyahu to tone down his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, and later to punish him for it or hold it out to secure concessions. As his presidency enters its final months, it's clear something even more nefarious is at work.

Congress must use the tools at its disposal to make a reckless policy reversal by Obama as difficult as possible.

President Obama's failure to clarify his administration's position has greatly damaged prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Even if it is Obama's intention to veto any resolution on Palestinian statehood that comes up at the UN, his refusal to publicly state this – or, put differently, his determination to go on the record for the history books not saying it – has fueled perceptions among Palestinians and European governments facing pressures of their own that American will is softening.

It is imperative that Congress use the tools at its disposal to make this unwise path as difficult as possible for the Obama administration.

Ultimately, a one-sided UN declaration such as this serves only to postpone by a long shot the day when Palestinian leaders accept Israel as it is – the homeland of the Jewish people – and allow their subjects to enjoy the lasting peace and prosperity they and their neighbors deserve.

Gregg Roman is director of the Middle East Forum.
164  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: Lester Holt was quite wrong on Stop & Frisk ruling on: September 28, 2016, 11:28:35 AM

Fact-Checking Lester Holt
Here’s the legal back story on that stop-and-frisk ruling.
Sept. 27, 2016 6:55 p.m. ET

We told you Tuesday that Donald Trump was right when he pushed back on debate moderator Lester Holt over “stop and frisk” policing. But the story deserves a more complete explanation, not least because the media are distorting the record.

Mr. Trump invoked stop and frisk as a way to “take the gun away from criminals” in high-crime areas and protect the innocent. That provoked Mr. Holt, who said that “stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York.” Mr. Trump then noted that the ruling in the case came from a “very against police judge” who later had the case taken away from her. Mrs. Clinton then echoed Mr. Holt.

Here’s what really happened. The federal judge in the stop-and-frisk case was Shira Scheindlin, a notorious police critic whose behavior got her taken off the case by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court put it this way:

“Upon review of the record in these cases, we conclude that the District Judge ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges . . . and that the appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation was compromised by the District Judge’s improper application of the Court’s ‘related case rule’ . . . and by a series of media interviews and public statements purporting to respond publicly to criticism of the District Court.”

The court then remanded the case to another judge who would not present an appearance of bias against the police. In a follow-up opinion, the appellate judges cited a New Yorker interview with Judge Scheindlin that included a quote from a former law clerk saying “what you have to remember about the judge is that she thinks cops lie.”

This is an extraordinary rebuke by a higher court and raises doubts that the merits of her ruling would have held up on appeal. As Rudolph Giuliani makes clear nearby, the judge’s ruling of unconstitutionality applied only to stop and frisk as it was practiced in New York at the time. Such police search tactics have long been upheld by higher courts.

In the end, the clock ran out on Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and new Mayor Bill de Blasiochose not to appeal. We rate Mr. Trump’s claim true and unfairly second-guessed by a moderator who didn’t give the viewing public all the facts.
165  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Lesbian for Trump on: September 28, 2016, 10:36:52 AM
166  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / AM Codevilla: After the Republic on: September 28, 2016, 10:29:41 AM
After the Republic
By: Angelo M. Codevilla
September 27, 2016
167  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: California on: September 28, 2016, 09:57:41 AM
Very good piece.
168  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / NRO on: September 28, 2016, 09:55:51 AM
It’s Like No One Remembers Who John Warner Is
Most of the Washington media is acting like it’s an enormous surprise that former senator John Warner of Virginia is endorsing Hillary Clinton.
People, people . . . Sometimes I feel like the only man with memory in land of amnesiacs. It was just two years ago that Warner was endorsing the Democrat in the Senate race.
Retired Republican Sen. John Warner endorsed his Democratic successor and onetime rival Mark Warner on Monday in his race against Ed Gillespie.
The 86-year-old told POLITICO that the state benefits from the seniority in the Senate that the 59-year-old Warner (the two are not related) is accumulating. The former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee also praised the younger Warner – with whom he has developed a friendship since the two squared off in a race nearly two decades ago – for effectively advocating on behalf of the state’s large military presence.
John Warner is the kind of Republican who supported Roe v. Wade and embryonic stem cell research, voted for the Brady Bill, sought to extend the Assault Weapons Ban, voted to reject the nomination of Robert Bork, voted against Bill Clinton’s impeachment, broke with the rest of the party on the Terry Schiavo case, was part of the Gang of 14 on the “nuclear option,” co-sponsored a resolution opposing the 2007 surge of additional U.S. troops in Iraq, and cosponsored cap-and-trade legislation.
John Warner is exactly the kind of Republican you would expect to see endorse Hillary Clinton.
Who Will Win More Votes Where It Counts, Trump or GOP Senate Candidates?
The piece of data that will most illuminate 2016 is Donald Trump’s vote total in key states compared to the vote totals of the Republican Senate candidates in those states.
The easy, lazy narrative is that a tired, unappealing Republican establishment was sputtering, and then Trump came along, energizing working-class white voters, and he represents a better, more broadly-appealing agenda for the party and represents the GOP future.
The current RealClearPolitics averages in each state tell a completely different story.
Right now, Trump is running a little ahead of GOP Senate candidates in a couple of states . . .
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Colorado: 41 percent.
Darryl Glenn’s current level in the RCP average in Colorado: 40.4 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Indiana: 45 percent.
Todd Young’s current level in the RCP average in Indiana: 40.5 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Missouri: 46.7 percent.
Roy Blunt’s current level in the RCP average in Missouri: 44.6 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in North Carolina: 42.3 percent.
Richard Burr’s current level in the RCP average in North Carolina: 42.2 percent.
Trump is running a little behind GOP Senate candidates in a bunch of states . . .
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Florida: 43.3 percent.
Marco Rubio’s current level in the RCP average in Florida: 46.4 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Georgia: 45.4 percent.
Johnny Isakson’s current level in the RCP average in Georgia: 49 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Illinois: 34.5 percent.
Mark Kirk’s current level in the RCP average in Illinois: 37.5 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Nevada: 42.8 percent.
Joe Heck’s current level in the RCP average in Nevada: 45 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Pennsylvania: 41.8 percent.
Pat Toomey’s current level in the RCP average in Pennsylvania: 42.2 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Wisconsin: 38 percent.
Ron Johnson’s current level in the RCP average in Wisconsin: 41.3 percent.
And Trump is running way behind GOP Senate candidates in another couple of states.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Arizona: 40.4 percent.
John McCain’s current level in the RCP average in Arizona: 49.7 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Iowa: 42.8 percent.
Chuck Grassley’s current level in the RCP average in Iowa: 52 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in New Hampshire: 37.3 percent.
Kelly Ayotte’s current level in the RCP average in New Hampshire: 47.3 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Ohio: 42.7 percent.
Rob Portman’s current level in the RCP average in Ohio: 49.3 percent.
All appropriate caveats apply: Polls can be wrong, a bad sample can throw off the RCP average, et cetera. After the election, when all the votes are counted, we’ll have real data. Some will argue that this is an imperfect measuring stick, because Trump is competing against Clinton as well as Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, and most third-party candidates in Senate races are minimally consequential. Of course, this is part of the point. Trump alienates and repels a portion of the electorate that is usually more open to voting for a Republican nominee.
169  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cowardice in the face of Correctness on: September 28, 2016, 09:52:03 AM
170  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: September 28, 2016, 12:11:42 AM
On line polls are of limited value.
171  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: California on: September 28, 2016, 12:10:42 AM
Several truly hideous new gun laws passed this session.

At least this:

September 27, 2016
Following a season of heartaches for California gun owners, Governor Jerry Brown has, in the closing days of the legislative cycle, decided in favor of the Second Amendment for the remaining gun bills on his desk. As of last night, he struck down two bad bills (AB 450 and SB 1332) and upheld one of the good ones (AB 2510).
VETOED – AB 450, according to its author, Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, would have “clarified” current law regarding concealed weapon permits and would have mandated that the issuing authority charge a fee “sufficient” to cover the cost of CCW issuance and administration. In reality, this bill would have lifted the limits placed on CCW fees, and, as a result, many prospective CCW holders would be “priced out of the market”—meaning that, potentially, only those of greater means would be able to afford a carry permit. It is important, also, to note that this bill was a blatant attempt to insert the state into decisions and affairs of the local government.
VETOED – SB 1332, authored by Senator Tony Mendoza, would have allowed spouses and domestic partners to jointly register a firearm under both of their names. However, this bill would also have severely crippled the process of the loaning of firearms—shortening the period during which the firearm can be loaned from 30 days down to 10.  Furthermore, SB 1332 would have opened up the use of money from the Firearm Safety and Enforcement Fund for use in other DOJ projects.
SIGNED – SB 2510, authored by Assemblyman Eric Linder, allows local law enforcement agencies to do away with the current cumbersome and easily damaged paper CCW permits in favor of a new standardized CCW identification cards.  These ID cards—already issued in certain California counties—would no longer need to be carried in conjunction with the large paper permits, are easily carried in a wallet/pocket/purse, are more durable, and would have the permit holder’s picture printed on it (making it easier for law enforcement to match the permit to the permit holder).
We at GOC would like to thank Governor Jerry Brown for his action on these pieces of legislation, and to thank every one of our members for standing with us in this year’s fight for the Second Amendment!
Stay armed and informed,
172  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: Cheryl Mills, immunized on: September 27, 2016, 10:40:12 PM
The Secrets of Cheryl Mills
If there was no evidence of criminal activity, why all the immunity?
By William McGurn
Sept. 26, 2016 7:31 p.m. ET

Why did Cheryl Mills require criminal immunity?

This is the irksome question hanging over the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s home-brew server in the wake of news that Ms. Mills was granted immunity for her laptop’s contents.

Ms. Mills was a top Clinton aide at the State Department who became Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer when she left. She was also a witness, as well as a potential target, in the same FBI investigation into her boss’s emails. The laptop the bureau wanted was one Ms. Mills used in 2014 to sort Clinton emails before deciding which would be turned over to State.

Here’s the problem. There are two ways a witness can get immunity: Either she invokes the Fifth Amendment on the grounds she might incriminate herself, or, worried something on the laptop might expose her to criminal liability, her lawyers reveal what this might be before prosecutors agree to an immunity deal.

As with so much else in this investigation, the way the laptop was handled was out of the ordinary. Normally, immunity is granted for testimony and interviews. The laptop was evidence. Standard practice would have been for the FBI to get a grand-jury subpoena to compel Ms. Mills to produce it.

Andrew McCarthy, a former U.S. attorney, puts it this way: “It’s like telling a bank robbery suspect, ‘If you turn over that bag, I’ll give you immunity as to the contents’—which means if the money you robbed is in there, I can’t use it against you.”

The Mills immunity, which we learned of on Friday, has unfortunately been overwhelmed by the first Trump-Clinton debate. But the week is still young. On Wednesday, Congress will have an opportunity to put the Mills questions to FBI director James Comey when he appears before the House Judiciary Committee.

Back in July, Mr. Comey must have thought he’d settled the issue of Mrs. Clinton’s emails with a grandstanding press conference in which he asserted “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against her based on what the FBI had found. In so doing, he effectively wrested the indictment decision (and any hope for political accountability) from the Justice Department. Plainly even his own agents weren’t buying, given that Mr. Comey later felt the need to issue an internal memo whining that he wasn’t being political.

Now we learn about the multiple immunity deals. Immunity in exchange for information that will help make the case against higher-ups is not unusual. Even so, the Mills deal carries a special stink.

To begin with, Ms. Mills was pretty high up herself. As Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, she was in the thick of operations. In 2012, while working at State, she traveled to New York to interview candidates for a top job at the Clinton Foundation.

More disturbing still, not only was Ms. Mills granted immunity for the content on her laptop, she was permitted to act as Mrs. Clinton’s attorney even though she herself was also a witness in the investigation.

This was allowed in part because she told the FBI she knew nothing of Mrs. Clinton’s private server until after she’d left the State Department. But this claim is suspect and contradicted by emails that have since emerged. These include one to Huma Abedin asking, “hrc email coming back—is server ok?”

The special treatment accorded Ms. Mills also reeks on a more fundamental level. As a rule, the Justice Department is aggressive about going after lawyers for any perceived conflict of interest. This would include, for example, a lawyer who wanted to represent different parties in a trial.

By giving Ms. Mills a pass to serve as Mrs. Clinton’s attorney in an investigation in which she was a material witness, Justice allowed her to shield her communications with Mrs. Clinton under attorney-client privilege. Indeed, Ms. Mills invoked that privilege during her own FBI interview.

Imagine Tom Hagen, the mob lawyer played by Robert Duvall in “The Godfather,” discussing with Don Corleone who was to get whacked—and then invoking the lawyer-client relationship to hush it up. Think of it this way and you begin to get the picture.

For those who think the fix was in from the start, Ms. Mills’s presence at Mrs. Clinton’s FBI interview, along with nine other people (not including the two FBI agents) is further evidence of a circus. Judiciary Committee members might do well to ask Mr. Comey why Ms. Mills and so many others were allowed to sit in on that interview.

In short, far from resolving Mrs. Clinton’s email case, the handling of the investigation has provoked questions about integrity of both the FBI and Justice. The big question for Mr. Comey remains this:

You publicly said there was no case for criminal charges. So what did Cheryl Mills need immunity for?

Write to
173  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: September 27, 2016, 05:09:18 PM
They want to forestall him from complaining about dirty tricks, rigging the vote, stuffing the ballot box, etc. 

This question may well prove to be a big warning flag of serious cheating to come.
174  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: September 27, 2016, 09:29:11 AM
175  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: September 27, 2016, 08:22:25 AM
Though the chattering class is scoring is for Hillary, and certainly Trump missed many opportunities (and got dinged a few times e.g. birther) I think Trump did fine on the meta issues.  I suspect when the first post debate polls come out (Saturday) once again will be confounded that his polls went up , , , I hope and pray.
176  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The SCOTUS issue on: September 26, 2016, 05:24:35 PM
177  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tea Party, Glen Beck and related matters on: September 26, 2016, 03:21:03 PM
The way I look at it is that for year or two he was deep in the zone, operating at a level way beyond his inherent natural ability.  Now he flounders, rather badly.
178  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Social Media equivalent of the stockade heh heh on: September 26, 2016, 02:53:14 PM
179  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / That's the spirit! on: September 26, 2016, 02:33:16 PM
180  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Glen Beck unhappy with Cruz on: September 26, 2016, 02:23:06 PM
181  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Left critiques of Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" on: September 26, 2016, 01:53:24 PM

182  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / POTH: Millions climb out of poverty on: September 26, 2016, 01:30:11 PM
No doubt Obama-Hillary will claim credit, and one suspects that this underpins Obama's perplexing high approval ratings , , ,
183  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trey Gowdy in outstanding form (James Comey) on: September 25, 2016, 11:33:17 PM
184  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Is Elysium fountain of youth? on: September 25, 2016, 10:59:24 PM
185  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A liberal reviews Jonah Goldberg's book on: September 25, 2016, 10:50:44 PM
186  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Citizen-Police interactions on: September 25, 2016, 11:33:00 AM
 shocked shocked shocked
187  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ratzinger and Our Crisis of Reason on: September 25, 2016, 01:09:43 AM
188  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / LA beach town debates drone policy on: September 25, 2016, 01:01:38 AM
189  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: social justice wars , SJ warriors, gender warriors , victimhood on: September 24, 2016, 08:51:50 PM
Jonah Goldberg has a GREAT clip defining SJ on the Prager University FB page.
190  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: September 24, 2016, 08:51:07 PM
191  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Grannis gives his Sit Rep: on: September 24, 2016, 08:49:05 PM
I've been following the markets throughout the past week, but can't come up with any new or informed observations about what's happening. However, there's nothing wrong with a recap of how I see the economy and the markets, so here goes:

The economy is likely continuing to grow at a disappointingly slow pace, but we might see some modestly stronger GDP numbers in the second half as compared to the first half of the year. There are several reasons for sluggish growth, but monetary policy is not one of them. Tax and regulatory burdens are excessively high; confidence is still lacking; and business investment is weak despite strong corporate profits. Risk aversion, a lack of confidence, and weak investment have sapped the economy's productivity. More recently, the tremendous uncertainty surrounding the November elections—which could give us even higher tax and regulatory burdens and four more years of sluggish growth under a Clinton presidency, or reduced tax and regulatory burdens and four years of stronger growth under a Trump presidency—is most likely convincing risk-takers that it is better to wait until next year before deciding to undertake new investments, and that in turn is contributing to keep growth weak, especially this year.

The Fed has not been "stimulative;" rather, the Fed has been accommodating the world's almost insatiable desire for money and safe assets with its Quantitative Easing program. Short-term interest rates are not artificially low, and thus they are not artificially inflating the prices of risk assets and/or bonds. Interest rates are low because the economy is sluggish, inflation is low, and the market holds out very little hope for improvement in the years ahead. Rates are low because the world's demand for safe assets is very strong. In particular, the very low level of real yields on TIPS, combined with relatively low implied inflation, strongly suggests that the market is very pessimistic about the long-run outlook for economic growth. The Fed is not too tight, because real yields are very low and the yield curve is positively sloped. Deflation exists primarily in the durable goods sector, and China has been one of the driving factors behind ever-cheaper prices for the electronics that have boosted our standard of living—there is nothing wrong with that.

Stocks are no longer cheap, but neither are they obviously expensive. The current PE ratio of the S&P 500 (~20) is above its long-term average, but not excessively high considering how low interest rates are on notes and bonds. Key indicators of systemic risk (particularly swap spreads) are relatively low and stable, and this—combined with the absence of tight money—suggests that the risk of recession is low for the foreseeable future. The unusually wide spread between the yield on cash and the yield on risk assets is a compelling reason to stay invested.

The dollar is reasonably valued against most other currencies, according to the Fed's Real Broad Dollar Index, and my analysis of the dollar's PPP value against other major currencies is largely in agreement with this. Raw industrial commodity prices are neither very high nor very low, but they have been trending higher this year and this suggests some firming in the global economic outlook—which, like that of the U.S., has been unimpressive of late, if not a bit troubling.
192  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: September 24, 2016, 03:21:40 PM
second post
193  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Free to flee on: September 24, 2016, 12:04:48 PM
194  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Eric Hoffer on: September 24, 2016, 09:52:33 AM

There is a fact that stares us in the face but which we refuse to see; the inverse relation between grievance and protest. The less justified the grievance the more violent the protest. When the wrong is tangible and obvious the protest will be limited and specific. It is when the wrong is vague or even fictitious that the protest is likely to become revolutionary, to be directed against the Establishment, the power structure, and the whole way of life of a society.

- Eric Hoffer, The Destructive Rush for Happiness, column, 1968
195  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: Helprin: The Gathering Nuclear Storm on: September 24, 2016, 09:47:37 AM
I have repeatedly banged the table around here that one of the worst things that Obama has done is to bring an end to the era of nuclear non-proliferation.

Though I find the following unfair in some respects to Trump, on the whole it is an intelligent discussion of a matter of profound importance to our national security.  I was unaware of just how bad our trajectory is viz the Chinese and Russians is.

Also, I would note that there is no discussion of the Iran and North Korea.  I would note that as Iran develops its' ICBMs, it continues to move forward with its nuke program.  Even if it should turn out it is sort of respecting the Obama-Kerry deal (which expires in what, 12 years?) it seems logical to me to assume they are off-shoring their efforts to a joint venture with North Korea.


by Mark Helprin
Sept. 23, 2016 6:11 p.m. ET

Even should nuclear brinkmanship not result in Armageddon, it can lead to abject defeat and a complete reordering of the international system. The extraordinarily complicated and consequential management of American nuclear policy rests upon the shoulders of those we elevate to the highest offices. Unfortunately, President Obama’s transparent hostility to America’s foundational principles and defensive powers is coupled with a dim and faddish understanding of nuclear realities. His successor will be no less ill-equipped.

Hillary Clinton’s robotic compulsion to power renders her immune to either respect for truth or clearheaded consideration of urgent problems. Theodore Roosevelt’s secretary of state once said that he was “pure act” (meaning action). Hillary Clinton is “pure lie” (meaning lie), with whatever intellectual power she possesses hopelessly enslaved to reflexive deviousness.

Donald Trump, surprised that nuclear weapons are inappropriate to counterinsurgency, has a long history of irrepressible urges and tropisms. Rather like the crazy boy-emperors after the fall of the Roman Republic, he may have problems with impulse control—and an uncontrolled, ill-formed, perpetually fragmented mind.

None of these perhaps three worst people in the Western Hemisphere, and few of their deplorable underlings, are alive to the gravest danger. Which is neither Islamic State, terrorism, the imprisoned economy, nor even the erosion of our national character, though all are of crucial importance.

The gravest danger we face is fast-approaching nuclear instability. Many believe it is possible safely to arrive at nuclear zero. It is not. Enough warheads to bring any country to its knees can fit in a space volumetrically equivalent to a Manhattan studio apartment. Try to find that in the vastness of Russia, China, or Iran. Even ICBMs and their transporter-erector-launchers can easily be concealed in warehouses, tunnels and caves. Nuclear weapons age out, but, thanks to supercomputing, reliable replacements can be manufactured with only minor physical testing. Unaccounted fissile material sloshing around the world can, with admitted difficulty, be fashioned into weapons. And when rogue states such as North Korea and Iran build their bombs, our response has been either impotence or a ticket to ride.

Nor do nuclear reductions lead to increased safety. Quite apart from encouraging proliferation by enabling every medium power in the world to aim for nuclear parity with the critically reduced U.S. arsenal, reductions create instability. The fewer targets, the more possible a (counter-force) first strike to eliminate an enemy’s retaliatory capacity. Nuclear stability depends, inter alia, upon deep reserves that make a successful first strike impossible to assure. The fewer warheads and the higher the ratio of warheads to delivery vehicles, the more dangerous and unstable.

Consider two nations, each with 10 warheads on each of 10 missiles. One’s first strike with five warheads tasked per the other’s missiles would leave the aggressor with an arsenal sufficient for a (counter-value) strike against the now disarmed opponent’s cities. Our deterrent is not now as concentrated as in the illustration, but by placing up to two-thirds of our strategic warheads in just 14 submarines; consolidating bomber bases; and entertaining former Defense Secretary William Perry’s recommendation to do away with the 450 missiles in the land-based leg of the Nuclear Triad, we are moving that way.

Supposedly salutary reductions are based upon an incorrect understanding of nuclear sufficiency: i.e., if X number of weapons is sufficient to inflict unacceptable costs upon an enemy, no more than X are needed. But we don’t define sufficiency, the adversary does, and the definition varies according to culture; history; the temperament, sanity, or miscalculation of leadership; domestic politics; forms of government, and other factors, some unknown. For this reason, the much maligned concept of overkill is a major contributor to stability, in that, if we have it, an enemy is less likely to calculate that we lack sufficiency. Further, if our forces are calibrated to sufficiency, then presumably the most minor degradation will render them insufficient.

Nor is it safe to mirror-image willingness to go nuclear. Every nuclear state has its own threshold, and one cannot assume that concessions in strategic forces will obviate nuclear use in response to conventional warfare, which was Soviet doctrine for decades and is a Russian predilection now.

Ballistic missile defense is opposed and starved on the assumption that it would shield one’s territory after striking first, and would therefore tempt an enemy to strike before the shield was deployed. As its opponents assert, hermetic shielding is impossible, and if only 10 of 1,500 warheads were to hit American cities, the cost would be unacceptable. But no competent nuclear strategist ever believed that, other than protecting cities from accidental launch or rogue states, ballistic missile defense is anything but a means of protecting our retaliatory capacity, making a counter-force first strike of no use, and thus increasing stability.

In a nuclear world, unsentimental and often counterintuitive analysis is necessary. As the genie will not be forced back into the lamp, the heart of the matter is balance and deterrence. But this successful dynamic of 70 years is about to be destroyed. Those whom the French call our “responsibles” have addressed the nuclear calculus—in terms of sufficiency, control regimes, and foreign policy—only toward Russia, as if China, a nuclear power for decades, did not exist. While it is true that to begin with its nuclear arsenal was de minimis, in the past 15 years China has increased its land-based ICBMs by more than 300%, its sea-based by more than 400%. Depending upon the configuration of its missiles, China can rain up to several hundred warheads upon the U.S.

As we shrink our nuclear forces and fail to introduce new types, China is doing the opposite, increasing them numerically and forging ahead of us in various technologies (quantum communications, super computers, maneuverable hypersonic re-entry vehicles), some of which we have forsworn, such as road-mobile missiles, which in survivability and range put to shame our Minuteman IIIs.

Because China’s nuclear weapons infrastructure is in part housed in 3,000 miles of tunnels opaque to American intelligence, we cannot know the exact velocity and extent of its buildup. Why does the Obama administration, worshipful of nuclear agreements, completely ignore the nuclear dimension of the world’s fastest rising major power, with which the United States and allies engage in military jockeying almost every day on multiple fronts? Lulled to believe that nuclear catastrophe died with the Cold War, America is blind to rising dragons.

And then we have Russia, which ignores limitations the Obama administration strives to exceed. According to its own careless or defiant admissions, Russia cheats in virtually every area of nuclear weapons: deploying missiles that by treaty supposedly no longer exist; illegally converting anti-aircraft and ballistic missile defense systems to dual-capable nuclear strike; developing new types of nuclear cruise missiles for ships and aircraft; keeping more missiles on alert than allowed; and retaining battlefield tactical nukes.

Further, in the almost complete absence of its own “soft power,” Russia frequently hints at nuclear first use. All this comports with historical Soviet/Russian doctrine and conduct; is an important element of Putinesque tactics for reclaiming the Near Abroad; and dovetails perfectly with Mr. Obama’s advocacy of no first use, unreciprocated U.S. reductions and abandonment of nuclear modernization. Which in turn pair nicely with Donald Trump’s declaration that he would defend NATO countries only if they made good on decades of burden-sharing delinquency.

Russia deploys about 150 more nuclear warheads than the U.S. Intensively modernizing, it finds ways to augment its totals via undisguised cheating. Bound by no numerical or qualitative limits, China speeds its strategic development. To cripple U.S. retaliatory capability, an enemy would have to destroy only four or five submarines at sea, two sub bases, half a dozen bomber bases, and 450 missile silos.

Russia has 49 attack submarines, China 65, with which to track and kill American nuclear missile subs under way. Were either to build or cheat to 5,000 warheads (the U.S. once had more than 30,000) and two-thirds reached their targets, four warheads could strike each aim point, with 2,000 left to hold hostage American cities and industry. China and Russia are far less dense and developed than the U.S., and it would take more strikes for us to hold them at risk than vice versa, a further indictment of reliance upon sufficiency calculations and symmetrical reductions.

Russia dreams publicly of its former hold on Eastern Europe and cannot but see opportunity in a disintegrating European Union and faltering NATO. China annexes the South China Sea and looks to South Korea, Japan and Australasia as future subordinates. Given the degradation of U.S. and allied conventional forces previously able to hold such ambitions in check, critical confrontations are bound to occur. When they do occur, and if without American reaction, China or Russia have continued to augment their strategic forces to the point of vast superiority where one or both consider a first strike feasible, we may see nuclear brinkmanship (or worse) in which the United States—startled from sleep and suddenly disabused of the myth of sufficiency—might have to capitulate, allowing totalitarian dictatorships to dominate the world.

Current trajectories point in exactly this direction, but in regard to such things Donald Trump hasn’t the foggiest, and, frankly, Hillary Clinton, like the president, doesn’t give a damn.

The way to avoid such a tragedy is to bring China into a nuclear control regime or answer its refusal with our own proportional increases and modernization. And to make sure that both our nuclear and conventional forces are strong, up-to-date, and survivable enough to deter the militant ambitions of the two great powers rising with daring vengeance from what they regard as the shame of their oppression.

Mr. Helprin, a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute, is the author of “Winter’s Tale,” “A Soldier of the Great War” and the forthcoming novel “Paris in the Present Tense.”
196  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: Arming the Kurds on: September 24, 2016, 09:36:34 AM
Russian and Syrian regime forces renewed their offensive against the besieged city of Aleppo on Friday, killing 27 civilians in air and ground bombardments. But this time the Obama Administration isn’t taking the outrage lying down. Behold Ben Rhodes, warning the Kremlin that there are limits to the White House’s diplomatic patience after Russia flouted another cease-fire by bombing a humanitarian aid convoy.

“The question is whether or not we just walk away from the table completely at this point,” the deputy national security adviser said this week, “or whether or not we do some more diplomacy and consultation to determine whether or not there is some path forward.”

To whether or not—when it comes to the Administration’s Syria policy, that’s always been the question. President Obama dithered for months over whether to call on Bashar Assad to step aside, first deciding in favor of it only effectively to reverse himself last year. He struggled with the question of whether and to what extent to arm a credible opposition force, only to spend a half-billion dollars training a handful of fighters. He drew a red line against the use of chemical weapons, but whether to enforce it was another matter.

More recently, Mr. Obama has been of two minds over whether to oppose Moscow’s intervention in Syria, or join it in a mutual effort against Islamic State. He’s also unsure of whether to provide Syria’s Kurds—by far the most effective U.S. ally in the war—with the weapons they would need to evict ISIS from its Syrian capital in Raqqa. Whether it’s worth alienating Turkey by doing so is another White House puzzle.

All this is causing some presidential misgivings, not least because Mr. Obama knows he’ll be judged harshly for his Syrian abdication. In an interview for Vanity Fair, Mr. Obama told historian Doris Kearns Goodwin that Syria “haunts me constantly,” and that he asks himself what a Winston Churchill or Dwight Eisenhower might have done in his place. Yet he continues to insist that he got all the big calls right. Regrets, he’d have a few—if only he could think of what they might be.

If Mr. Obama is really looking for a Churchillian answer to Syria’s dilemmas, he could arm our Kurdish friends, destroy the Assad regime’s air force and its armor reserves, and redraw the map of Syria to take account of the new dividing lines of a broken country. Instead of dispatching John Kerry on more negotiating dead ends with Russia, he could also impose further economic costs on Moscow for its Mideast adventurism.

None of this would require deploying U.S. ground troops in large numbers to Syria. But it might warrant restoring Winston’s bust to the Oval Office where it belongs.
197  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: September 23, 2016, 10:11:44 PM
Those six reasons could make a good list of talking points for Trump in the debate.
198  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / PP: Fast tracking immigrants for votes; Texas drops from refugee program on: September 23, 2016, 10:07:45 PM
Fast-Tracking Immigrants for Votes

In light of the recent revelation that at least 858 individuals and maybe twice that many who had been slated for deportation were accidentally granted citizenship, one would expect that the Department of Homeland Security would be working overtime to shore up its vetting process and do its due diligence to reassure Americans that it will work carefully to prevent such a blunder from happening again. The DHS is indeed working overtime — not to get all its paper finger print records digitalized, but to processes as many immigrant citizenship applications as possible before the election.
An email from a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services field office chief stated, "The Field Office due to the election year needs to process as many of the N-400 cases as possible between now and FY 2016." The email continued by "encouraging" employees to take advantage of overtime opportunities in order to meet the processing goal. The level of disconnect is simply stunning. In a letter sent to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) stated, "Your department seems intent on approving as many naturalization cases as quickly as possible at a time when it should instead be putting on the brakes and reviewing past adjudications."
The real problem is a mindset. Last week, one of Hillary Clinton's campaign staffers sent around a tweet quoting Donald Trump: "No one has the right to immigrate to this country." The staffer responded by writing, "We disagree," and said that Trump would have kicked his family out for immigrating from Libya. Whether this ends up being Clinton's official policy is almost irrelevant. This staffer revealed an attitude espoused by many on the Left: The U.S. has no right to reject or limit people from immigrating to America, whereas immigrants have an unfettered right to come here. This globalist, open-borders mindset is the main reason it has been so difficult to get Democrats on board with stopping illegal immigration. This fact is made even more obvious by their refusal to refer to illegal immigrants as "illegal," preferring the moniker "undocumented" immigrant. The truth is, Trump is exactly right that any sovereign nation is obligated to its citizens to regulate immigration, whether this be through limits or prevention. No non-citizen has the right to demand the privilege of citizenship, and to claim that such rights exist is to do violence to the rights of actual citizens.
Comment | Share
Texas Puts Refugee Program on Notice

The Obama administration plans to resettle 110,000 refugees into the U.S. over the coming year, but Texas is having none of it. The Lone Star State, which saw an influx of some 7,000 refugees over the last 12 months, has announced plans to sever its participation in the Obama administration's refugee program.
The Washington Free Beacon explains that the reason has to do with a lack of safeguards: "Texas officials drafted a plan that would require federal national security officials to provide assurances that none of the individuals being resettled pose a terror threat. The administration has declined to approve this plan."
Gov. Greg Abbott says, "Despite multiple requests by the state of Texas, the federal government lacks the capability or the will to distinguish the dangerous from the harmless, and Texas will not be an accomplice to such dereliction of duty to the American people. Therefore, Texas will withdraw from the refugee resettlement program. I strongly urge the federal government to completely overhaul a broken and flawed refugee program that increasingly risks American lives."
Abbott is right to be concerned. Around 30,000 migrants from terror hot spots managed to infiltrate the southern border last year. Barack Obama can insist, as he did this week, that "refugees are subject to more vigorous screening than the average tourist." But why should we believe anything he says? Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton asserted, "I think we've done a really good job securing the border."
How good? Well, a newly uncovered DHS memo says, "Refugee fraud is easy to commit, yet not easy to investigate." In fact, "bad actors ... have exploited this program." You don't say. Remember that next time Democrats say we have nothing to worry about.
199  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama's fustercluck in Afpakia on: September 23, 2016, 10:01:14 PM
Foreign Policy is definitely a Democrat sympathizer, so , , ,
200  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary's strategy on: September 23, 2016, 09:53:08 PM
Interesting implications here on many levels:

I suspect she will be making a play on Monday night along this line-- to show Trump's ignorance, to continue to add to her "bromance" line of attack (with mention of his not meeting with President of Ukraine) to ask if he bombs the hell out of ISIS as promised, won't that help the Russian-Iranian axis, etc etc

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 758
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!