Isn’t this what you’ve been wondering? Why a server in Colorado? Who’s heard of this company? Didn’t they pick up a server in Jersey? What is she thinking?
Did the “wiper” of the server save a back up for posterity?
What about a server used by Huma? Or Bloomenthall?
And why the hell is none of this blowing back on Obama or Kerry?
Thank God some journalists still know how to research.
Thank you Daily Mail.
From Fred Bauer of the National Review, arguing my point! (though with eloquence and no spitting)
As they currently exist, guest-worker programs tend to be a species of crony capitalism in their creation of a caste of workers without full access to the free market. One of the defining features of a guest worker is that she cannot bargain for her labor with the same flexibility and freedom of a legal permanent resident or a U.S. citizen. This disadvantage distorts the free market and undermines the position of the average worker. Guest-worker programs allow the rich and connected to pit worker against worker in order to have an economic race to the bottom.
Read the whole thing
Buck Sexton of the National Review has figured out that the review of Hillary’s seized emails will go on past the 2016 election.
As with her husband’s transgressions during his time in office, Hillary’s obvious violations of the law will probably be wiped away and largely forgotten. She is too important to the apparatus of governing elites and to the Left. The seized e-mail server, thumb drive, and whatever else the investigation sweeps up will disappear into the flabby folds of bureaucracy at the DOJ. There it will linger under a perpetual “review” that will stretch well beyond the 2016 election.
Really? Are we in THAT nation now?
Somehow defunding Planned Parenthood is going to INCREASE the number of abortions because PP would have to spend more of their own money on abortion and less on birth control.
Per Dana Milbank [bold is mine]:
The federal funds Senate Republicans propose taking away from Planned Parenthood are used largely to provide women with birth control. And because there simply isn’t a network of health care providers capable of taking over this job if Planned Parenthood were denied funding, this would mean hundreds of thousands of women, if not millions, would over time lose access to birth control.
Take away women’s contraceptives, and a greater number of unintended pregnancies — and abortions — would inevitably result.
Um – doesn’t Obamacare cover contraceptives? [yes, yes it does] And aren’t we all required to carry such coverage? So doesn’t that mean there is no “Take away of women’s contraceptives”?
I am actually pro Gay Marriage. I am all for more commitment vs less. More steady relationships vs fewer. I am for easier rules for businesses to live with….(how come that same sex couple get to have health insurance, by my long term live in boyfriend/girlfriend does not?), etc, etc.
But it keeps coming back to the issue of redefining what marriage is. I’ve always thought it was a commitment between 2 people backed up by the government for the purposes of keeping it together and splitting it fairly if need be. All for the sake of the children.
So, once again, since old people can marry and gay people can have children, why structure it to a man and a woman?
CC Pecknold of the National Review argues against this redefinition and convinces me further that I’m right.
One crucial argument, however, has been curiously absent. It takes a step back from the question of sexuality and the right to certain benefits under law. One reason why marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution is that the Founders recognized that the institution of marriage was a common good of the society and prior to politics. Put differently: Constitutional silence on marriage indicates a commitment to limited government that has so far eluded our debates about marriage in this country.
Augustine was probably the first great theorist of “society” as something that is “pre-political” and that finds its most basic unit in the family. But as Thomas Aquinas notes, Aristotle also recognized this. The Philosopher says in the Nichomachean Ethics that man is more inclined to conjugal union than political union. Human beings are “social animals” before they are “political animals.” This provides the West with an anthropology for understanding that future citizens come into the world through the union of a man and a woman and that therefore the state has a stake in recognizing and protecting the institution of marriage. The family belongs to our social nature, and it is how a civil society continues to flourish and self-govern. The political union is subsequent to this prior reality. A properly ordered state will recognize and protect conjugal marriage precisely to the extent that it believes in pre-political limits to the exercise of its power.
Assuming all is true, then it’s also true for same sex couples. They too are before politics. They too are creating a family. They too have a stake in their family. They too are social animals. Sure people come into the world with sperm/egg but adoption is common as is surrogacy. The family is powerful and it deserves the protection of govt.
After more than three hours of testimony, the city council voted unanimously to pass a resolution giving the city’s urban renewal authority the power to use eminent domain at a 42-acre site slated for a $175 million dining and entertainment complex on the banks of Cherry Creek, but not before requiring the city to negotiate and engage in mediation with private property owners.
“Tea Party” is an overused term that is often claimed by those who have no freaking clue what it means.
Thanks Mike for being yet another abuser of that term and the term “conservative”.
Tanya Cohen must be one of those “jaywalkers” caught by Jay Leno because she’s an idiot.
For many decades, human rights groups around the world – from Amnesty International to Human Rights First to the United Nations Human Rights Council – have told the United States that it needs to pass and enforce strong legal protections against hate speech in accordance with its international human rights obligations. As of 2015, the US is the only country in the world where hate speech remains completely legal. This is, in fact, a flagrant violation of international human rights law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) both mandate that all countries outlaw hate speech, including “propaganda for war” and the dissemination of any “ideas based on racial superiority or hatred”. The ICCPR and ICERD are both legally-binding international human rights conventions, and all nations are required to uphold them in the fullest. By failing to prosecute hate speech, the US is explicitly and flippantly violating international human rights law. No other country would be allowed to get away with this, so why would the US? The United Nations has stated many times that international law has absolute authority. This is quite simply not optional. The US is required to outlaw hate speech. No other country would be able to get away with blatantly ignoring international human rights standards, so why should the US be able to? The US is every bit as required to follow international human rights law as the rest of the world is.
I have always been a major champion of the unalienable right to freedom of speech.