Yeah, and the ongoing IRS corruption was/is just some 'rogue employees'

too.
The Department of Homeland Security told members of congress Friday that a rogue federal employee may have been responsible for a November hack-attack that targeted the Georgia secretary of state’s system, LifeZette has learned.
Yeah.  A rogue employee could have the DHS network to attack this network.  And DHS has no idea who or why.  Right.
With few concrete answers from DHS so far, the aide said there is a lot of skepticism about the department's innocence in the attempted breach. “There’s a lot of mistrust at the moment,” the source told LifeZette.
Considering the IRS, and the EffingBI, and DHS past actions, why would anyone trust them?


So, according to the hoplophobes and gun bigots, it's both "Only the police should have guns!" and "The police are racists who like to shoot black people!"

So, if the cops are all racist murderers, why would you want any of them to have guns, let alone be the only people with them?


Uncomfortable history for leftists:
Leonard also brings to light an embarrassing truth: In the early 20th century, the progressive definition of the common good was thoroughly infused with scientific racism. Harvard economist William Z. Ripley, for example, was a recognized expert on both railroad regulation and the classification of European races by coloring, stature and "cephalic index," or head shape. At the University of Wisconsin, the red-hot center of progressive thought, leading social scientists turned out economic-reform proposals along with works parsing the racial characteristics -- and supposed natural inferiority -- of blacks, Chinese, and non-Teutonic European immigrants. (Present-day progressives somehow didn’t highlight this heritage when they were defending “the Wisconsin Idea” against the depredations of Republican Governor Scott Walker.)
...
While some socialists and conservatives also embraced them, Leonard argues, eugenics and scientific racism fit particularly well with progressive thought: “Eugenics was anti-individualistic; it promised efficiency; it required expertise, and it was founded on the authority of science.” Equally important, “biological ideas,” Leonard writes, gave progressive reformers “a conceptual scheme capable of accommodating the great contradiction at the heart of Progressive Era reform -- its view of the poor as victims deserving state uplift and as threats requiring state restraint.” They could feel sorry for impoverished Americans while trying to restrict their influence and limit their numbers.

Take political participation. Nowadays, people argue about whether stricter voter identification laws are good-government protections against fraud or discriminatory attempts to deter minority and low-income voters. A century ago, leading progressives happily embraced both goals. “Fewer voters among the lower classes was not a cost, it was a benefit of reform,” Leonard writes. After progressive reforms, including Jim Crow restrictions sold in part as anti-corruption measures, voter participation plummeted. In New York State, turnout dropped from 88 percent in 1900 to 55 percent in 1920, while national turnout fell from 80 percent in 1896 to 50 percent in 1924.


Stolen from Larry Correia on Bookface when some idiot pushed that cleaning out/getting rid of the Dept. of Education would mean 'Nobody gets educated!':
So much stupid in so little time. Let's unpack it.

1. How many people who went to public school went on to do exceedingly well? Lots. You are on the page of a guy who went to one of the shittiest K-8s you could get in America at the time, half of us could speak English, and half of those could read. And now I'm a millionaire.

And utterly irrelevant. Because the public school still sucked and failed. It could have been far better, but it wasn't. And I did great, but it turned out plenty of miserable failures that it didn't have to. The system let kids down.

That's the point, you mope.

And we are talking about getting rid of FedEd, not public school, I know public school made you slow witted, but try to keep up.

2. I don't want to tear the system down to make myself feel better. I want to tear the FedEd down because it is a 77 billion dollar money suck, that accomplishes jack shit. I pay for that bullshit and I'm not seeing a decent ROI.

Fuckers like you can't even say what DepEd even does, but you will come on here and bitch about literacy.

3. Nobody gives a shit about the popular vote, you fucking whine baby. I didn't even vote for Trump, but your whining disgusts me. Grow a pair, you fucking idiots.

Those of us who learned more than the pathetic amount of busy work tossed our way in public school understand what the EC is for.

4. Those voters won't eventually have the last laugh because you lost. Get over it.

Or you can just keep on being sanctimonious douches to everyone who disagrees with you (even when they didn't vote for Trump) so that you can lose harder more.

Who is laughing now?


A little on Trump choosing those generals for some positions:
... Most writers/pundits/broadcasters I talk to think that our soldiers are marginal losers, who probably entered the military because they couldn’t find anything “better” to do.

They are also inclined to believe that military leaders are less educated than the intellectual elite.  Many don’t know that all our commissioned military officers have college degrees,  and most of them have done post-graduate study at top colleges and universities.  Trump’s three nominees are cultured, well read, and thoughtful.  They are certainly more deeply engaged, intellectually and emotionally, than most of the civilians headed for Cabinet slots.  They know all about political correctness, for example, in very concrete ways, because the armed forces are the laboratories in which the PC theories of gender equality are most intensively tested.  When Marine officers debate whether women should serve in infantry units, it’s not just academic; people will live or die based on the decision.
Group I used to spend some time with had a lot of liberal/leftist members(mostly leftist), and when I mentioned sending books to son in Iraq they were surprised: "Why did he want books?"

They were actually surprised at troops wanting stuff to read.  They seemed a bit shocked to hear that there was a line: he'd finish one and hand it on, they'd finish and hand it on, continuing until they fell apart.  An awful lot of leftists seem to think the troops are a bunch of helots not allowed to think for themselves and with no interest in anything but eating, sleeping, and killing.