It is heartening to see "The DonaldCombover" refusing to debate on Fox News, and more heartening yet to see that his primary opponents are mocking him for getting beat up, and handily, by a girl. Well done, Megyn Kelly, and may this be the comeuppance that this schoolyard bully needs--or, really, it's the silencing of the schoolyard bully that the nation desperately needs.
As Fox has noted, any President can count on being "treated unfairly" by people like Hafez Bashar Al-Assad, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Raul Castro, and our nation will be far better off if Trump takes his beating at the hands of Ms. Kelly, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz than at the hands of one of those dictators--or even at the hands of Hilliary Clinton.
Really, we've had a schoolyard bully in chief since 2009. Haven't we learned our lesson?
Apparently the group that did the excellent films of Planned Parenthood trying to sell fetal organs for a profit has been itself indicted for "tampering with government records" and "trying to purchase human organs." Now this is really interesting, because one would think that a private organization like the "Center for Medical Progress" would have no access to government records at all--government offices have, of course, locked doors and limited access precisely to avoid this sort of thing. Moreover, it is interesting as well that the would-be purchaser of human organs (that clearly did not want to purchase them in reality) is being prosecuted, but the would-be seller is not. It really brings the situation of John 8 to mind--where the adulteress was brought to justice, but her paramour was not. Jesus rightly rebuked the Pharisees in that case, to put it mildly.
So what's going on? I am suspecting that the prosecutor decided to pull a fast one, and that what's going on is that she is saying that since some of the videos were edited for brevity, that constitutes tampering with government records.
By the way, here's CMP's web page that clearly indicates that full footage is available. There was no editing that would have inhibited the government's investigation, and it should be noted that attorneys edit evidence every day for clarity and brevity--it is their opponent in court who points out they edited things. So if CMP belongs on trial, so does Devon Anderson and every other attorney who prosecutes, defends, or litigates.
So unless Anderson comes up with evidence of a Watergate style burglary, she's got a rather tough case to prove, and one where the obvious implications of the law she's trying to use are against her. Moreover, if she's twisted the law as much as it appears she has, she should be disbarred.
Update: first of all, it appears that Devon Anderson is a she, not a he. My mistake. Also, it appears that the tampering with government records is about fake California drivers' licenses. So apparently a Texas prosecutor is either trying to enforce California law, or the Texas law against tampering with government records does not actually have to do with, you know, tampering with Texas government records.
When it comes to trial, it would be entertaining to see the prosecutor's office's voluminous records of felony convictions for college students with fake IDs, investigative journalists, and of course Texas' large number of illegal immigrants. Don't look too long, however, since Houston is an unofficial sanctuary city.
Which is a long way of saying that this indictment is a classic example of very, very selective prosecution, combined with some very creative interpretations of the law. Which, again, ought to get some person, or people, disbarred.
My daughters got a kick out of this case, where a girls' basketball team has been kicked out of its league because the players were too good. They are of course already plotting to kick a wonderful young runner out of cross country and track....just kidding. It's too much fun to watch the particular young lady run.
It also strikes me that this obnoxious new rule by the city of Lowell, Massachusetts--requiring gun permit applicants to write an essay on why they need a weapon---is as much a teaching opportunity as it is obnoxious. Maybe after the thousandth time reading the 2nd Amendment and the Heller and McDonald decisions, and maybe after reading about how gun ownership by the law-abiding reduces crime, the chief of police and city council might figure something out.
One of the things I've noticed in the aftermath of the wonderful exposes of Planned Infanticide's atrocity in selling fetal body parts was that Planned Parenthood did their best to change the conversation to how many non-abortion related things they do. Now, as I've noted here, it really doesn't matter where the funds officially go because money is fungible. Theoretically, you could pay them for accounting or janitorial services or even electronics assembly, and the end result would still be that you're providing the funds abortionists need to work for Planned Parenthood instead of finding respectable work in the non-abortion side of obstetrics and gynecology.
But that said, it strikes me that the contraceptive mandate is probably a huge subsidy for Planned Parenthood. Think about it a minute; the argument is, more or less, that there is a large pool out there of women whose boyfriends can't come up with $10/month to help them pay for their contraception. Going out on a limb here, my guess is that women who sleep with such losers men might be disproportionately likely to give out their affections rather cheaply, and might be pretty likely to be or become a Planned Parenthood customer.
One may quibble what portion of funds they'd get anyways through Medicaid and such, but overall, it seems that this is yet another multi-million dollar subsidy for them. It's yet another reason to revoke Obama's un-Constitutional executive order and stop suing nuns to force them to buy contraception for promiscuous women.
Check out this story about a young lady who, stricken with an asthma attack, was told to stay in class by her teacher, upon which a young male student disobeyed the teacher and took her to the nurse himself. First of all, well done, Mr. Ruelas! As someone who grew up with asthma myself, I know too well how scary it can be when your lungs get tight and you start wheezing. There are times when you ignore procedure and do what needs to be done, and shame on the teacher for refusing to get the girl to the nurse more quickly.
Scarier yet, in my opinion, is this quote from the teacher:
As I waited for a response from the nurse, the student fell out of her chair to the floor. Anthony proceeded to go over and pick her up, saying 'f-k that, we ain't got time to wait for no email from the nurse.' He walks out of class and carries the other student to the nurse.
Now let's parse that out a bit; I can excuse a 15 year old student for using poor grammar, but look at that sentence by the teacher. Apparently using the past tense in verbs is beyond her ability; there are bigger reasons than the asthma attack to suggest she might do well to find a different vocation.
Honestly, Williams is entitled to his bias as I am to mine, but there is this thing called "reality" that really ought to intrude once in a while. And if you don't admit the evidence, you're signing yourself up for the next demagogue to come along and make the situation even worse.
Powerline gives a good summary of the humiliation and apology administered at the hands of Iran for our sailors; really, if we had real leadership, we'd be pointing out the numerous violations of international law by the Iranians in this.
One thing that also strikes me is that a sailor--presumably taught by his drill instructors that the only information he owed his captors was name, rank, and serial number (and starting offensive line of the Green Bay Packers if under duress of course)--goes forward with this apology. Now this would imply that either he was NOT taught that he wasn't required to do this sort of thing, or he was "induced" to do so by how he, or another member of the squads, was treated.
Which is, of course, another war crime, as well as a very real question of how our soldiers and sailors are being trained today. Perhaps he did that because of how the sailor in the chador might be treated if he did not? Maybe we ought to consider this when determining who is eligible for deployment where combat might be involved.
I didn't agree on much with the late Senator Paul Wellstone (park the bus, it's long past time, folks), but one thing he noted shortly before he died was that corporations really don't pay taxes--they pass them on to that business' customers if at all possible. Well said.
Now let's extend that valid logic to the wealthy (either high income or high assets). They, too, get their resources largely from the companies they own and often run. So what happens when one taxes the rich heavily? Well, that gets priced into the business plan, doesn't it? And the end result is that the rich people don't suffer as much as the poor person who pays more for the products he needs, gets fewer job opportunities because the company owned or run by the wealthy person isn't hiring, and finally when he does get a decent job, his path to prosperity is hindered because his income, too, is taxed at the higher rate.
I'd dare suggest this is a big reason why class mobility was higher a century ago than it is now; the barriers to employment and accumulation of wealth were not there, and those who want to "soak the rich" need to consider who is most hurt; the poor, and they get hit at least three ways that I can figure.
Moreover, we need to consider the possibility that all workers in effect price in the cost of taxation into their wages. I do not, for example work for a specific price per year, but rather aim to achieve my financial and earthly goals--paying for a nice home, nice things for my wife and I, college educations for my children, and the like. Just ask any contract worker if they price taxes and benefits into their fees, for example.
So what we have here, really, is a simple equation; all taxes boil down to taxes on consumption, and the question is simply whether we implement our consumption tax efficiently and sanely, or whether we impose exorbitant costs by our means of taxation. Our current system, beyond enabling the IRS to go into all kinds of detail about our personal lives, is said to impose costs of hundreds of billions of dollars to our economy before the government gets one red cent in revenue.
Maybe it's time to go to consumption based taxes and abandon the experiment that started with the 16th Amendment. For the poor.
Among the calisthenics my daughters are doing for their cross country ski team is a yoga-like pose that looks a lot like "downward dog", but has one leg up. My sons and I were doing it last night, giving the only appropriate name possible, much to my daughters' disgust.
......is how prevalent we might expect issues with "refugees" from Syria to be. In Germany, it was found that thousands of these refugees appeared to be either drunk or stoned, and then proceeded to commit varying degrees of sexual assault on women who were celebrating New Year's.
This is about the same kind of thing that was alleged about many of the 9/11 attackers; that they spent the night before their entry into Hell at a strip club getting lap dances and drinking heavily. OK, so is this outlier behavior, or is there a theological explanation for why this might be acceptable in certain types of Islam? We might want to know the answer.
The President has made quite a bit of political hay out of the idea that 90% of people theoretically support universal background checks for firearm purchases. I am curious, however, what would happen if the question were posed another way:
"Knowing that criminals tend to steal their guns or buy them from people that don't care that felons are getting them, and that the government illegally retained Brady check data until a lawsuit forced them to (theoretically) destroy it in a timely manner, and that Chicago, New York City, and California have used gun registrations to confiscate firearms, do you favor a universal background check system that would do little to deter crime, but would enable government to create a firearm registry and confiscate firearms?"
I'm guessing the answer to that question would be a little bit less than 90% support, to put it mildly. While I'm glad that a paroled felon is not free to go into any gun shop in the country and suddenly become an armed, paroled felon, something needs to be done to prevent the Brady check from becoming a de facto registry that does not depend on the government obeying the law.
My proposal; allow employers, churches, schools and the like to screen their workers using the Brady system, totally disconnecting that system from clear indication of firearms ownership.
Another thought; it's very interesting that the President wants universal background checks for buying a gun, but he's working to limit the freedom employers have in screening prospective employees for a criminal record. It would seem that limiting freedom has a higher priority than safety in his mind.
It appears that retired judge Andrew Napolitano is convinced that President Obama's actions are blatant law-writing and hence unconstitutional, but let's take a look at the relevant law. Here it is. More or less, it says that someone must be in the business, which I interpret to mean "capable of earning a living from firearms." In other words, the subsequent statement that it does not apply to occasional sellers is redundant.
Now let's take a look at the executive order as implemented by the ATF. Note first of all that this guidance is specifically stated to have no regulatory effect, which is interesting coming from, ahem, a regulatory agency, to put it mildly. It's also of note that both the law and the non-regulation don't give thresholds for needing a license--it's imply whether one is conducting it as a business. So really the law and regulation are both a mess, politely speaking, in terms of having a law actually correlating with the risk of large number of firearms making their way into the hands of criminals.
That aside, it is my view that since the law specifically exempts several classes of sellers from the regulation, that expanding background checks to cover all sales online, at gun shows, and the like is a direct contradiction of the law, and hence Obama's action is (once again) un-Constitutional. This is especially the case since the guidelines were issued as such and not as regulations.
Also important is the fact that most criminals either get their guns legally with a background check involved, steal them, or buy them from sellers who simply don't care the weapon is going to a felon. So the end result of the new "guidelines" is less than bupkus--more or less, it simply ensures that the Obama policy of ignoring real gun crimes like the "Fast and Furious" scandal will continue, but otherwise law abiding people who desire to sell a few firearms will be harassed by the BATF.