Slashdot Mirror

Yeah, that’s how you run a secretive conspiracy: on Twitter.

Oh, look: China Contributing $500 Million to Trump-Linked Project in Indonesia

The corruption is right out there in the open. That's how trump rolls. He actually likes to get caught just as long as quislings like you let him get away with it. That's how he proves to the world he's got the biggest dick - he can break the law and nobody will do shit about it.

And here's how china is bribing him: China Contributing $500 Million to Trump-Linked Project in Indonesia

Yep. Even the summary for this article is wrong. According to the Obama State Department, the agreement wasn't "a historic accord signed in 2015":

“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter. ...
The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran’s understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose — and ramp up — our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments,” Frifield wrote

As the letter makes clear, it was never binding on Iran, nor the U.S. The JCPOA was a "political agreement", based on the idea that if the President doesn't believe Iran has given up on nuclear weapons, he can re-apply sanctions at any time, which is what Trump just did. In that sense, Trump is just following the JCPOA. The law is that he either certifies Iran is meeting the conditions for lifting sanctions, or he doesn't. He didn't. There's nothing "broken" here.

For backing out of a "Treaty" that wasn't ratified by Congress, thus making it not a "Treaty". "I have a pen and a phone [and am too stupid to work with others]" Obama said.

Not to mention Iran didn't even sign it

So Trump pulled out of a "Treaty" that only Obama signed. And I bet you are so stupid this is news to you.

When it was actually investigated, it turned out the IRS was actually more lenient to tea party groups than left-wing groups....the left wing groups just didn't whine about it.

https://www.politico.com/story... [politico.com]
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1... [nytimes.com]

One major problem with your assertions is that neither of the links you posted to support it, actually support it. Neither says the IRS was more lenient to right than left, all they say is that the IRS also had some keywords they used which would show more left-wing groups.
The bias wasn't that they didn't look at left-wing groups, it was that a typical left-wing process might take a couple of months at worst while when looking at a tea party group, it would take years.
Here's a story from the NY Times (your source) about the legal settlements:

The settlements were the conclusion of two legal battles that have dogged the I.R.S. since the initial lawsuits were filed after a 2013 treasury inspector general’s audit that found groups with “Tea Party” or “Patriot” in their names received more scrutiny over their applications for tax-exempt status. The revelations plunged the I.R.S. into a firestorm that ultimately led to the ouster of its acting commissioner and prompted accusations that the agency was being used as a political weapon by the Obama administration.

and

the I.R.S. “expresses its sincere apology” for the “heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays” the groups experienced when filing tax forms from 2009 to 2012.

In the agreement, the I.R.S. also admits to being wrong in demanding unnecessary information from the plaintiffs and screening groups based on name or policy affiliation.

The problem wasn't that someone looked carefully at their applications (like they did for some of the left-wing groups), the problem was that they required additional approvals and deliberately delayed their applications in order to keep them from being effective and harassed them with multiple unwarranted information requests, for example, their group members, donations, literature, etc...

"Fake news" is a Fox News flag.
Funny thing: the term was coined to describe Trump and Fox News. They coopted it and turned it around.

Nah, "fake news" was created by CBS..

And lately with the help of such stalwarts like the New York Times actually publishing fake stories such as "Claims that the Palistinian government has paid terrorists $400 million is a right-wing conspiracy":

NYT Issues Correction after Labeling Palestinian Support for Terrorists Fake News

The New York Times issued a correction Tuesday to a report that cited Palestinian support for the families of terrorists as a prime example of the “far right conspiracy” theories that abound on Facebook, conceding that the Palestinian Authority has admitted to providing financial support to terrorists.

Ironically, the false reporting was included in a profile of Facebook’s media liaison, Campbell Brown, who has been tasked with combating fake news on the platform.

“Ms. Brown,” the piece originally read, “wants to use Facebook’s existing Watch product — a service introduced in 2017 as a premium product with more curation that has nonetheless been flooded with far-right conspiracy programming like ‘Palestinians Pay $400 million Pensions For Terrorist Families.’ — to be a breaking news destination.”

Note also how Facebook's "fake news police" fell for that very bit of NY Times-created fake news.

At least the NY Times' lawyers haven't claimed it's "fake but accruate". Yet.

http://fortune.com/2018/04/07/...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/t...

https://itep.org/is-the-trump-...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/vide...

https://www.nationalreview.com...

https://www.nasdaq.com/video/t...

There yah go. Because you're a fucking idiot doesn't mean reality gives a fuck about what you think, it just means you're a fucking idiot.

I'd like to see a citation for that

Geez, you're just incapable of using Google? Heck, even leftist rags are talking about it in the context of the US Census.

You also said that you do want your country to be a federation of sovereign parts, like Canada and somewhat like the European Union.

The EU is an authoritarian, illiberal, bureaucratic shithole; I know that because I emigrated from there. I'm afraid whatever problems the US faces, it will have to face alone; neither Canada nor the EU have anything meaningful to contribute, beyond serving as examples of what not to do.

That ship sailed in the 1860's.

Oh, these things can be reversed. In fact, I think the way forward for the world will be exactly that: to return to smaller, more local government, and resign big central national governments to the dustbin of history.

Actually, pretty sure it was improper because FB weren't paid enough for the data gathered. If they had been paid, it would have been ok.

The Obama campaign in 2012 didn't pay a cent to Facebook. Download their app and you got your friends information sucked into the DNC's database.. https://www.nationalreview.com...

How Slashdot and others keep referring to this as the "Cambridge Analytics scandal" as if Facebook's business model is only wrong when one side takes advantage of it.

You speak truth! https://www.nationalreview.com...

Yep, they celebrated this in 2012: https://www.nationalreview.com...

They still don't get it, they think: It's not that what they were doing was bad, it's that the evil 'Drumpf' people came in and 'used them' and their data for bad things.

Obama's campaign did this, with FB's blessing in 2012. https://www.nationalreview.com...

Who of these cared then? (Can we say nobody?)

https://www.nationalreview.com...

Sounds like a lot of Americans are taking steps to increase their security.

Go ahead, keep talking about banning guns. All that does is increase profits at Smith & Wesson.

Background checks are a rather poor indication of real gun sales because not every check means a gun sold (either because of a denial or police running a check before issuing a permit to purchase a firearm) and a single background check can be run for multiple guns sold (people with a permit to purchase could buy several guns with no additional check). With nearly 3 million background checks run that could mean something like 2 million or 4 million new guns being sold.

You think every gun sold should be registered so we can track gun sales better? Go ahead, propose that in your state or federally, that will just mean more people buy guns before the law goes into effect. You want people to register guns they already own? Well, that would violate ex post facto laws. Then there's another problem with that, the government can't force people to register guns they don't know about.

It's too late to do any kind of gun ban or registration now. Not only are people generally not pleased with government telling them they can't own guns but it's now possible to "print" a gun at home with a computer. Go look up "ghost gun". There cannot be any effective gun laws any more, technology made any kind of gun laws obsolete. I guess legislators will have to think of something else to scare people with. They can try to scare people with gun bans, and then people buy more CNC mills to make their own guns at home.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/l...

A 50-year-old gun law makes homemade guns legal to own, and the only way to regulate the firearms is for Congress to take legislative action.

Yeah, good luck with that. What kind of law would stop this? I mean you can ban the making of guns at home but there's no way to enforce it. The government can confiscate the ones they find but someone will just make another just like it.

You've left out some of the real charms of the current era.

Profs claim scientific objectivity reinforces 'whiteness'
Professor Claims Math, Algebra And Geometry Promote ‘White Privilege’
The Appalling Protests at Evergreen State College
All-women's college asks profs not to call students 'women'
Professor notes men are taller than women on average, SJWs storm out angrily
Americans who practice yoga 'contribute to white supremacy', claims Michigan State University professor
Conservatives, Libertarians Are ‘on the Autistic Spectrum,’ Says Duke Professor
Victimhood Culture Only Getting Worse, Professor Warns
Professor: Small Chairs in Preschools Are Sexist, ‘Problematic,’ and ‘Disempowering’
Prof creates checklist for detecting white supremacy

Believing in meritocracy, promoting a "collegial" environment, and even deciding “to stay out of all of this ‘identity politics’” are all forms of tacit white supremacy, she claims.

She Carried A Garrotte!

I blogged yesterday about a mob trying to shut down Jordan B. Peterson and others at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, and wondered aloud, “Where are there police?!” Well, turns out one of the SJWs was arrested after breaking the glass . .

Officials say officers searched her backpack and found a weapon — a metal wire with handles commonly known as a garrotte.”

I could go on, there are so many stones unturned.

I guess you've never heard of "civil asset forfeiture", which is quite popular with many law enforcement departments these days. If the police just "feel" that anything you have might somehow be related to drug money, they can (and often do) seize it. Then you have to take them to court and prove it's NOT, often spending more than what what seized. No proof, arrests, or real "due process" is needed from them to keep your stuff. Carrying cash to go buy something? You might be going to buy drugs (even though your record is completely clean and you've never been involved with anything like that before) and now your cash and car is theirs.

References: (this is just a few, there are hundreds if not thousands of these types of abuses every year now)...
nationalreview.com
forbes.com
forbes.com
metrotimes.com
newschannel5.com
onlineathens.com
vox.com
washingtonpost.com

Farenheit 451 didn't come from the right

I'm not sure what this statement means, but the man that wrote that book was conservative leaning Ray Bradbury.

https://www.nationalreview.com...

'Soylent' Dawkins? Atheist mulls 'taboo against cannibalism' ending as lab-grown meat improves

"What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism?"
- @RichardDawkins - 6:15 AM - 3 Mar 2018

https://twitter.com/RichardDaw...
https://archive.fo/kSmgi

"Lab-grown 'clean' meat could be on sale by end of 2018, says producer"
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

"'Soylent' Dawkins? Atheist mulls 'taboo against cannibalism' ending as lab-grown meat improves"
https://www.washingtontimes.co...

and:

https://www.nationalreview.com...

'Soylent' Dawkins? Atheist mulls 'taboo against cannibalism' ending as lab-grown meat improves

"What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism?"
- @RichardDawkins - 6:15 AM - 3 Mar 2018

https://twitter.com/RichardDaw...
https://archive.fo/kSmgi

"Lab-grown 'clean' meat could be on sale by end of 2018, says producer"
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

"'Soylent' Dawkins? Atheist mulls 'taboo against cannibalism' ending as lab-grown meat improves"
https://www.washingtontimes.co...

and:

https://www.nationalreview.com...

Religion should be classified as mental illness.

Intersectionality is the new religion

https://www.nationalreview.com...

Heck, he used his real name to threaten school shootings online, and one of his relatives called the FBI tip line in January.

There's an interesting suggestion to deal with cases like this

https://www.nationalreview.com...

What if, however, there was an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns? What if this process empowered family members and others close to a potential shooter, allowing them to "do something" after they "see something" and "say something"? I've written that the best line of defense against mass shootings is an empowered, vigilant citizenry. There is a method that has the potential to empower citizens even more, when it's carefully and properly implemented.

It's called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO.

While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual's guns right away. A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements ("petitioners" are those who seek the order, "the respondent" is its subject):

1. It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);

2. It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;

3. It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;

4. In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly - preferably within 72 hours; and

5. The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.

The concept of the GVRO is simple, not substantially different from the restraining orders that are common in family law, and far easier to explain to the public than our nation's mental-health adjudications. Moreover, the requirement that the order come from people close to the respondent and that they come forward with real evidence (e.g. sworn statements, screenshots of social-media posts, copies of journal entries) minimizes the chance of bad-faith claims.

The great benefit of the GVRO is that it provides citizens with options other than relying on, say, the FBI. As the bureau admitted today, it did not respond appropriately to a timely warning from a "person close to Nikolas Cruz." According the FBI, that person provided "information about Cruz's gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting."

In other words, it appears the FBI received exactly the kind of information that would justify granting a GVRO.

Even if you could repeal the 2nd Amendment what happens next?

1) You need to get gun control through both houses. Good luck with that, given that 15 Democrats voted against Obama's Federal Assault Weapons Ban

http://articles.latimes.com/20...

Feinstein won the backing of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had previously voted against renewing the ban. But 15 of her fellow Democrats, including a number from Western states, and one independent voted against the ban, as did all Republicans except Sen. Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois.

No problem you say, we'll fill CNN with crying children and bring on Jimmy Kimmel, also crying, to emotionally blackmail anyone who is going to vote against the bill so it passes. Well Republicans don't watch Jimmy Kimmel or CNN so you'll have to concentrate of the Democrats. You also need the bill to survive legal challenges, which it's fair to assume there will be a lot of.

However now your problems are only just beginning.

2) You need to confiscate all the now illegal guns. ATF and the FBI will need to go door to door. Most people are going to say "Oh yeah that AR-15? Lost it in a tragic boating accident?". In Australia only about one third of guns were collected

https://www.nationalreview.com...

Gun confiscation is not happening in the United States any time soon. But let's suppose it did. How would it work? Australia's program netted, at the low end, 650,000 guns, and at the high end, a million. That was approximately a fifth to a third of Australian firearms. There are about as many guns in America as there are people: 310 million of both in 2009. A fifth to a third would be between 60 and 105 million guns. To achieve in America what was done in Australia, in other words, the government would have to confiscate as many as 105 million firearms.

Some percentage of gun owners will decide that a government which confiscates guns is Literally Hitler and it is their patriotic duty to die fighting it. So you'll need the National Guard. Maybe the army too - though at that point you've admitted it's a civil war. Though it's fair to say that people who join the army and National Guard might sympathize rather more with the people who believe in the 2nd Amendment than the politicians telling them to confiscate guns. But hey, don't worry. The US's armed forces are pretty well indoctrinated into the importance of following orders from civilians, even if they disagree with them. There hasn't been a mutiny since troops in Vietnam fragged their superiors.

Still do you see gun deaths going up or down in this process? Do you see civil liberties being enhanced or radically curtailed as the government ends up fighting an insurgency on its own territory and supported at the very least by ex military types? If you're the delicate sort who cries when a few dozen people get killed in gun violence, be prepared to be crying all the time as the ATF and right wing militias duke it out and a few people in the armed forces announce they're going over to the rebel side.

American gun control would be like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube, i.e. a complete mess. On the other hand it's not like putting the toothpaste back in the tube causes a bloody civil war. So actually it's significantly worse than putting the toothpaste back in the tube.

Meanwhile the Russians and Chinese will be celebrating because the government of their only strategic competitor has just done something which makes overseas military action impossible. And they'll be sure to take advantage of that. If the US is having a civil war, what's top stop Russian sending troops into the Eastern members of NATO or China sending troops into Taiwan?

https://www.nationalreview.com...

North Carolina features one of the closest Senate races in the country this year, between Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan and Republican Thom Tillis. So what guerrilla filmmaker James O'Keefe, the man who has uncovered voter irregularities in states ranging from Colorado to New Hampshire, has learned in North Carolina is disturbing. This month, North Carolina officials found at least 145 illegal aliens, still in the country thanks to the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, registered to vote. Hundreds of other non-citizens may be on the rolls.

A voter-registration card is routinely issued without any identification check, and undocumented workers can use it for many purposes, including obtaining a driver's license and qualifying for a job. And if a non-citizen has a voter-registration card, there are plenty of campaign operatives who will encourage him or her to vote illegally.

O'Keefe had a Brazilian-born immigrant investigator pose as someone who wanted to vote but was not a citizen. Greg Amick, the campaign manager for the Democrat running for sheriff in Mecklenburg County (Charlotte), was only too happy to help.

Greg Amick: Here's a couple of things you can do. You do not have to have your driver's license, but do you have any sort of identification?
Project Veritas investigator: But I do have my driver's license.
Amick: Oh, you do. Show 'em that and you're good.
PV: But the only problem, you know, I don't want to vote if I'm not legal. I think that's going to be a problem. I'm not sure.
Amick: It won't be, it shouldn't be an issue at all.
PV: No?
Amick: As long as you are registered to vote, you'll be fine.

But North Carolina officials shouldn't be "fine" with Amick, who appears to be afoul of a state law making it a felony "for any person, knowing that a person is not a citizen of the United States, to instruct or coerce that person to register to vote or to vote."

Amick stepped down

http://www.charlotteobserver.c...

Tillis won by 45608 votes or 1.5% of the total.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I.e. it was a classic case of an election the Democrats could have won by getting non citizens to vote. North Carolina has about 527,000 non citizens, so about 17K voters assuming 3.3%

https://www.kff.org/other/stat...

In a close race, they could swing it. Amick doesn't seem to have been prosecuted.

Instead of trying to uncover government abuses of power, now that the abusers are "progressives", we now have a press that's mostly trying to defend and cover up the use of the entire US intelligence-gathering capability to spy on a rival political campaign.

And Google is doing all it can to promote this "progressive" campaign to misinform and hide information.

FISA-gate Is Scarier than Watergate

How does FISA-gate compare to Watergate and Iran-Contra?

Once again, an administration is being accused of politicizing government agencies to further agendas, this time apparently to gain an advantage for Hillary Clinton in the run-up to an election.

There is also the same sort of government resistance to releasing documents under the pretext of “national security.”

There is a similar pattern of slandering congressional investigators and whistleblowers as disloyal and even treasonous.

There is the rationale that just as the Watergate break-in was a two-bit affair, Carter Page was a nobody.

But there is one huge (and ironic) difference. In the current FISA-gate scandal, most of the media and liberal civil libertarians are now opposing the disclosure of public documents. They are siding with those in the government who disingenuously sought surveillance to facilitate the efforts of a political campaign.

This time around, the press is not after a hated Nixon administration. Civil libertarians are not demanding accountability from a conservative Reagan team. Instead, the roles are reversed.

Barack Obama was a progressive constitutional lawyer who expressed distrust of the secretive “Deep State.” Yet his administration weaponized the IRS and surveilled Associated Press communications and a Fox News journalist for reporting unfavorable news based on supposed leaks.

Obama did not fit the past stereotypes of right-wing authoritarians subverting the Department of Justice and its agencies. Perhaps that is why there was little pushback against his administration’s efforts to assist the campaign of his likely replacement, fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Progressives are not supposed to destroy requested emails, “acid wash” hard drives, spread unverified and paid-for opposition research among government agencies, or use the DOJ and FBI to obtain warrants to snoop on the communications of American citizens.

FISA-gate may become a more worrisome scandal than either Watergate or Iran-Contra. Why? Because our defense against government wrongdoing — the press — is defending such actions, not uncovering them. Liberal and progressive voices are excusing, not airing, the excesses of the DOJ and FBI.

Apparently, weaponizing government agencies to stop a detested Donald Trump by any means necessary is not really considered a crime.

Jacobson's work has been thoroughly debunked. After failing to argue his position based on sound science, he sued the journal which published both his work and the extensively peer-reviewed response.

It is understandable that many people want to be believe, but the 100% renewable road-map is a dangerous myth.

The only entity in that branch with the authority to unilaterally declassify fresh classified info on a whim is the POTUS.

Andy McCarthy, former federal prosecutor who, among other things, led the trial against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, says otherwise:

In the column, I was addressing claims by committee Democrats, but these echo the complaint the FBI is making now. We pointed out that the simple way forward was for Democrats to propose the inclusion of any details necessary to correct any misimpressions, or to prepare their own memo that would reveal the hidden details and illustrate that Republicans were engaged in partisan spin. In fact, committee Democrats have prepared a memo, which is under review and should ultimately be released.

Obviously, the same option is available to the FBI. In fact, it is more available to the FBI: Unlike Congress, the bureau “owns” the classified information in the underlying documents . The Bureau is thus well positioned to publish a declassified summary that discloses any details it says Nunes has mendaciously hidden; or better yet, it could disclose the underlying documents (with any necessary redactions of classified information).

I think I'll rate his knowledge of the relevant law above that of some random internet jockey. If you have an authoritative source for your position, let's see it.

the Republican challenger will say that the baby killing Democrat who is beholden to Nancy Pelosi ...

I'll just leave this here: The House of Representatives has just voted to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, by a vote of 241-183. Every Republican representative voted in favor of the bill, and all Democrats voted against it, with just six exceptions.

1.4 trillion in 10 years doesn't seem like that much given that Obama added 4 trillion in only 8 years.

Apples and oranges ... $1.5 trillion is the *additional increase* in the debt over the next ten years. Deficits were already projected to grow by $10 trillion over the next decade, now the projection is $11.5 trillion.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

Care to provide an example of an edit in a Project Veritas video that wildly changed the context of the statement?

Dishonest from start to finish.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

https://www.snopes.com/2016/10...

Canada also only has about one million black people living there.
The US has about forty million black people.

Here's some links discussing the breakdown of violence by race:
blacks use guns for homicide far more often than whites
Even though black males are only about 6% of the population (black men and women total about 13%) they account for over half of the homicides

It's pretty obvious from these numbers that there's an extremely serious culture issue in a certain subset of the US population. Gee, I wonder who keeps making rap videos glorifying violence and other illicit activities... who could it be? Woa, I just had another thought (rare for me, I know): what if... what if there's some sort of connection between all this?

Judge James A. Wynn Jr. was nominated by Clinton and renominated by Obama. He has been the democrat's 4th Circuit court go-to for political activism since 2011 and he personally has been accused of playing politics in law since 2001.

Please take into consideration that I am a politically independent academic researcher. If anything I should be pro democrat, but critical thinking comes first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2...
http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne...
https://www.nccivitas.org/2016...
http://www.charlotteobserver.c...
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05...
http://womblencappellate.blogs...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/ju...

When the democratic party wants something political done by the judicial branch. His name and opinions come up. He puts aside the law in favor of party. Lawyers and jurisprudence experts have been talking about it for a long time. This is merely the most recent and high-profile. Either he feels emboldened to ignore his duty (Why did he not go after the equally Gerrymandered democratic states while citing the equal protections clause?) or feels that he is at risk of being replaced.

Well except they had a whole issue dedicated to Never Trump

http://uk.businessinsider.com/...

And if you listen to NR podcasts they still think he's a disaster and run articles by people like the egregious Glenn Beck denouncing him as a threat to conservatism

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

Also when Buckley was editor he famously used the NR to 'define the limits of conservatism', i.e. by expelling the Birchers, Wallace supporters, anti semites and white nationalists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Buckley and Meyer promoted the idea of enlarging the boundaries of conservatism through fusionism, whereby different schools of conservatives, including libertarians, would work together to combat what were seen as their common opponents.[3]

Buckley and his editors used his magazine to define the boundaries of conservatism-and to exclude people or ideas or groups they considered unworthy of the conservative title. Therefore, they attacked the John Birch Society, George Wallace, and anti-Semites.[3][18]

Buckley's goal was to increase the respectability of the conservative movement; as Rich Lowry noted: "Mr. Buckley's first great achievement was to purge the American right of its kooks. He marginalized the anti-Semites, the John Birchers, the nativists and their sort."[19]

In 1957, the National Review editorialized in favor of white leadership in the South, arguing that "the central question that emerges... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes - the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."[20][21] By the 1970s the National Review advocated colorblind policies and the end of affirmative action.[22]

In the late 1960s, the magazine denounced segregationist George Wallace, who ran in Democratic primaries in 1964 and 1972 and made an independent run for president in 1968. During the 1950s, Buckley had worked to remove anti-Semitism from the conservative movement and barred holders of those views from working for National Review.[23] In 1962 Buckley denounced Robert W. Welch, Jr. and the John Birch Society as "far removed from common sense" and urged the G.O.P. to purge itself of Welch's influence.[24]

So the National Review is essentially dedicated to keeping the far right out the GOP. Also populists like Trump and anyone not acceptable to elite New York opinion.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats' 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. They say things move slower in the South - but not that slow.

Republicans did begin to win some southern House seats, and in many cases segregationist Democrats were thrown out by southern voters in favor of civil-rights Republicans. One of the loudest Democratic segregationists in the House was Texas's John Dowdy, a bitter and buffoonish opponent of the 1964 reforms, which he declared "would set up a despot in the attorney general's office with a large corps of enforcers under him; and his will and his oppressive action would be brought to bear upon citizens, just as Hitler's minions coerced and subjugated the German people. I would say this - I believe this would be agreed to by most people: that, if we had a Hitler in the United States, the first thing he would want would be a bill of this nature." (Who says political rhetoric has been debased in the past 40 years?) Dowdy was thrown out in 1966 in favor of a Republican with a very respectable record on civil rights, a little-known figure by the name of George H. W. Bush.

It was in fact not until 1995 that Republicans represented a majority of the southern congressional delegation - and they had hardly spent the Reagan years campaigning on the resurrection of Jim Crow.

And that's from the National Review, a magazine which is keen - overly keen in my opinion - to denounce Trump as some sort of moral abomination.

To state that that black crime rates justify police violence against the black population requires acceptance of racial profiling. See this article from a conservative publication:

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

All the facts it uses are true, but it fails to confront its implicit acceptance of racial profiling. In the US, statistically a black person is 3 times more likely to commit a crime than a white person, and 3 times more likely to be a victim of (nonlethal) police violence. But violence is not being dealt only to criminals. If there were no racial profiling going on, you should expect similar rates of police violence against all races. Of course you only mentioned lethal violence, which is more specific than the topic at hand.

The crime rate in white parts of the US is about the same as the crime rate in Switzerland.

The "high" crime rate in the US is driven entirely by the stupendously high crime rate in small areas of the US - most of them black.

Care to address that?

Care to address the impact of "thug culture" and how the resulting "fuck the police" attitudes might correlate with claims of police violence? And how those attitudes and behaviors are correlated with race?

Care to address the race of the police that are accused of violence?

Or will you hand-wave those facts away in your quest for "social justice"?

To state that that black crime rates justify police violence against the black population requires acceptance of racial profiling. See this article from a conservative publication:

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

All the facts it uses are true, but it fails to confront its implicit acceptance of racial profiling. In the US, statistically a black person is 3 times more likely to commit a crime than a white person, and 3 times more likely to be a victim of (nonlethal) police violence. But violence is not being dealt only to criminals. If there were no racial profiling going on, you should expect similar rates of police violence against all races. Of course you only mentioned lethal violence, which is more specific than the topic at hand.

He was also a fan of hate speech. Had there been laws against it back then his rise to power and WW2 may have been curtailed.

The Weimar government was indeed worried about the nascent NSDAP. So worried that the army sent one of their intelligence-branch corporals to infiltrate it. And so he did. Too bad that corporal was Literally Hitler.

What about Trump's banning the use of certain terms such as 'diversity', 'vulnerable', and 'evidence-based'.

He didn't. "Ban" was part of style guide instituted by career bureaucrats, not Trump administration appointees.

Jacob Rees-Moggie plush toy cat. speaks truths * about the world to your children.

* Truths require a Wifi connection with access to moggie.reesmogg.com

Maybe both you two and the fine article are missing something.

Where’s the Wisdom?
Much talent, little wisdom

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

But everyone knows these progressives are completely, totally wrong. Conservatives aren’t destroying this nation. Progressives are.

This isn't about facts, this isn't about justifying shit, this isn't about beliefs in limited government run amok, it's not even primarily driven by bribery from comcast at this point. It's now about "THEY'RE THE BAD GUYS AND THEY LIKE THIS THING SO WE MUST BLOW IT UP TO SAVE AMERICA WHICH IS US."

Well to be honest, when the IT team that Debbie Wasserman Schultz put in place for the Democrats are a bunch of thieves and liars, perhaps an IT guy who misses a bit.ly link for a password change isn't so unbelievable!

For two : Courts making laws and forcing regulatory bodies to enforce them is a path you don't want to go down. If a sitting judge can just decide whatever he wants, and make up new law and regulations on the spot, then they effectively become Legislative, Executive and Judicial all in one

So much this.

It is probably one reason why Gorsuch was hated so much. http://www.nationalreview.com/...

He was talking about excluding non citizens from visiting the US. Non citizens have no right to enter the US, and the POTUS has a right to exclude them.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

[...]

The National Review is great at cheerleading Trump, but it is not a qualified or reliable source for legal questions.

He was talking about excluding non citizens from visiting the US. Non citizens have no right to enter the US, and the POTUS has a right to exclude them.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

First of all, it's important to underline that Congress can exclude or admit any foreigner it wants, for any reason or no reason. Non-Americans have no constitutional right to travel to the United States and no constitutional due-process rights to challenge exclusion; as the Supreme Court has written multiple times, "Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned." What's more, while the president doesn't have the authority that Obama has claimed, to let in anyone he wants for any reason (under the guise of "parole"), he does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out, for any reason he thinks best. From 8 USC section 1182:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate (emphasis added).

And Nazis is defined as "anyone who isn't an AntiFa" I presume. "Liberals get the bullet too", remember?

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

If it was disturbing after Charlottesville when the media came out in support of the masked mobs of black-bloc "anti-fascists" who "seek peace through violence" (CNN), it was downright Orwellian when that support faded after yet another episode in Berkeley, where Antifa attacked random passers-by with an advantage of sometimes ten-to-one. But the weirdest part is how the group has been condemned.

Vox is worried that "deploy[ing] violence . . . could seriously backfire"; The New Yorker is concerned Antifa is "helping Donald Trump"; and the Guardian thinks the group is "undermin[ing] the Trump resistance." A New Republic writer whose camera and phone were "jacked" "felt sorry" for his attackers, who had "real pain in [their] eyes" and seek "to stop [white supremacist] hate." All across the funny papers, the message is clear: If there is a Trumpist rally in your town and you see a group of people with bats just whaling on somebody, their hearts are probably in the right place - they just haven't thought hard enough about the "bad faith" right-wing arguments, based in "false equivalencies," that their actions will legitimate.

This line is almost as disrespectful to Antifa itself as it is to the everyday reader or viewer wondering what to make of an angry mob beating the tar out of someone. After all, the group has kept neither its tactics nor its values a secret. Its members did in Berkeley what they always do. Last winter, when they attacked a crowd outside a Milo Yiannopoulos event, they took sticks to people passed out on the ground and spray-painted "Liberals get the bullet too" around town. Liberal journalists, refusing to take them at their word, happily shared videos of Richard Spencer getting punched in the face. All that's changed is that Antifa's message is finally starting to sink in, and liberal journalists are figuring out that they're next.

LOL suddenly because it's "one of us" an accusation isn't enough? WTF? An accusation is all that's needed, otherwise you're victim-blaming. Have you been asleep for the last 30 years? Did you miss Rolling Stone's "A Rape on Campus" story? Or Mattress Girl's accusation that she was raped by German immigrant Jean-Paul Nungesser?

>"Hell, most US gun-owners haven't formed a militia or neighbourhood watch, which is what the second amendment really guarantees. "

Scholars, historians, legal experts, and the supreme court of the USA have, by majority, agreed that what you just said is wrong. The wording of the 2nd Amendment is odd, for sure, but it means an INDIVIDUAL'S right to [buy, make, keep, and carry] arms. That is what was said, that is what was meant. The "militia" part was an explanation of WHY not who.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/...

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

You give the electorate way too much credit. The situations are often nuanced and most won't investigate the nuances such that over-simplified sound-bites "work".

I agree that the current electorate is like this, by liberal progressive design. 150 years ago, people were focused like a laser on politics and far better informed and educated than today. As a result, today the idiots votes can be persuaded with enough air time, and that is the only way the liberal progressives who want to abridge half the bill of rights ever get elected. My point was, eliminate the state run public schools, teach students how to think, and they will no longer be easily manipulated by the media or political ads.

As far as CNN, you can start with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And this: http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/2...

Off the top of my head, CNN predicted that Comey would testify that he did not tell Trump he was in the clear regarding Russia, the next day Comey testified that he did in fact tell Trump that he was not under suspicion.

CNN has played this Trump Russia collusion thing non stop for 9 months, and it turns out the people getting indicted are Democrat operatives and they are being indicted for actions taken before joining the Trump campaign and in collusion with the Democrats... including Hillary Clinton.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...

Oh, and you probably haven't even heard about this if you watch CNN (Bill and Hillary's bribery scheme to sell and illegally export 20% of US Uranium reserves to Russia) where they made over $100M for their foundation, that pays for all their living expenses except their house and their meals... http://www.breitbart.com/radio...

Math isn't outdated. The calculator interface is outdated. You should just ask Siri what 1+2+3 equals.

You're right. It's not outdated, it's racist. Math is Racist

The FUDstream never ends with these guys, does it?

https://www.thenewamerican.com...

http://www.nationalreview.com/... ...has a great video link to a report from 2008 that predicted BY 2015 "Manhattan is disappearing under rising seas, milk is almost $13 per âoecarton,â and gas prices skyrocketed to more than $9 per gallon..."

Seriously, man: there are actual climate changes that we have to seriously cope with. That isn't being helped by alarmist bullshittery like this.

If attorney-general Jeff Sessions were going to bring charges against Hillary, if it was winnable, if it's even a good idea to go after your former opponent just after the election's over, he would have done so already.

It's beyond debate that Clinton committed a felony even under Comey's optimistic rendition of the facts. You and I would have been most cheerfully prosecuted -- and likely convicted -- under these same facts.

It's ironic that you're happy to acknowledge that the Trump administration's decision not to prosecute might be politically motivated -- you're simply proving my point about Obama's.