Democrats, who were crushed when former special counsel Robert Mueller’s sweeping witch hunt failed to destroy the political career of former President Donald J. Trump, now see Attorney General Merrick Garland as their new beacon of hope to exact the brutal vengeance for the 2016 election that they have thirsted for.
With the Jan. 6 committee show trial having paused for summer break after failing to make a compelling case against Trump, expectations have now shifted to Garland, the Biden appointee who could soon act in an unprecedented manner to bring charges against the top presidential candidate for the opposition party, should Trump run — a move that will validate the belief held by many that America has entered banana republic territory with two sets of rules, one for Democrats and one for their political foes.
“I think all eyes are on Garland in the same way as they were on Mueller, with the major difference, of course, that Mueller had no power to criminally prosecute,” author and Vanderbilt University political historian Eli Merritt is quoted in an article published by The Hill.
All the data show that across the board, regardless of race, the overwhelming majority of police and civilian interactions are fine; that minorities call on cops for help at a far higher rate than whites; and that the chance of an unarmed black man being killed by police is next to nonexistent (and when such an incident does occur, it’s because he was resisting arrest or attempting to flee in a life-threatening, high-speed chase).
But liberals refuse to leave it alone, instead writhing in pain as they try to find some existential problem with our law enforcement.
To wit, New York Times columnist-in-training Charles Blow wrote Wednesday that former president Trump and his voters aren’t genuine supporters of the police—okay, whatever you say. But Blow couldn’t make the point without first offering a winding, tedious lecture on the theory of policing.
“In a system of accountability and consequences, there must be first points of contact, people who are charged with preventing and stopping the rule breaking,” he prattled. “In our society, those people are police officers. Their role, in the abstract, is essential. However, the way that we have constructed it is problematic.”
Recall Missouri Democrat Rep. Cori Bush, a champion of zeroing out police budgets, last year attempting to explain why she spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on private, armed security. “I have private security because my body is worth being on this planet right now,” she said, somehow, without laughing. “I have private security because they, the white supremacist, racist narrative that they drive into this country— the fact that they don’t care that this black woman that has put her life on the line— they can’t match my energy, first of all. This black woman who puts her life on the line. They don’t care that I could be taken out of here. They actually are probably okay with that. But this is the thing, I won’t let them get that off. You can’t get that off.”
Nothing captures just how bizarre and unearthly Democrats have become than when they get to talking about police and law enforcement. (Their fixation with gender bending is a close second.) It would honestly do them a lot of good to just stop discussing the issue altogether. You can see it on...
Now, mass migration activists argue that Abbott’s order may not be legal.
“There are ongoing questions about what authority they have to bus people from one location to another,” Aaron Reichlin-Melnick with the American Immigration Council told the Texas Tribune. “Legally speaking, is that immigration enforcement? I still don’t know.”
The number of border crossers and illegal aliens arriving in D.C. and New York City pales in comparison to those arriving in America’s small border communities.
In Texas border towns, alone, nearly 130,000 border crossers and illegal aliens were caught crossing the border in June. Most recently, in the small town of Normandy, Texas — with a population of just 29 residents — about 400 border crossers and illegal aliens crossed into the area this month.
Believe it or not, the assumptions behind these CBO calculations actually make our fiscal situation look good compared to more realistic scenarios. Consider the following:
CBO assumed that discretionary spending—that’s the portion of the federal budget that includes defense, border security, transportation, K-12 education, and most government programs beyond Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—will decline as a percentage of GDP. However, this assumption would require a significant reduction in spending compared to the average over the past two decades. As one might expect, a budget that assumed discretionary spending would remain near historical averages would increase future deficits and debt.
CBO assumed that revenues would increase following the expiration of many provisions of the Trump tax bill in 2025, while adding that “this upward trend [in federal revenues] does not align with experience.” If instead revenue aligned with the historical average over the past 50 years, and discretionary spending aligned with historical practice, total federal debt in 2052 would total 262 percent of GDP, rather than “only” 185 percent in the scenario cited above.
Beginning with this year’s report, CBO used different methods for determining interest rates and the growth of health care costs in the years beyond the official 10-year budget window. Both of the new scorekeeping methods had the effect of lowering cumulative deficits in the “out years,” i.e., the second and third decade studied by CBO.
Even with a series of favorable and potentially unrealistic assumptions, the CBO report shows how debt and deficits will soon skyrocket to unsustainable levels.
"Since its founding in 1969, People's Park has been home to countless houseless individuals in Berkeley," wrote TheDaily Californianeditorial board on Thursday. "It has served as the prime location for political events, performances and recreation, among countless other affairs. From these, a community bloomed, and it has quickly become a cultural and historical landmark."
Ironically, this oft-criticized building project would create housing for homeless people, not destroy it. According to the A.P., during the duration of construction, the nearly 50 homeless people living in the park were offered shelter (which almost all of them accepted) at a motel paid for by UC. When the project is complete, it will include 125 apartments for homeless individuals.
Those that oppose the housing project voice a uniquely Californian kind of NIMBYism when discussing homelessness. Sure, the project would provide much-needed housing for the homeless, but it would also displace the small number of homeless people who like sleeping in an open-air tent encampment with no running water. Apparently, we should prize the interests of a few—in the case of People's Park, the two or three individuals who refused shelter out of nearly 50—over the surely plentiful number of homeless who desperately want shelter and privacy.
"I think that it's really unjust what the university is doing trying to build housing here but at the cost of moving out all of these residents," UC student Sarah Hager told local news station KTVU. "You're causing significant amounts of harm by moving residents who have lived here forever and are absolutely integrated into the community."
If construction on People's Park is permanently stopped, cash-strapped students and homeless people will be the ones to suffer. Stopping the construction of new housing in a city with one of the worst housing shortages in America—below-market-rate housing aimed at students and the homeless no less—seems deeply at odds with the claim that "housing is a human right."
Donald Trump's critics are demanding that people stop referring the the FBI's Monday search of his home in Mar-a-Lago as a "raid."
The FBI searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence Monday, and many in the media have speculated that the search was related to an FBI investigation of his possible mishandling of White House documents, some of which ended up in the Florida residence. Trump described the search as a raid in his Monday evening statement, but his critics are now insisting that the term shouldn’t be used since the federal agents entering his home had a warrant.
America woke up furious today. But Clinton saw an opportunity:
“Every ‘But her emails’ hat or shirt sold helps @onwardtogether [Hillary’s current slush fund for promoting hard-Left politics] partners defend democracy, build a progressive bench, and fight for our values. Just saying!” tweeted the failed presidential candidate, or the minions running her account: