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".
Horrifying. This is the "diversity" the left wants to celebrate. I could care less about someone's skin color, but culture and assimilation matter. That includes those ethnic enclaves within the US that keep their members trapped in a cycle of poverty and violence.
I used to respect EPIC. The irony of a privacy group trying to use FOIA to extract individual income tax records from the IRS is just embarrassing. Presidents releasing their tax records has always been a voluntary thing driven by campaign pressure. Trump chose not to release his records and won anyway. End of story.
Note that after listening to the Trump campaign for roughly 2 years, no one has been charged with a crime. That makes the idea of a legitimate basis for the surveillance something to be viewed with skepticism. The timing is also suspicious, going all the way back to the beginning of the primaries. We don't know if this was initiated by GCHQ (British signals intelligence) or if Obama went to them to ask for it. But we can be pretty sure it was improper, since it continued for that long without charges, and since Susan Rice and GCHQ both flatly denied it before being exposed. Don't forget the head of GCHQ resigned shortly after Trump's election.
It appears that the Trump campaign was dealing with a full court press from the international Deep State trying to sink his candidacy from the very beginning.
Remember, if there was any real substance to any of this, we would have seen either charges or leaks. Instead, we've seen the FBI promising to pay for "50 shades of Trump" erotic fiction and complaints that his transition team talked to foreign ambassadors.
The public has a right to know what happened, whether and how these defendants abused their public office. If people do not like what they hear, well, death threats are obviously out of bounds but it's understandable that people would be angry. Lerner, Paz, and anyone else involved should have to face a public with full knowledge of what happened.
And by the way... if you were a defendant in a case like this, with extensive media attention, and you were concerned that the public would be angry with you even though you did nothing wrong, wouldn't you want them to get the whole story?
Lerner and her colleagues apparently feel that their own testimony would make the public angrier. Why is that?
First, some background. Years ago, a girl claimed she was gang-raped by a fraternity at UVA, blown off by the Dean of the school, and got an article published in Rolling Stone about it. Then the alleged rape was proven to have never occurred, and the evidence suggests the accuser made up the whole thing to make a guy jealous. The reporter who wrote the story, and her publisher, were sued for demation by the fraternity and the Dean. In a story about the publication settling with the Dean, the reporter is quoted as saying:
There's a lot wrong with this story, but the thing I want to comment on here is that the reporter thinks her job is not reporting accurately about true events but rather helping spur change on college campuses.
There's evidence that some of the people involved in the story had political connections and were planning to push legislation related to the story. And the reporter quoted above appears to have had issues with the truth in at least two other articles involving rape.
It appears that the reporter's job title should be propagandist instead. And that's the role that many in the media play, wittingly or unwittingly, due to their personal biases and their desire to "spur change" regardless of the truth.
Islamic society uses mosques to export terror the way that foreign nations use embassies to export their intelligence gathering operations. The traditions of Western civilization regarding religion -- freedom of, peaceful tolerance of -- do not apply to Islam in its violent form. The sooner we recognize that and respond to it, the better off we will be in the end.
The latter link is to Gateway Pundit and I haven't watched the video yet, so there may be some hyperbole involved. And I'm not sure the House CAN file charges for anything except contempt. But then, they did refer the contempt charges to DOJ and nothing was done, so they could well reopen that issue.
The headline was: "Senators question Trump admin's alleged attempt to unmask Twitter account". The content of the article described an attempt by the Trump administration, through the legal process, to obtain the identity of a Twitter user who was claiming to be part of an "alternative" government agency. In other words, this was a legal attempt to identify an individual violating conditions of his employment at a government agency by (among other things) participating in political activity related to his government position.
When attention (and a lawsuit from Twitter) were brought to the matter, the request was dropped. All things considered, this was probably the right call.
But it is a long way from using intelligence agencies to spy on political opponents, which is what the term "unmasking" used in the headline refers to. The use of that incorrect term creates a false equivalence between the Obama administration's political spying and one idiot at DHS who sent a subpoena to Twitter.
This lunatic seems to be planning to go out in a blaze of infamy. He allegedly sent a threatening note to Trump that also contained threats against churches and organized religion. Hopefully he will be caught before he can carry out whatever he's planning.