GOP Foreign Policy Debate Shows the Party Has Learned Nothing Over the Last Decade

We may be in for another decade of promiscuous bomb-slinging and armed "community organizing."

Editor's Note: This column is reprinted with permission of the Washington Examiner. Click here to read it at that site.

Like scores of other think-tankers, I lined up outside DAR Constitution Hall last week for the GOP foreign-policy debate cosponsored by CNN, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation.

The hoops you had to jump through to get in were a perfect metaphor for 10 years of maddening security theatre. I went through three checkpoints before reaching an apparently non-operational metal detector. (A guard waved me through before I could take out my keys and cellphone. No alarm went off.)

The debate itself was just as frustrating—an exercise in competitive hysteria masquerading as steely resolve.

To listen to the candidates, you'd never know that the al Qaeda threat has receded dramatically in recent years: "A nuclear weapon that they are trying to bring into an American city," "take out entire cities"; "the survival of the United States"; "handed over our interrogation of terrorists to the ACLU"; "all of us will be in danger for the rest of our lives." Two hours of that sort of thing could make you want to stock up on canned food and duct tape yourself into a panic room.

The inexplicably resurgent Newt Gingrich fielded the first question, about extending the PATRIOT Act. Moderator Wolf Blitzer put it in the context of "an alleged terror plot uncovered in New York City," one Jose Pimentel, an unemployable pothead and Muslim convert arrested last week for trying to make pipe bombs.

The former speaker pirouetted deftly to the spectre of nuclear armageddon: "You start thinking about one nuclear weapon in one American city and the scale of loss of life and you ask yourself, what should the president be capable of doing to stop that?"

That's a terrific way to stack the deck in favor of unrestrained executive power; it's also utterly divorced from reality. The homegrown jihadi wannabees we've faced over the last few years aren't the supervillains of Gingrich's imagination.

They're people like Pimentel, who, lacking plutonium (and much in the way of brains), sought to fuel his bombs by scraping the heads off matches. The NYPD moved in before he could "test his abilities by detonating mailboxes."

On the very evening of the debate, the Washington Post quoted a senior U.S. counterterrorism official: "We have rendered the organization that brought us 9/11 operationally ineffective." There are only two high-level targets left in Pakistan, the Post reported.

Can we kill those two guys and call it a day? Not if Mitt Romney has anything to say about it: "We can't just write off a major part of the world"—we need to "draw them toward modernity." The most Romney would allow for was a "gradual transition" toward Afghan self-sufficiency.

"Gradual" indeed: 10 years in, we're "only 50 percent of the way" toward achieving our goals, according to General Stanley McChrystal, former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Operation Enduring Freedom endures indefinitely.

"Drawing them toward modernity," is a "gradual" process as well. The country is currently somewhere in the Bronze Age in terms of moral development. CNN recently reported that authorities in Kabul have jailed a rape victim for having sex out of wedlock. The good news is, she and her child can get out early if she marries her rapist.

If Tuesday's debate was any indication, we may be in for another decade of promiscuous bomb-slinging and armed "community organizing." Among the candidates, only Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman offered alternatives to the Bush-Obama policies of expansive nation-building and enhanced executive power.

The rest seemed to have learned little over the last 10 years.

Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and author of The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power (Cato 2008). He is a columnist at the Washington Examiner, where a version of this article originally appeared. Click here to read it at that site.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Gimlet||

    WHO WROTE THIS?

  • Gimlet||

    never mind

  • ||

    The rest seemed to have learned little over the last 10 years.

    Quite the opposite. They've learned that no amount of war-mongering can hurt you in republican polls and potrays you as strong and decisive apparently, a big plus. Oh, and Israel must be protected like the chosen one.

  • Gojira||

    Because they honestly believe it is the Chosen One.

  • ||

    i think most politicians are just cynical enough to realize its a dog whistle, but there are some *cough* Huckabee *cough* that probably do see it as a manifest destiny thing.

  • Gojira||

    I've often wondered what protestant, upper-class white folk (presumably the repubs chief demographic) sees in protecting Israel. I assume this shit has to be targeted at them, because team red sure as hell isn't pulling the Jewish vote.

  • ||

    The socons see Israel as a bible thing, the neocons as a strategic ally in our war against brown people.

    Only the libertarian wing things its all bullshit.

  • ||

    A couple folks might think that a group of people who have been kicked out of every country, or killed in them from time to time, and have a sliver of land as recompense, should be assisted in their survival. Maybe the right thing to do? Ron Paul says the US does not need to protect Israel. But, he also says, don't hold them back from doing what they believe is in their national interests. So, if that means dropping nukes on Iran, I guess that's their call. Who really believes that will not get the US involved at the end of the day?

    Don't feed me the plight of the Palestinian sob story until you start giving land back to the indians.

  • ||

    Don't feed me the plight of the Palestinian sob story until you start giving land back to the indians.

    *Blink* *Blink*

  • dennis||

    they didn't own the land, they just gamboled about.

  • Gojira||

    A couple folks might think that a group of people who have been kicked out of every country, or killed in them from time to time, and have a sliver of land as recompense, should be assisted in their survival.

    Then a couple of folks are more than welcome to donate their own money and time to that end. But leave me and the rest of the people who had nothing to do with the Holocaust and bear no moral responsibility for it the hell alone.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    ... protestant, upper-class white folk ...

    That's my parents to a tee. They are born-again Christians, too. They see Israel as some prophetic bullshit something or other. I've asked my mom about it and she starts blabbering about the Bible, God's chosen people, re-building the Temple, etc. I think they are expecting Armageddon, and Israel is the key to the whole operation. I think it sounds creepy, xenophobic, and fatalistic. But that shit does play well in the Midwest...

  • YHVH||

    Hey, I did choose them, you got a problem with that bub?

  • ||

    "The rest seemed to have learned little over the last 100 years."

    Fixed.

  • Kunty Kristen||

    Alt text WIN

    (you catchin' on, Ice Nine?)

  • Ice Nine||

    Affirmatoid. It's a hoot. Well, no surprise - everyone knows you geeky computer techie types are so much fun.

  • Tim||

    Just wondering if Iranians seizing the British Embassy in Tehran is an act of war against the United States.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Anything anyone does anywhere is an act of war against the United States, which is why the US responds with MAXIMUM FORCE.

  • ||

    If only we were that decisive people might fear us.

  • ||

    we;re only good at getting them to hate and despise us. fear is just too much to ask.

    Send in the wedding killing drones.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Word. I would take 'respect' over 'fear' any day. And I would trade 'like' for 'respect' in a second.

  • wareagle||

    you will never get 'like' from that corner of the world. Trying for like results in getting contempt, which is pretty much what teh ME has for Obama. Respect is a nice thing but fear trumps it, largely because those who fear you tend to leave you alone.

  • ||

    It is funny. We are brutally efficient and willing to kill people. Much more so than the Chinese or the Russians. The US would really be the last country anyone should ever want to fuck with. Yet, people fear the Russians and the Chinese more.

  • ||

    because when you become a threat to us, we fall back on realpolitik (North Korea, China, Russia, Iran). You only have to fear us if you're kinda-sorta annoying (*blank*istan, Iraq, Lybia), then we're all up in your country, nation building it and all while bombing your citizens.

  • Gojira||

    I don't think it's fear, so much as, "We can brutalize our people however much we want, and while the US wrings it's hands and places economic sanctions on us, these people don't cut commercial ties and stay the hell out of our business, and stick up for us in the UN."

  • wareagle||

    people fear the Russians and the Chinese more
    --------------------------
    in part because they have little idea of what those countries would do. They know our stock response is a strongly worded letter and some amorphous sanctions. Also, I think the Chinese and Russians are willing to sacrifice one or two of theirs in return for killing many more of your own, which becomes effective as a pre-emptive tool. The US always wants to negotiate.

  • ||

    They know our stock response is a strongly worded letter and some amorphous sanctions.

    Unless you have no way of retaliating against us. Then its "Bombs Away!!".

    Now, I don't want war with Iran or China or N. Korea, but our foreign policy does look alot like a world 'bully' rather than a world leader.

  • 1000s of dead Iraqis/afghanis||

    "They know our stock response is a strongly worded letter and some amorphous sanctions."

    Seriously?

  • ||

    Yeah seriously. But countries always misjudge the US going back to the two World Wars. For some reason they always buy the bullshit that the US are fat decadent and lazy rather than the merciless killers that we are. This country is largely influenced by the Scots Irish. The lowland Scots who went to Ireland and then to America are the most violent people on earth. Why anyone would under estimate the war like capability of a country with a significant lowland Scot population is beyond me.

  • affenkopf||

    This country is largely influenced by the Scots Irish. The lowland Scots who went to Ireland and then to America are the most violent people on earth.

    Yeah, that's why the world trembles before Northern Ireland.

  • affenkopf||

    Also:

    The lowland Scots who went to Ireland and then to America are the most violent people on earth.

    Citation needed. What's your proof? Murder rates?

  • ||

    Yeah, that's why the world trembles before Northern Ireland.

    That is why the English tremble before the Ulster radicals and have generally stuck it to the Catholics to avoid their wrath. The IRA are amateurs compared to the Orangeman.

  • affenkopf||

    That is why the English tremble before the Ulster radicals and have generally stuck it to the Catholics to avoid their wrath. The IRA are amateurs compared to the Orangeman.

    Traditionally the English have stuck it to the Catholics because the planters were fellow Prods. Nowadays I don't see any way in which the English tremble before the Ulster radicals (which Ulster radicals? UDA and co are glorified drug dealers who stage the occasional riot) or appease them by discriminating Catholics. Unionist parties have to share power with republicans and a former member of the Provo army council is Deputy first minister.

    Also by which metric are the IRA amateurs compared to the Loyalists? Not by death count during the troubles.

    I see nothing that makes the Ulster Scots (or Irish Scots if you prefer the older name) any more violent than dozens of other groups in the world.

  • wareagle||

    yes seriously. Did we go into Afghanistan totally unprovoked? You can make a case against Iraq and I would also question the point of that adventure. But 9/11 demanded something; since the Taliban was holed up in Afghanistan, that seemed the logical target.

    I'm not advocating war with anyone; in fact, I would settle for a candidate saying "as long as you leave us, our interests, and our allies alone, we have no quarrel with you; but, screw with any of the above and you cease being a viable entity within 24 hours."

    Of course, for that to work, potential antagonists have to believe you'll do it; many believe the Russians and Chinese would blow a place up and leave, while thinking we might eventually blow it up but we would also feel compelled to rebuild it.

  • Gojira||

    I don't know. People know the Russians and Chinese have virtually no force-projection capability outside their own immediate areas, and the Russians are subject to terrorist attacks all the goddamn time, even though they leveled half the Caucuses.

    I don't buy it that anybody is afraid of them because they're so tuff.

  • So...||

    "I'm not advocating war with anyone; in fact, I would settle for a candidate saying "as long as you leave us, our interests, and our allies alone, we have no quarrel with you; but, screw with any of the above and you cease being a viable entity within 24 hours.""

    ...you actually are advocating war, unless you're saying we should bluff. I'd also be curious as to how you would define 'screw'.

  • Shorter wareagle||

    Team America world police! Fuck yeah!

  • Not Mr FIFY||

    "as long as you leave us, our interests, and our allies alone, we have no quarrel with you; but, screw with any of the above and you cease being a viable entity within 24 hours 11 years."

  • Prussians||

    "The lowland Scots who went to Ireland and then to America are the most violent people on earth."

    We beg to differ.

  • ||

    It is an act of war against the UK. The UK can invoke the mutual defense provisions of the NATO treaty and ask for the US's assistance. They don't have to do that though. They didn't do it when Argentina invaded the Falklands.

  • Tim||

  • ||

    Some day the full story of all of this shit is going to be told. And it is going to be awesome. I have a feeling, the Germans, Israelis and the Americans are running some kind of joint operation. I include the Germans because they are the ones that made the equipment that stuxnet messed with so badly.

  • ||

    Maybe, or maybe religious fanatics make awful nuclear scientists.

  • ||

    Maybe but. It is not like the North Koreans or Pakistanis are real smart. And they managed to make nuclear weapons without blowing themselves up. And also, there isn't really any danger of blowing yourself up making a nuclear weapon. Uranium or plutonium isn't explosive until you have a critical mass of it. And even then, if you don't put it together and detonate it just right, you get a fizzle.

  • ||

    didn't have to be a nuclear explosion, but alot of other things can blow up at a nuclear plant. North Korea had chinas blueprints for the their nuke and Pakistan basically stole India's plans. I doubt Iran is getting the same help.

  • ||

    Not really. They are producing U235 and Plutonium. You produce U235 by spinning the U237 in a cyclotron over and over again causing the heavier U 237 atoms fly off making the ore a higher and higher percentage of U 235. Cyclotrons don't blow up. You make plutonium by irradiating U 238 in a reactor. They haven't had any meltdowns. It has all been huge conventional explosions. That smacks of sabotage.

  • ||

    John knows too much. Time for him to disappear...

  • Zeb||

    I think you mean "centrifuge", not "cyclotron".

  • ||

    Yes zeb, centrifuge/.

  • Lord Humungus||

    spinning the U237 in a cyclotron over and over again

    wheeee!

  • Realist||

    John's knowledge of things nuclear is minimal. His post is silly bullshit.

  • Tim||

    " We introduced the Plutonium to a chamber of evil spirits, who caused a catastrophic explosion"

  • Gray Ghost||

    You can enrich uranium in U-235 by multiple methods, including a centrifuge, a cyclotron-type means ("calutrons"), good old gaseous diffusion, and probably some classified means on top of that. Your process can utilize any or all of those methods. Typically, the uranium is in the form of a gaseous compound, UF6 IIRC, which is extremely corrosive. Since it's so corrosive, it's not unheard of for chemical explosions to occur in uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing; see, e.g., the Harold McCluskey accident or the Meigs accident during the Manhattan Project. Add the possibility of inadvertent criticality accidents and you can make a hell of a mess without any sabotage at all.

    But, like you all, I wouldn't be surprised if dirty tricks were involved in Iran's latest problems.

  • Metazoan||

    Don't forget about SILEX (separation of isotopes by laser excitation)

  • Colonel_Angus||

    How can you be so sure about who invaded the Falkland Islands?

  • Tim||

    Peter Falk invaded them on a two hour Columbo special in 1982.

  • Gojira||

    Peter Falk: Those are my islands, and I'm taking them back!

    English: Pfft, I don't see your name on it! Oh wait...

  • DJF||

    “”””The UK can invoke the mutual defense provisions of the NATO treaty and ask for the US's assistance. “”””

    No they can’t, the it only works if its an attack in Europe or North America. Go read the treaty, they put limits on where the attack can happen because when the treaty was written many of the European countries had colonies and the US was involved in various places around the world and neither the US or Europe wanted to get involved in those places

    That is why the British could not call on NATO when the Falklands was attacked because its out of the North Atlantic

  • ||

    Good point. I wasn't thinking. They could still ask for our help as allies. We just wouldn't be obligated to provide it.

  • Brett L||

    And yet we ran a NATO op in Libya...

  • Major Johnson||

    Last I looked the Afghanistan war was running under NATO. There are NATO defensive missile sites in Turkey. How do they qualify as North Atlantic?

  • ||

    Because Afghanistan goes back to 9-11 that was an attack on North America. 9-11 was the first time the NATO mutual defense provision was ever invoked.

  • DJF||

    “””And yet we ran a NATO op in Libya...”’

    They weren’t required to do it, there was no attack. However since the UN authorized “protecting civilians” the treaty allows military action that the UN authorizes.

    That is why is it doubtful that Syria will be a NATO operation since I don’t think Russia and China are going to do along with a UN authorization which then precludes NATO from doing it.

    But then again they are politicians and they will often find a reason even if its not legal

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tim,

    Just wondering if Iranians seizing the British Embassy in Tehran is an act of war against the United States.


    Don't worry: The neo-cons will find a way to say that in 3... 2... 1...

  • Tim||

    Yeah, I mean if the British won't stick up for themselves, I guess we have to.

  • Kunty Kristen||

    It's really messin with my head that Rick Perry bears a strong resemblance to my boss. My boss is NOT Rick Perry. As far as I know.

  • Tim||

    I hear Herman Cain's hiring.

  • wareagle||

    on the other hand, the presumably anti-war former junior Senator from IL:
    --has made targeting American citizens for death okay
    --heartily endorsed the deposing of two dictators for what will likely be sharia-based govts. Sounds like a net loss to the US.
    --is going to Capitol Hill with the idea of tossing Americans into Gitmo on the basis of some belief that such folks may be problematic.
    --not only embraced the Patriot Act but extended it
    --talked a good game about water-boarding being torture and rendition being bad, but in action......
    --not only continued the drone program, he expanded it.

    But the Repubs are the problem? In comparison to what? If the goal is to say we're looking at which is the least evil of two lessers, okay. But, if you're trying to draw quantitative differences, it is not working.

  • MWG||

    Given that list, you should be Obama's biggest fan.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Seems to me the point is that after 12 years of failed Bush Doctrine polices, it's a little odd that none of the frontrunners are able to consider alternatives.

  • ||

    Obama made them all bi-partisan. He is going to run on those things as a way of making national security an advantage during the election.

  • wareagle||

    you answered your own question - BOTH parties are invested in these policies. The only difference is in degrees. Both Bin Laden and al-Awliki were considered enemy combatants. The difference? For some, the latter's place of birth. Same thing with drones - Bush used them, Obama just escalated that. And anyone talking of scaling things back is painted as either weak or isolationist.

  • ||

    he never made claims to be anti-war so i don't know where you get your presumably.

    he said numerous times he would fight the war in afghanistan more aggressively (and smarter of course) than bushco did

    he was against the Iraq war, because he thought the causus belli was flawed.

    but he in no way ran, or represented himself as anti-war.

    some stupid progs might have seen what they wanted to see (much like many reasonoids but i digress), but there was no rational reason to presume obama was or is anti-war

  • ||

    I don't get why foreign policy is a major issue with this election. Or immigration or any other of this season's ghafla. We have an immediate need to reduce government spending and intervention in our economy, which, incidentally, is in significant trouble.

  • Tim||

    because nobody really plans on cutting spending. Right or Left.

  • ||

    ^^This^^

  • Tim||

    That?

  • wareagle||

    John's saying your comment is spot on.

  • Major Johnson||

    And I agree with him

  • cw||

    Probably because they want to turn attention away from all that government spending, considering they're not serious about it.

  • ||

    I don't doubt that you are correct. And we just foolishly follow along, arguing about issues that don't have one hundredth the impact that our weakening economy does.

  • Tim||

    Romney will probably keep Obamacare after announcing it was his idea in the first place.
    Gingrich would lift his leg on it, scent mark it and claim it for himself as well.

  • cw||

    While foreign policy and immigration are important topics, I believe it's clear that the unsustainable growth of government spending (and the symbiosis of big government and big business) is currently the most pressing issue.

    Unfortunately, while Americans seem to understand this as a general issue, when polled they don't want to cut any spending in anything specific. That's why the GOP contenders refrain from seriously addressing spending: their number-one goal is to WIN. F*** doing the right thing if it doesn't get you elected.

  • Metazoan||

    Because foreign policy (well military policy) is a huge drain on the budget?

    But I do think that gov't intervention in the economy is the #1 issue here.

  • cw||

    What do believe is?

  • k2000k||

    No doubt excessive military spending is a drain. I think it costs us 2 billion a day just to maintain all the bases we have around the world and our fleets. I get the argument for strong military defensive posturing, though I think the neocons take it way too far, but I think we could easily cut our bases to a fraction of what they are now and still maintain the capability to control the sea lanes and project power if the situation ever arose. My biggest fear is entitlements though. We have shown in the past that our country can cut military spending, however rare that may be, but we have never ever cut any amount of entitlement spending, ever.

  • ||

    2 billion a day just to maintain all the bases we have around the world and our fleets.

    That would equal a total of 730 billion dollars a year. The entire defense budget isn't that large. That figure can't be accurate.

  • ||

    what is more important to pay for though. A base in Germany or armor for soldiers in Afghanistan?

    Are military is just a bureaucratic nightmare that spends money wherever it wants and cries wolf every time any dime is pulled from it.

  • wareagle||

    EVERY bureaucracy cries at the threat of losing a dime. It's why Paul Ryan was pilloried for even daring to say that Medicare is unsustainable. Your initial question, meanwhile, presumes that either of those options is viable. What if the answer is neither - let Germany and the rest of Europe fund their own defense, and call it a day in Afghanistan?

  • ||

    wareagle,

    If Paul were elected, the answer could be both, but the electorate is more interested in trade-offs and letting Europe fund its own defense is more palatable than risking (however slight) a resurgant taliban/al qaeda.

  • ||

    I am not sure Paul knows enough about the military to effectively cut it. The waste isn't really bases. Those are cheap. The waste is the massive over inflation of rank and the prevalence of contractors ripping off the government.

  • ||

    The waste is the massive over inflation of rank and the prevalence of contractors ripping off the government.

    and pretty much giving the pentagon full control of its budget results in this. They threaten to cut essential parts of the military while they continue to lock themselves into these defense contracts. Time to start auditing the spending and smacking a few contractors around and gutting alot of the civilian armchair warriors in the pentagon.

  • ||

    Yes it is LIT. I would cut 1/4 of colonels, and at least 2/3rds of the generals to start.

  • Gojira||

    The electorate only cares about appearing strong. Repubs get the nod automatically (unless you're Paul - I had to defend him from my father over Thanksgiving, who accused him of being isolationist and wanting to make us appear the worst thing possible...weak.) They don't care about being solvent, if that means not being strong. Being strong is more important than have your fiscal house in order. If we must take on debt forever to be strong, then debt it is.

    Dems are even worse, because they assume they have to appear to be a tuff gai so as not to give that away to the repubs, and it leads them to go overboard. It's like a female cop or drill sergeant; they act like even bigger assholes than their male counterparts, because they constantly feel like they have a chip on their shoulder and "something to prove".

  • ||

    Protect da joooooooooos

  • Hugh Akston||

    Nobody wants to get too close to the inconvenient truth that there's not a shit of a lot the President can do about the economy.

  • ||

    He can stop actively trying to destroy it. There is that.

  • Gojira||

    He can stop actively trying to destroy it.

    In Obama's defense, no...he really can't stop.

  • BigT||

    Veni, vidi, veto!

  • ||

    Not much, but a little. The pipeline would have spurred some activity, as would opening up full bore land and sea oil development.

  • ||

    Good for investments, not so good on actual production.

  • Raston Bot||

    He can veto everything from Congress. He can submit appointments that would rather sit on their hands than regulate. The president can very generally get the federal govt out of the way.

  • Major Johnson||

    I wish his appointees would sit on their hands and get paid for nothing. Unfortunately they're very actively screwing things up.

    But then, that pretty much describes our entire congress.

  • ||

    well that's what happens when they don't get a "harrumph" out of "that" guy.

  • Old Mexican||

    Among the candidates, only Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman offered alternatives to the Bush-Obama policies of expansive nation-building and enhanced executive power.


    "And don't ask me to dwell on that or elaborate because I write for the goddamned Washington Examiner for cryin' out loud! I already said too much! Geez Louise!"

  • cw||

    Maybe Mr. Healy thought just mentioning Paul's and Huntsman's foreign policy stances would pique the reader's interest.

    But, who knows? They tend to get the shaft as it is. Just keeping up with tradition!

  • sarcasmic||

    What's with Perry's smile?
    I can't tell if he's on the crack pipe or taking a monster shit.

  • ||

    Can't it be both? With a mini-stroke thrown in for good measure.

  • GOP audience||

    Who most expressed the idea that God has blessed the USA as the greatest country in the history of the world? I'm for whoever does the most chest thumps.

  • first||

    Dominika is what can only be described as a great girl - accomplished, sexy and with a stunning body. She is half Italian and speaks Italian perfectly.

    The mother of a 5 year old son, Dominika was on the national team for her country in swimming and gymnastic. Despite her tiny frame she has a strong and very flexible physique. She just oozes sensuality and also tells us that she loves to hang out on nude beaches!

    Dominika started modeling as little as 3 months ago as previously her ex-boyfriend stopped her from doing any kind of modeling.

    Small but perfectly formed, this newly born model is a natural in front of the camera!

  • Realist||

    The Republican party has an unhealthy dose of shit for brains warmongers.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement