Reason Morning Links: Romney's "Secret" Strategy, Arpaio's Public Financial Problems, The EU's Xenophobia


The latest from "Calculate YOUR Share of Govt Spending on War, Entitlements, & More: Q&A with Emily Skarbek"

NEXT: Friday Funnies

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If Romney’s “secret strategy” is to call for the abolition of all government departments not mandated by a strict literal read of the Constitution I’ll reconsider my opposition to his candidacy.

    1. My guess: RomneyCare was just a crypto-Rothbardian move to bankrupt Massachusetts more quickly so that the system could be fixed sooner. (Seriously though, what “secret strategy” could he possibly have that wouldn’t just make him look even worse?)

    2. He’s got Top Men working on it. Top. Men.

    3. whoa SIV – do you not support states rights since the voters approved romneycare?

      1. We support the rights of states to do the right thing with the right people in charge. No state left behind our tidal wave of progressive conservatism.

        1. We support the right, of states to do the right thing with the right people in charge. No state left behind our tidal wave of progressive conservatism.

    4. His “Secret Strategy” is the same one that all pols use:


  2. Mitt Romney’s advisors tell Byron York that their man has a “secret strategy” to salvage his small-government bona fides.

    Finally, someone invents a mass mindwipe device that works.

    1. Let me be clear.

      I had a “secret strategy” first, and mine is better.

  3. Didn’t MNG make the same argument once?
    Sen. Rand Paul: Right To Health Care Is Like Believing In “Slavery”
    SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): “With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery.”

    Now available: The Barack Obama/Navy SEAL action figure

    1. More accurately, didn’t MNG once explicitly claim the right to enslave Rand Paul if his kid was sick?

    2. Minge actually went further than that. He believes the Commerce Clause gives the government the power to compel you to work at a given job for a certain level of pay because if you choose not to work, that affects interstate commerce. That is what he actually said in the comments a few days ago.

      1. And when we pointed out that this was either a dishonest or completely insane reading of the power to regulate commerce among the states, he accused us of being fundamentalist fanatics or something.

    3. Like I’ve been saying, arrest all doctors, convict them of crimes, then enslave them. That’s perfectly legal.

      1. They’ve been giving drugs to children.

      2. Pro,

        I see bad things happening for you when your plan to enslave doctors gets combined with a plan to increase the number of black doctors…

        1. Enslaving doctors has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the collective well being of our society.

          1. I wasn’t casting aspersions on your plan.

            I was just pointing out that I sure wouldn’t want to be your PR guy when your Director of Affirmative Action starts capturing/enslaving young black guys in order to meet quotas.

            1. Promoted properly, black doctors will sue because they don’t get enslaved quickly enough. It’s all about good PR.

    4. Yeah, Minge thinks it is allowed since the power to ‘make rules’ includes the power to mandate something, so it would include the power to mandate others to work.

      1. Well, he thinks its constitutional, but he’d be opposed to it.

    1. Uh no. The former “alarmist” scientist is saying that the global warming case is overstated, not that it is based in false science. He’s saying that the science only backs a third of the proposed warming.

      1. “The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s.”

        An hypothesis was disproved yet it is still used to advance the cause of AGW. So yeah, it’s based on false science.

        1. “Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.”

          He admits carbon dioxide causes global warming but disputes the amount. Later in the article he explains where he thinks the problem is:

          “Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up…During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot…This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.”

          Bit of an overstatement, don’t you think? They got one part of the model wrong, so the models are “fundamentally flawed”? That seems extreme.

          Of course, for a skeptic, he is unusually certain about the hot spot. However Evans doesn’t actually understand what the “hotspot” is or what the models actually predict, as noted here. Evans’s speech is debunked more thoroughly here.

          1. Warming in the 80s? No, the talk was the new ice age back then.

  4. Establishment Blues
    …Here in the early years of the twenty-first century, the American elite is a walking disaster and is in every way less capable than its predecessors. It is less in touch with American history and culture, less personally honest, less productive, less forward looking, less effective at and less committed to child rearing, less freedom loving, less sacrificially patriotic and less entrepreneurial than predecessor generations. Its sense of entitlement and snobbery is greater than at any time since the American Revolution; its addiction to privilege is greater than during the Gilded Age and its ability to raise its young to be productive and courageous leaders of society has largely collapsed. …

    …Some of the problem is intellectual. For almost a century now, American intellectual culture has been dominated by the values and legacy of the progressive movement. Science and technology would guide impartial experts and civil servants to create a better and better society. For most of the American elite today, progress means ‘progressive’; the way to make the world better is through more nanny state government programs administered by more, and more highly qualified, lifetime civil servants. Anybody who doubts this is a reactionary and an ignoramus. This isn’t just a rational conviction with much of our elite; it is a bone deep instinct. Unfortunately, the progressive tradition no longer has the answers we need, but our leadership class by and large cannot think in any other terms….

    …The increasingly meritocratic elite of today has no such qualms. The average Harvard Business School and Yale Law School graduate today feels that privilege has been earned. Didn’t he or she score higher on the LSATs than anyone else? Didn’t he or she previously pass the rigorous scrutiny of the undergraduate admissions process in a free and fair process to get into a top college? Haven’t they been certified as the best of the best by impartial experts?…

    1. Walter Russell Mead is hands down one of the best analysts in the business today.

      Like most academics he approaches things from a somewhat liberal point of view, but unlike most academics he is ruthlessly blunt, clear-headed, and honest. He simply tells it like it is.

      1. I agree. And that is a great piece of writing.

  5. Wire photographers admit President Obama’s OBL announcement photos were staged.

    The White House no doubt loves that this idiotic controversy is getting as big a piece of the conspiracy pie as it is.

    1. While his perpetual calm manner comes across as the attentive, retired ob-gyn that he is, Paul’s words and impossible policies reflect the powerful distaste for usual pols, their obsequious blather and the screw-you anger of a significant sector of motivated American voters.

      “The difficult we do immediately. The impossible takes a little longer.” ? Motto of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during World War II

      1. and the screw-you anger of a significant sector of motivated American voters

        He should pull his campaign theme song from Cee Lo’s works. Not the radio version.


    This was linked in Instapundit last night. It is a google books link for an old PJ O’Rourke piece about a cruise through the USSR put on by The Nation Magazine in 1982.

    It serves as a good reminder that

    1. Despite their efforts to rewrite history, Western Leftists were most firmly on the other side during the Cold War.

    2. Western leftists are not any most stupid today than they ever were. It is no wonder the Russian commies called them useful idiots.

    It is a great read.

    1. It is a great read.

      Better read than that format-busting link?

      1. The link works for me. I am using firefox.

        1. I am using IE, as God intended. I hate horizontal scroll bars, which is what IE is forcing on this page because your link extends rightward into the Forbidden Zone.

          1. It is called “ship of fools” and it is in google books. Just run a search. Or here is the link on instapundit.


            1. Or I could just go home and pull it off the shelf.

              Yeah, that was a pretty merciless assault on the lefty useful idiots.

  7. “There were probably about maybe four, five or six photos,” said Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md.

    Oh, come on, Dutch! You can be less exact than *that*!

    Seriously, the waffling about the raid and photos is, um, incredible. 8-(

  8. Loretta Barkell, who retired in March, said she repeatedly warned Arpaio and then-Chief Deputy David Hendershott that they could not use restricted jail funds to pay for other functions, such as patrol, human-smuggling enforcement and public-corruption investigations.

    Now THAT is funny.

    1. You know who else believed in science based governance?

  9. The Senate Ethics Committee’s report on John Ensign is juicier than a drugstore romance novel.

    Needs a picture of a shirtless Aaron Schock on the cover if they want to get the ladies to pick it up on the checkout line at the Walgreens.

    1. Turn the cover upside down, and his abs look like a cute little doll face!


    Ron Paul has ended his Presidential campaign before it started by saying he would not have whacked Bin Ladin.

    Forget it guys. This country is not going to elect a president who won’t kill its enemies. You can scream and whine about war and empire all you want. But that won’t change it. The country has had its fill of nation building. So, you can be isolationist and win. But you cannot be pacifist and win. Paul is done. That statement is going to ruin him.

    1. Maybe he means he just would have privatized the SEALs?

      1. Perhaps. But I doubt it. Talk about bad judgement. I am not even sure anyone was asking him about it. He could have just dodged the issue.

    2. Yes, but no one expects Ron Paul to become president. This doesn’t mean much.

      1. True. And the fact that he said it says that Ron Paul least of all thinks that.

      2. I have the utmost respect for Mr. Paul, but I do wonder why he’s bothering to run again when he knows he can’t possibly win a republican nomination making statements like this.

        He ought to be gracious and yield the floor to Gary Johnson and to his son, who are much younger and can get his viewpoints out just as effectively.

    3. I agree – sunk his own ship in a year when he could have gotten a nice chunk of the R pie.

    4. Refusing to order the killing of an unarmed man who poses no threat to the would-be capturers does not make one a pacifist.

    5. But yes, you are probably right that it ruins his chances for the GOP nom since most Republicans are bloodthirsty fucks. As are most Americans, given how the Executioner-In-Chief’s approval ratings shot up in the wake of OBL’s killing.

      It’s fucking sickening. That’s coming from someone who bleeds red white and blue, I’m no internationalist.

    1. Idealism meets reality and reality wins.

      1. Didn’t you read the title? This is about Europe’s xenophobia.

        1. Xenophobia is like an arachnophobia – a fear of nasty scuttling insects who inject venom into their victims before sucking them dry….

  11. The increasingly meritocratic elite of today

    Wait, what?

  12. Bin Ladin didn’t consider Biden worth shooting. He is not alone in that sentiment.


    1. Apparently Osama bin Laden realized the surest way to fuck America totally would be to leave Biden in charge.

    2. The only people who want to shoot Biden are his press handlers.

  13. Mitch Daniels will make a decision about making a decision very soon.

    The American voter demands a decisive leader who starts running two years before the election.

    1. Fuck him. What Romney is to healthcare, Daniels is to education. He is just another big government Republican.…..At-The-AEI

      1. Yep,
        The republican establishment doesn’t get it.

    1. Heard that piece. The FOP chief basically pleads that his boys are so incompetent/chicken that allowing the citizenry to film them will get people shot.

      1. I also heard it. Basically, he was saying that the possibility of being recorded might force them to do things differently. Have these people never heard of the $MAJOR_PAPER ethics test?

        1. It just amazes me what the FOP guy was saying (and apparently he thinks it is a reasonable argument that should convince people). Basically he seemed to be saying that cops can’t perform if there is any chance that they will be held accountable for their actions.

          1. Of course people will believe it.

            You hear teachers do the same whine about monitoring their performance and the public rallies to their defense. Because public service is private or something.

          2. How often do you hear cops saying, “if you have nothing to hide, then why won’t you let me look inside your car?” Same question to them – if you have nothing to hide and are not behaving improperly, then why do you care if I stand over here, out of your way, and videotape what’s going on?

            And I hope it does make them do things differently – i.e., make them actually comply with constitutional limitations on their imposition of authoritai.

  14. What’s the point of being President if you cannot send teams of assassins across the globe to rub out people you don’t like?

    You might as well join a convent.

    1. Yeah telling the country that you wouldn’t kill the man who murdered 3000 Americans is going to get you so far. Fortunately, the majority of the country still hates peaceniks.

      1. I wouldn’t send a team specifically to kill him; I’d want to capture and try him above all else. Does that make me an unelectable monster?

        1. Would you have had the army arrest and try Hitler? No, of course not. Same thing here: bin Laden declared war on the US, which means he wasn’t a criminal, he was a combatant. You can’t treat your enemies in war like criminals, because they just simply aren’t.

          1. He’s not a criminal in the common sense, but he’s pretty far from being Hitler too. I think capturing him would have been better. And I think that if it had been possible, capturing Hitler would have been better than just killing him (though that would be nearly as good). Aren’t you interested in what such people have to say for themselves?

            1. This is pretty much my take on it, although I think that invading a sovereign state is a problematic part of either capture or killing.

          2. We captured and tried everyone else in the government that we could. I believe some were even acquitted.

            1. The ACLU, alone, would have made a bin Laden trial the clusterfuck it would have been destined to become.

              1. Nobody said doing the right thing was easy. Let’s not blame the ACLU for insisting that a person’s trial is conducted properly.

                And I’m fine with the idea of grabbing him or killing him in a firefight. But if they had him subdued or in the act of surrendering and shot him anyway, that’s called murder. If the intent of the raid was to kill him no matter what, then the President ordered a murder. If the architects of the industrialized murder of millions (following the most devastating war in human history!) could be afforded fair trials, I don’t buy that some pissant murderer of thousands can’t be.

              2. So our commitment to the rule of law ends when the predicted results contradict our predetermined conclusions, or at least significantly complicate them?

              3. ACLU! Commies! Liberals! Kill! Kill! Kill!

          3. To be fair to Ron Paul, I didn’t read it as he wouldn’t have approved of killing Bin Laden, but he wouldn’t have approved sending operators into a country where we haven’t declared some sort of war-like action.

          4. WWII was a declared war and as Hitler was a head of state and military commander of their armed forces, he was to be treated in accordance with the treaties covering war crimes. Had Hitler come out of the bunker waving a white flag, he would have been taken alive, as would have any other German soldier attempting to surrender. If a soldier shot and killed that soldier who was surrendered, he would have been breaking the UCMJ, and would be subject to court martial for murder.

            Now, the AQ “war” is different, because it is an undeclared war with no formal enemy. Also, we entered a sovereign nation uninvited. If we went there to kill him and he tried to surrender, and we still killed him, every man in the chain of command who knew what was going down is complicit in the murder of another person that had not been given due process. (Not to mention that OBL was never charged with any crime involving 9/11.)

            Has our thirst for vengeance killed our respect for the law and due process?

            1. “Has our thirst for vengeance killed our respect for the law and due process?” Yes. 🙁

        2. Apparently this government of ours can’t even try Nidal Malik Hasan, even though it’s a drop dead slam dunk case and it’s been more than a year and half now since he gunned down those people at Fort Hood.

          So can you imagine how long a freaking Bin Laden trial would take? It would be an absolute nightmare.

          1. Agreed. Seriously, he shot 30+ people, killing over twenty of them, in front of a gazillion witnesses. What is taking so fucking long to declare, “Yep, he did it,” and executing him?

            Same thing with Loughner. Why do the Feds get first crack at him? Isn’t Arizona capable of trying a murderer?

      2. I don’t know, I think even some hardasses that wanted him captured, tried before a military tribunal, and executed would still be uncomfortable with capturing him alive and summarily executing him while he is in custody. Based on Inhofe’s and OBL’s daughter’s comments, there’s a good chance this is what happened.

        The constant equivocations and suppression of information makes it sounds like the administration has something to hide. It’s not just what you do, but how you go about it, that defines who you are. For example, the Constitution certainly allows the U.S. to go to war in Libya — but it doesn’t allow the president to unilaterally place us on a war footing with another nation.

        1. I think some people would have preferred him captured. But few would say they are sorry or wouldn’t have killed him if they had the chance. By saying that he wouldn’t have ordered that raid, Paul is writing himself out of the mainstream on these issues. No matter how right he may be about other things, that statement is going to ensure no one takes him seriously.

          1. “Paul is writing himself out of the mainstream…”
            Where the fuck you been, John?

            1. Right here. And the sorry facts of our current economic state put Paul more in the mainstream every day. Why blow it by commenting on something that is already done?

              1. You have a good point there, John. But a big part of Paul’s appeal to many people is that he just says what he means without mincing words and is fairly consistent in his beliefs.

              2. “Why blow it by commenting on something that is already done?”

                Exactly. You’re a professional politician for Chrissakes. Why are you going out of your way to make this statement? Like his son, and the whole CRA kerfluffle, just change the damn subject already. Even if he has a point, and I think he does, why bring this up?

                Then again, I thought Paul’s beef with the raid was that we were ostensibly invading Pakistani sovereign territory—as opposed to the uncertain status of the Tribal Areas—w/o their permission. This would be territory of a nuclear power, incidentally. Executing bin Laden out of hand, assuming he surrendered to the SEALs, is also technically a war crime, and I can see Paul, as the principled guy he is, not being happy about that. But why bring this up?

                (As I’ve already written, I think we actually had permission for the raid ahead of time, and so Paul’s point’s irrelevant.)

                1. I think he sees the campaign as more about spreading ideas than winning the nomination. It’s highly unlikely he would win the nomination even with the economic climate the way it is. His opponents always have his stance on the WoD to beat him up with if he actually appears to be winning at any point.

                  1. I see that point, Tulpa, but how does letting himself get sidetracked by this, help him communicate his ideas about the economy and spending?

                    Pick your friggin’ battles already, Dr. Paul. I’m not saying that after Obama’s announcement, he needed to call a celebratory press conference with the puppets from Team America and Toby Keith, but why does Paul continually let himself get sucked into sideshows like this?

            2. He sticks by his principles. And he doesn’t lie about it. Of course he is out of the mainstream.

              1. By saying that he wouldn’t have ordered that raid, Paul is writing himself out of the mainstream on these issues.

                You say that like it’s a bad thing, or as if so many of us in the libertarian camp care so deeply about being perceived as “mainstream”. The “mainstream” created all the problems we currently have; I’m fucking ecstatic that RP is out of the mainstream.

        2. t’s not just what you do, but how you go about it, that defines who you are.

          Wait, the ends don’t justify the means? WTF? You mean everybody’s been lying to me?

  15. arrest all doctors, convict them of crimes

    Piece of cake; the IRS is already on the case.

  16. the man who murdered 3000 Americans


    1. I know Brooks, he was only alleged to have done it. Perhaps Paul can name Chomsky as his running mate.

      1. How many people do you have to kill to be eligible for execution without trial?

        Oh, wait. I forgot who I’m talking to. Let me rephrase.

        How many Americans do you have to kill to be subject to execution without trial?

    2. Calm down, P! Listen to a little music.

  17. There’s a new bio pic movie of Romney coming out: “Blazing Straddles”.

    1. If my name were Tim, I would use “Some Call Me. . .Tim” as my cognomen here.

      1. I want to be called Loretta.

        1. Call me anything but late for dinner.

          1. Better?

        2. can I just call you hot lips?

  18. “Wire photographers admit President Obama’s OBL announcement photos were staged.”

    Like every other photo op in the history of the U.S. presidency. And, by the way, the link is to a piece by one (as in singular rather than plural) photographer, who describes his excitement about being a witness to a remarkable moment in history. It’s not an “admission.”

    1. Hmmmm. Guess I blew this one.…..54892.html

      “Never a horse that couldn’t be rode, never a man that couldn’t be throwed”–Marshall Dillon

    2. BUSH DID IT TOO!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!1!

  19. What is it with progressive parents who manipulate their children for politics?

    “Milo, with help from his mother, O’Dale Cress, launched the campaign and a website called It invites restaurants to accept a pledge to offer customers the option of whether they want a straw.”


    1. WTF? How hard is it to tell your waitress “No straw, please”?

    2. How about you go to restaurants that don’t hand out straws? Learn to drink from a glass like an adult instead of a 3 year old with a sippy cup.

      1. Next target:

        Keeping disposable contact lenses out of the landfills.

      2. You are my hero man. I’ve always had a wierd anti-straw thing.

      3. I work with epidemiologists. They tell me whenever we go for lunch and I eschew a straw that I am tripling my risk for foodborne illness. Granted its from a tiny number to 3x tiny number, but straws are sanitary, too.

  20. The latest from Nick explains to Emily that wearing that heavy leather jacket all day has made him too tired for sex, and she shouldn’t hold it against him, because usually he’s like an animal.

  21. I loves me some Ron Swanson. That is all.

    1. How Government Is Important

      It isn’t.

    2. Last night was an awesome Ron episode.

  22. When is Michelle Bachmann going to start her presidential campaign? I look forward to the opening day of RINO-hunting season.

    1. Forgive me because I don’t keep score at home, but I thought Bachmann is supposed to be a crazy right winger rather than a RINO.

      1. Is she doing the hunting?

        (Let it be known that I do not condone the gun culture phallocentric violent rhetoric, even as I use it.)

        1. I have never paid much attention to her. But I did see her stick to Chris Matthews on election night last year. “How is that thrill running down your leg Chris?” She actually said that or words to that effect. He totally lost it and started screaming about how that was not what he said and what an idiot she was. It was great.

          1. yep it was great when matthews cornered her on the birther nonsense

            1. MSNBC was the main media source that kept birtherism alive unilt Trump picked up the mantle. Just sayin.

          2. Ya it’s unfortunate but true: In a vaccum I really don’t like the two leading female Red Teamers all that much. But watching them piss of Blue Teamers makes like them a little bit, no matter what.

  23. Everybody knows by now that there’s a gazillion books on me either out or coming out in the near future. So I’m encouraging anybody who’s ever met me, heard me or even seen me, to get in on the action and scribble their own book. You never know, somebody might have a great book in them.

    Bob Dylan is really a funny guy.

  24. Try n ot to be such a fucking TEAMRED hack John.

    I know it’s hard for you.

    When the host pressed Paul on whether he would have ordered the kill had he been president, the congressman responded with “I don’t think it was necessary, no.”

    “It was absolutely not necessary and I think respect for the rule of law and world law, international law,” he continued. “What if he had been in a hotel in London? So would we have sent the helicopters into London? No, you don’t want to do that.”

    The host, sounding a little shocked, sought to clarify even more, “I think you’re being very clear?I definitely do not want to put words in your mouth, but you’re telling me a President Ron Paul would not have ordered the bin Laden kill to take place as it took place in Pakistan.”

    “Not the way it took place, no,” replied Paul.

    The last thing Team American Exceptionalism wants to see is a President who respects the sovereignty of foreign nations.

    1. I thought being a superpower means never having to be told “no”, no? If we can’t unitlaterally win-the-future then why bother trying?

    2. Shove it up your ass Brooks. If I were a team red hack I would be whining like Paul. Last I look a Democrat whacked Bin Ladin and is practically campaigning with the corpse. And I am willing to say bully for him. If I were a team red hack I would change my position.

      And sovereignty doesn’t give one country the right to shelter terrorists who are waging war on another country. Don’t tell me Pakistan didn’t know he was there. That is basic international law. The raid was perfectly legal.

      And since when does defending yourself make a country “exceptional”? What a load of horseshit. But it is self loathing losers like you that ensure libertarians get .05% of the vote every election. Thanks, I guess.

      1. campaigning with the corpse

        This has a good shot at being the next “death panel”.

        1. Bin Ladin’s corpse does commit few gaffes than Biden.

          1. Gaffes? Not Joey “the corpse” Biden, never!

        2. If he is campaigning with the corpse and is also taking a victory lap in a clown car, can we just say he is Campaigning with the Corpse in a Clown Car?

          1. Coitenly!

      2. Oh, be fair, John. Sometimes the LP gets 0.5% of the vote.

      3. Sorry, you’re not a Team Red hack, just a Team War hack.

    3. Preemptive action in (mostly) non-hostile states is a negative legacy of the Bush administration. It’s a bad precedent, and it makes it exceedingly hard for us to protest such actions when others follow our lead. Not that we invented the concept, but U.S. moral authority does carry some weight (meaning that if we do it, well, it must be okay for everyone else).

      That said, I’m not that upset about the shooting of bin Laden. I think we could have done it more in line with international law, but, even so, I think it would’ve been appropriate to be ready to do what we did if it looked like Pakistan wasn’t going to play ball. Which, frankly, I think would’ve been extraordinarily unlikely, as I doubt seriously that Pakistan would ignore the lessons learned from the former government of neighboring Afghanistan.

  25. lol, wow I never thoguht about it like that before. Makes sense dude.

  26. There is actually a pretty good case that a “shoot on sight” order for bin Laden was legal. If I have a chance later I’ll try to dig it up.

    Respect for sovereignty is just that: respect. Pakistan’s very well known record of support for terrorist organizations, and the fact that bin Laden lived there completely unmolested for years, is ample justification for unilateral action inside Pakistan.

    If we can blow up terrorists inside Pakistan without prior approval from Pakistan, we can shoot terrorists in the head inside Pakistan without Pakistani approval.

    Would we have sent choppers into London after him? Maybe if the Brits had a long, dense history of sheltering and supporting terrorists, and he had lived there for years, etc. I doubt we would have used choppers though. Unnecessary, and not the best way to take down a hotel.

    1. They released the Lockerbie bomber under false pretenses.

  27. I was away for training for a while. Did I miss MNG and John breaking up? Was it because John is now with P Brooks? Who is MNG with now? Epi?

    I’m so confused.

  28. John is now with P Brooks?

    Whoa, whoa, whoa. Get that bit out of your teeth, Silver.

    1. Shove it up your ass Brooks

  29. HB 1937 just passed the Texas House. It makes it a criminal offense for the TSA to conduct “enhanced pat-downs”.

    But hey, Matt Welch, I imagine you’ll just say people “don’t have to” travel. Asshole.

    1. I’m curious about this: does it simply make the patdown

      1. s themselves illegal? Is it worded to prevent the TSA from requiring a pornoscan in lieu of the patdown? Would the TSA simply respond by allowing no one to board flights leaving Texas? Require rescreening of all passengers originating in Texas upon stopping outside of texas?
        In any case it would be an interesting fight to watch.

        1. Yes, it makes the patdowns illegal. The companion bill, 1938, would have made the use of body scanners illegal, but was substituted in committee to require informed consent of anyone asked to use the body scanner. Informed consent is stipulated in the bill to mean a signature of the traveller at the time they are asked to do the search (no informed consent by way of small text on the back of your plane ticket).

          The TSA may respond by not allowing Texas to conduct air travel. The state of Texas is finally growing the balls to resist federal tyranny and enact nullification against unjust laws. I imagine the result will be brutal.

          1. I think the practical result will be TSA telling folks who get “selected” for scanning that they have one choice: get scanned or go back home. They might even try to fine the folks for not completing the screening process, like what happened to that guy a few months ago.


    five fingers outlet 2011,vibram five fingers,five finger,vibram fingers,vibram,5 fingers,vibram 5 fingers

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.