Borders

Unchecked Checkpoints

A federal appeals court gives a pass to unconstitutional harassment by border cops.

|

There are two ways to view the video of Richard Rynearson's March 2010 encounter with U.S. Border Patrol agents at an immigration checkpoint in Uvalde County, Texas. Authoritarians will say Rynearson should have been more cooperative, while libertarians will say the agents should have been less vindictive.

Both perspectives were on display in a decision issued last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Unfortunately, the authoritarians won, passing up an opportunity to impose limits on an alarming exception to the Fourth Amendment.

One hallmark of a free society is that armed agents of the state are not allowed to detain and interrogate people without a good reason. Since 1976, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized catching illegal immigrants as a good reason to stop cars at random, not only at the border but at checkpoints that may be as far as 100 miles inside the country—a zone that includes two-thirds of the U.S. population.

Rynearson, a U.S. Air Force major who works at a military base in southwestern Texas, was tired of being hassled at a checkpoint on Highway 90, almost 70 miles from the Mexican border, so he equipped his car with cameras to record his interactions with Border Patrol agents. That's how we know what happened during the stop that led him to file a federal lawsuit.

The agent who questioned Rynearson—identified only by his last name, Lands, in the lawsuit—had no reason to suspect he was an illegal immigrant or was transporting illegal immigrants. According to the Supreme Court, "all that is required" of a motorist in this situation is "a response to a brief question or two and possibly the production of a document evidencing a right to be in the United States."

Two minutes into the stop, Rynearson presented his military ID and his driver's license, placing them against the window on the driver's side door. That should have been the end of the stop, but it continued for a total of 34 minutes.

When Lands told Rynearson the forms of ID he had presented—including the only kind drivers are required to carry—were not good enough, Rynearson offered his U.S. passport. It was still another 23 minutes before he was allowed to go.

Since there was never any serious question about Rynearson's citizenship, it seems clear that Lands and his supervisor, Raul Perez, prolonged the encounter because they did not like his attitude. Rynearson declined to roll down his window all the way, refused to get out of his car, and repeatedly asked if he was free to go and, if not, why he was being detained.

Responding to Rynearson's complaint that Lands and Perez violated his Fourth Amendment rights, 5th Circuit Judges Thomas Reavley and Leslie Southwick departed from the usual procedure in such cases by declining to determine whether that had happened. They said only that the law was not clear enough at the time of the stop for the agents to be held personally responsible.

In an emphatic dissent, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod disagreed, saying Supreme Court and 5th Circuit rulings prior to the stop made it clear that the agents' detention of Rynearson beyond the time reasonably necessary to ascertain his citizenship was unconstitutional. Elrod added that "one cannot escape the impression" that the drawn-out detention, which included gratuitous phone calls to Rynearson's military base, was "retribution against Rynearson for asserting his rights."

Elrod also took issue with her colleagues' description of Rynearson's behavior as "unorthodox" and "unusually uncooperative," saying "firm assertions of one's rights are far from 'unorthodox' in a Republic that insists constitutional rights are worth insisting upon and that tasks the courts with protecting those rights." By refusing to do so, the 5th Circuit has left innocent Americans vulnerable to petty harassment by officious officials who demand blind obedience as the price for letting us go about our lives.

© Copyright 2015 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

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.

157 responses to “Unchecked Checkpoints

  1. “Since 1976, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized catching illegal immigrants as a good reason to stop cars at random”

    Why, O why, is no politician willing to reductio ad absurdum these insane interpretations? If I were a repub president I’d troll the citizens of the coastal blue states (and vice versa – not being partisan here) and have a task force that just pulled over as many people as possible, 24/365, in Miami, LA, SF, NYC, and for ultimate kicks, DC.

    And why isn’t this done in other sectors of the law? Eminent domain after Kelo? Declare Breyer’s house a “blight” and sieze it. Disparate impact? Sue the NBA, NHL, and nursing schools. This list could go on forever, especially if you liberally applied RICO.

    1. And sure enough, right after I posted I read this nutpunch:

      https://www.techdirt.com/
      (Wyoming civil forfeiture piece, Reason won’t allow a link that long)

      and thought the first thing I’d do if I were Pres is randomly sieze his house and car, and eventually return it to him two years and $100K in legal fees later.

      1. You don’t get it. We who work in government are NOT BOUND BY THE SAME LAWS that you people are obligated to follow. The differing laws are a REFLECTION OF PRE EXISTING MORALITY obligating the governed to subordinate themselves to the governed.

        http://youareproperty.blogspot…..ality.html

        It’s not wrong for us to take what you have when it really is ours in the first place – ownership is defined as control, and our laws control your property, and persons for that matter more so than you in many cases.

        1. “You don’t get it.”

          Svenge has been angry ever since the Norwegian moose bit his sister-in-law as she was carving her inititals on it with the interspace toothbrush he gave her as as gift.

        2. But wait…the guy in the story here also works in gov’t (USAF major, in fact). So it’s not even that they’re not bound by the same laws; they’re not bound by any laws except maybe gravity (& they’re working on that).

        1. Tinyurl is the devil. I hate uninspectable URLs.

          1. Goatsex and tubgirl were a long time ago. Even the Rickroll seems to be a thing of the past. Does any of that exist anymore? Or do we just get spam links?

            Which reminds me of one of the funniest signatures I’ve ever seen – from the late 90’s some dude had a link to his website in his .signature. He promoted it as being 98.4% goat sex free. Nerdy, but topical.

    2. RICO … SUAVE!

    3. How are comments getting time stamps 6 hrs. earlier than the post??!

  2. The claim is we can’t have welfare and open borders.
    OK, the result of that claim seems to be that the thugs with guns can harass anyone at any time.
    I’ll swap a bit of welfare, assuming it is a net cost, to avoid the thugs with guns.
    We can’t have closed borders with liberty.

    1. Thugs with guns can harass anyone at any time.

      On the one hand, you can have the government doing it like this, or for things like bunny inspectors, or for not having a car registered properly.

      OTOH, you have criminals, like the drug gangs in Mexico, who harass people and make them work on their drug farms or in one case, fight to the death in gladiator battles.

      The opens borders/welfare comment is economical. You can’t invite every person in the world here and give them free stuff. You can’t even invite someone in who will work for minimum wage, then go on government assistant for food stamps, health care, education, etc, especially if he brings his whole non-working family. Yes, rich women can hire cheap nannies that way, but does the rest of society benefit?

      1. I agree that government and armed gangs are equivalent.

      2. The natives are the ones who benefit the most from welfare by far, not the illegals. Guest workers get very little benefit, despite paying taxes. If you mean naturalized immigrants, then the question of open borders vs welfare becomes why choose welfare? The natives are never going to give it up on their own despite being unsustainable and incompatible with a free society. But you can quicken its demise.

      3. I watched a documentary that most gladiators had a 90 percent chance of surviving a match.

        1. Florida Man, do you like watching gladiator movies?

          1. I usually do. This one was about Verus. Kind of disappointing, but at least more historical. Can I sit on your lap now?

            1. Oh no.
              What’s with you two?

              It looks like I picked the wrong week to quit smoking.

    2. We can’t have closed borders with liberty.

      Why?

      It’s not possible to have a libertarian nation that keeps anti-libertarians out?

      1. Of course not. The whole point of libertarianism is to promote policies that make a libertarian society impossible. What, you think we should be wasting time worrying about the actual consequences of libertarian policies? Where are your principles, man?

        1. Yes. rounding up millions of people and putting them in camps for the crime of getting a job and being born in the wrong place is clearly the libertarian solution.

  3. How come the text size and whatever is out of whack? My computer or did they change the look?

    1. Someone at Reason’s been having fun editing the site CSS or something. Most of the changes look fine, but yeah the text-size for comments is way too big now?revert back to how it was plz.

      1. Yes, and it is wreaking havoc on my android phone…the page becomes unresponsive randomly and takes quite a long time to load now. Plus there’s some bullshit “trending topics” overlay slider that keeps obscuring and interfering. The.mobile version.still sucks. The desktop version got worse.

        1. Uhgg…guess I’ll stick to the laptop.
          Why can’t people leave well enough alone?

        2. At least it’s fucking over the phone users, too.

          Plus there’s some bullshit “trending topics” overlay slider

          Overlays are getting really irritating. I hate the way they’re used in photo albums. Most of the time, I want to right click and open in a background tab. The overlays generally screw that up but good.

      2. No paragraphs either. I think they let their pre-schoolers play in the CSS.

        1. play in the CSS

          That’s why I love this place, five minutes ago I had no idea what CSS was.

          I’ve probably done a thousand seemingly disparate google searches in the last 3 years.

          1. Reason still doesn’t know what CSS is. They know it exists apparently, but for them, it’s like some alien technology that they are poking at like monkeys with sticks.

        2. We rolled out changes to the mobile version of the site and
          a new digital edition of the magazine. It’s going to take a day or two to get these problems cleared up. You can also email trouble reports to
          webmaster@reason.com. (include device and browser if you can). Thanks for your help and patience.

          1. Piss off, Mike. If we want your help, we’ll DAMN WELL ask for it~!

            1. “Mike” indeed! We know it is a bunch of squirrelz in a human suit.

          2. Edit feature and allow full CSS and HTML formatting. Did I say EDIT FEATURE?

            Oh screw it, just fix this eye gouging font and the screwed up formatting. Especially on the preview, holy bejeebus this is bad

          3. IT’s gold standard- breaking what isn’t broken before.

            1. wasn’t

            2. I wouldn’t say it wasn’t broken before. There were a lot of memory handling problems, and adding a comment would reload the page to where the comment would be if all those “reply to this” links weren’t there. The page then loads those links, so you’d end up several screens above where you’d want to be. And the site constantly wants to push shit at me even after I’ve told it to stop loading.

              1. I’m not saying it wasn’t broken before, but it’s broken some more now.

                You have to load reasonable and ghostery on this site or the adds and other scripts running on the site will make it unbearably slow and there’s one script that will break the page loading every few minutes.

                Without reasonable and ghostery, for me the site is unbearable.

                Now I’m just going blind looking at it and making a paragraph is like running uphill in water.

                1. I use Stylish too – to get rid of all the cruft around the content. Amazingly whatever they did today didn’t break it.

                  But what I wonder is why they don’t just use something off-the-shelf. Nobody rolls their own shit anymore.

          4. Why no testing on a staging environment prior to release?

      3. Mines way too small and faint. I can barely read it. Change it back!

    2. Because Reason hates the H&R commenters and wants to drive us all away.

      1. Never retreat, never surrender.

      2. They’re just going to make us all go blind from looking at this hideous font so that we can’t comment any more.

        It’s also going to be damn hard to make a donation to Reason this year since we can no longer see the fund raising campaign.

        1. I’m going to go blind if I have to read this razor thin font for long.

      3. I thought that was just me.

  4. I almost wish they would do this to the wrong person who has nothing left to loose, except to defend himself against those agents who are enforcing these unjust laws. However that would just be and excuse to further strip away any self defenses we currently have; Although If we are scared to use the ones we have does that mean we are really defenseless, and it is already too late?

  5. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,
    http://www.work-mill.com

  6. And then there is a third viewpoint – that if we controlled the borders, then we wouldn’t have to worry about checkpoints.

    1. Controlling the border to that extent simply isn’t feasible.

    2. And if wishes were fishes …..

      Pray tell, buddy boy, how you would go about securing the borders.

      Go on, at least try. We need some amusement this morning.

    3. This is what controlling the borders requires. Even the “open borders” crowd claims they want background checks and tests for disease at the border (which kind of violates their supposed principles but that’s another thread).

      1. Straw much?

        1. Nope. This has been said by many open borders people on H+R.

          If there are open borders people who are cool with criminals and disease vectors waltzing across the border without even having to stop for a lookover, I’d love to discuss that with them.

          1. Short answer: Yup. I lumped everybody I don’t like together and made up some claim for which I have no proof except my own infallibility.

  7. In an emphatic dissent, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod disagreed
    .
    I like this lady.

    1. I want to bear all her children.

    2. The question is, will this go any further. Does a decision that intentionally ignores the facts in order to get the desired outcome make for a good appeal to the Supreme Court.

      They were clearly not trying to determine if he was a citizen. No honest decider of fact could claim that this is what was happening. This court has tried to be deferential to the executive, but what they have done is create a new standard for their district – authorities may detain you for indefinite periods for any reason at all – or no reason if they like.

      Although I’m not sure as to the effect of the “law was unclear at the time” part of the ruling. Maybe they thought that this was a magic “we are absolving you guys of your sins but it doesn’t count anywhere else” incantation that would prevent any further damage.

  8. How many immigrants are needed to break the welfare bank anyway?

    1. Zero, cuz it will break anyways?

      1. Well, then, how many will it take to hasten it’s demise?

        1. Between 1 and all Mexicans.

    2. Don’t worry, Susan, the natives are gonna break it all by themselves. The Mexicans are just to give the rednecks someone to blame it on, distract attention away from the bureaucrats who are loading up their luggage full of hundred dollar bills and getting on the next plane out of the USSA.

  9. Now for a couple articles on buttsex & weed, and the daily trifecta will be complete.

  10. This is just a test to see …

    This is just a test to see….

    1. Ok, well there you go. To get a paragaph…

      To get a paragraph, or I should say a link break….

      Put in an extra space….

      1. Ok, that didn’t work. How many spaces does it take to get to the center of…

        3 spaces?

        1. Nope, 3 is not it

          4 spaces?

          1. Well, so far putting in 4 spaces works, but then you get 2.

            You have to be really good at fucking up html formatting to fuck it up this bad.

      2. Let’s try the

        br tag.

    2. Throwing line breaks
      into the mix?
      The “br” tag seems to be working.
      .
      That is helpful.

      1. Let’s see

        one br….

        1. Ok, needs 2?

          that was 2

      2. this

        is a paragraph using the “p” tag

        does it do anything different?

        1. yes, “p” “/p” puts double line spacing after

          1. I’m a little teapot

            Short and Stout

            Here is my handle

            And here is my spout

            Every line is a paragraph using the paragraph tag

            1. This is a line in a paragraph tag

              This is a line preceded by a carriage return in a paragraph tag

              is a line preceded and followed by carriage returns

              this is a line preceded and followed by br tags inside a paragraph tag

          2. Yeah, p tag seems to work best, otherwise I get 2 spaces.

            1. What does a p tag look like for those of us who are Java challenged?

              1. lesser sign + p + greater sign opening, and for closing, the same except for a / before the p.

                What is this Java that you speak of?

                1. Thank you. Do you also put in your return or just the

                  sign?

              2. Less-than sign (the one above the comma on a standard QWERTY keyboard), p, greater than.

                To close it, put /p <blinkbetween</blink the less than and greater signs.

                1. At least the blink tag doesn’t work. 😉

      3. I get no space with one br tag, and two spaces with 2

  11. Authoritarians will say Rynearson should have been more cooperative, while libertarians will say the agents should have been less vindictive.

    Those are not contradictory viewpoints.

    As a matter of law, the BP is totally in the wrong here and the lawsuit should go forward.

    As a matter of practicality, don’t be an a-hole to the BP for no reason… his rights were in no danger of being violated until he refused to roll down his window and hand his ID to the officer rather than just putting it up against the window. I wouldn’t call that “asserting your rights” as much as trying to pick a fight.

    1. Pretty much this. The guy was a jerk and the CBP agents used that as an excuse to victimized him. His being a jerk, however, in no way justifies the CBP response.

    2. his rights were violated when he was detained to view his “papers” without suspicion of a crime.

      but anything shy of immediate and total subservience is “picking a fight”, so he deserves whatever he geta, right?

  12. HELLO

    HELLO AGAIN

    1. HELLO
      HELLO AGAIN

      HI

    2. Hotel, Yankee, Foxtrot.

  13. Fist sez he’s gonna boycott ’til the old site’s back! WHO’S WITH HIM?????

  14. This is really the Obama administration in a nutshell. Remember, Obama is granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. He has kneecapped border enforcement. Meanwhile, the Border Patrol is out harassing actual Americans like this. You would expect this kind of stuff to occur under some gung ho closed border administration. Instead, you get it under an administration that is ignoring the law and Congress to open the borders. This is because Obama views government as a way to punish his opponents and reward his supporters. Therefore, actual illegal aliens who are viewed as political allies are given a pass while Americans who live near the border, who are viewed as at best a nuisance and at worst outright enemies, are treated like this.

    1. Hey, John, what’s with that run on paragraph there?

      Don’t you know how to hit the enter key?

      1. This is really the Obama administration in a nutshell. Remember, Obama is granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. He has kneecapped border enforcement. Meanwhile, the Border Patrol is out harassing actual Americans like this. You would expect this kind of stuff to occur under some gung ho closed border administration. Instead, you get it under an administration that is ignoring the law and Congress to open the borders.

        This is because Obama views government as a way to punish his opponents and reward his supporters. Therefore, actual illegal aliens who are viewed as political allies are given a pass while Americans who live near the border, who are viewed as at best a nuisance and at worst outright enemies, are treated like this.

        That better for you?

      2. Holy shit. The reason squirrels have declared war on paragraphs. I thought you were being a smart ass and I had done that. So I properly broke the paragraphs up and posted it to be a smart ass back. And it didn’t work. I probably did have it in two paragraphs and just forgot after it combined them. No paragraphs? What about quotes? Testing one two three

        1. Paragraphs are an elitist patriarchical oppressive construct.

    2. I was watching the Nazi series last night that is on H2.

      When I was watching the first of the series, I found the similarities between then and the USA now, more than a little startling. It all started with a total surveillance state, and then they starting confiscating people’s property. They focused on the Jews for their asset forfeiture, but take that particular away and it gets a little closer to home. If a Jew wanted to leave, they took a 90% exit tax.

      Put that together with the fact that the progs are yearning for a strong charismatic leader to take the stage and lead us to Utopia and it’s even scarier how similar our situation is to that of 1930s Germany

      1. Could you imagine hitler with america’s firepower?

        1. If Hitler had not been quite so unhinged and would have had patience, he would have had eventually. He could have at the very least, controlled most of Europe

          But when he simultaneously attacked Russia and antagonized the USA and Britain, it became obvious that he had lost his mind completely and was now on a suicide mission

          1. See my giant run on paragraph below about why he was so impatient. He needed the money. And apparently “/p” is not the proper paragraph tag. What is?

          2. It was pretty amazing what German engineers were able to come up with. I really can’t imagine the mind of Hitler. Picking a fight with the whole world is crazy. Hell, even crazy people know when they are out gunned.

            1. The German engineers were almost too good. They spent so much time and effort on the V1, which was an amazing piece of technology for its time, when it was effectively useless in winning the war. All the V1 ever did was terrorize civilians. It had little military value. Even when they did build something that had real military value, the ME 262 Jet, Hitler tried to use it as a ground attack aircraft rather than the virtually unbeatable interceptor that it was.

              If you ever see a real German fighter from the war, notice how well made the seat is. The Germans are such good engineers and so detail oriented that they would not even skimp on the seat and make sure it was really well make. In contrast, a P51 has this crappy canvas seat. The Americans realized that there was no point in putting a nice seat in an aircraft that may not be flown more than once in combat before it gets shot down. In some ways the contrast is a microcosm of why America won the war. Germany was the master of the perfect and fantastic and America was and still really is the master of the good enough.

              1. I’m not an expert on the subject, but it seems like America found the sweet spot between Germany and Russia. Germany was putting out small volume works of art and Russia was churning out massive amounts of crap.

              2. I don’t know about great engineers when it comes to the big picture. The Bf109 had horrible cockpit ergonomics. The seating position was off center and it was so cramped pilots couldn’t bring enough force on the stick to exploit the airframe fully. The P51 on the other hand was laid out very intuitively and was far more spacious…

                Also, their pilot management, probably by necessity, had a major flaw: they kept pilots flying until they died. Americans would rotate their best pilots back to the states to teach. Our training ensured a large amount of good pilots, but no real super aces like the 200+ victory Germans.

              3. America was and still really is the master of the good enough.

                Rick Atkinson quoted an American General in An Army at Dawn who said it best: Americans don’t solve their problems, they overwhelm them.

            2. It worked for him…until it didn’t. He grabbed slices of Europe just by making threats and the Western powers backed down – his generals who warned him against this looked like a bunch of nervous nellies. Then he won a lot of early victories in WWII.

              To a mentality like his, he would think that this meant destiny was on his side as long as he kept being bold. Reality is for losers! Then he invaded Russia.

              1. Notorious,

                The Germans didn’t have better equipment at the beginning of the war. That is a bit of a myth. The British and even French tanks were quite good and the British aircraft was equal to or superior to the German ones. The Spitfire and the BF 109 were very equal fighters, though the Germans developed the Faulkwolf 190 which was superior to anything the allies had maybe even the P51, and the British had real heavy bombers.

                What the Germans had was doctrine. They understood combined arms warfare before anyone else did. They knew how to get their artillery, air, armor and infantry to work as a team in ways that were way beyond the British and French. The key moment in the invasion of France was the Battle of Sedan. There, the Germans broke through the French and got across the Muse River enabling them to cut the BEF and French Army in half. The Allies had a ton of people and aircraft and realized the importance of the position but they just threw resources at the battle. The Germans were actually outnumbered but used combined arms, and a whole lot of initiative by officers on the ground, to get across the Muse and out maneuver and out fight the allies. It was doctrine and understanding of combined arms that allowed the Germans to conquer Europe.

                1. John,

                  I’m with you on the Germans having a better conception of warmaking at the beginning.

                  I was focusing on Hitler’s role – how the very fanaticism and gambler’s instinct which led him to make so many victories in the beginning led him to rashly gamble on war with Russia (and the U.S.). Therefore, criticizing his madness in invading Russia almost misses the point, because on previous occasions when he’d taken calculated risks, he’d won.

                  If he wasn’t the sort of person to took mad gambles, relying on his own will rather than a cold calculation of reality, then he wouldn’t have won his early victories. In fact, he wouldn’t have been Hitler. Which would have been a good thing, of course.

                  1. I said “calculated risks” – come to think of it, I’m not sure the term “calculated” is exactly accurate. He was relying on the info he had, but filtering it through his megalomanical lens – which worked…until it didn’t.

              2. Yeah, Stalingrad was pretty much his Waterloo,

            3. A lot of his crazy decision making at the end was due to his addiction to various chemicals

        2. Could you imagine hitler with america’s firepower?

          Yeah, he could’ve really blown his brains out with a Luger, preventing all those rumors.

      2. I read a book a while back on the Nazi economy called The Wages of Destruction. It totally changed the way I looked at the history of Nazi Germany. /p You normally think of Hitler being this mad man bent on taking over the world. That book shows that it wasn’t quite that. The entire Nazi economy was based on stealing and using the money to provide services, low taxes and jobs to ethnic Germans. They started by stealing the German Jews money. When that ran out they moved on and stole the Austrian Jews money. When that ran out they moved on to Czechoslovakia and since they were not Germans at all stole everything. When that ran out they moved onto Poland. /p I had always wondered why the hell Hitler invaded Russia when he did. It never made any sense to me why he didn’t wait to finish off England first and then move onto Russia. This book tells why; he needed the money. In some ways, the entire Nazi conquest of Europe is a story of constantly running out of other people’s money. /p Simon Schima makes the same point about the French Revolution in his book Citizens They started off looting the aristocracy, then the church, then moved on to neighboring countries as the kept running out of other people’s money. France actually imposed a “Liberation Tax” on territories it conquered.

        1. The National Socialists stole from Jews and peoples of annexed lands and provided the German people with free shit. Obama and the progs have the same idea, it’s just that their war is on the middle class instead of Jews. But most of the progs seems to be at least somewhat Jew haters.

          And I don’t need to hear about how a lot of Jews are progs today. When Hitler first rose to power in Germany, a lot of Jews were as high on him as everyone else, until he turned on them

          1. The Progs view the middle class, especially the white middle class, as ATM machines and a class to be looted to pay for free shit to prog supporters. The problem they have is that they don’t control the elections the way the Nazis did. American Progs got it backwards. You don’t start the real looting until you are certain you can either not have or can successfully fix the elections. The progs, despite their best efforts, still can’t fix elections. Our federal system saved us. Since each state runs its own elections, getting a one time big majority at the federal level isn’t good enough. They have tried to use DOJ and the courts to stop things like voter ID laws but they have largely failed. As a result, the middle class has been largely able to kick them out of power before they could totally destroy them. The Progs don’t even have complete power in a lot of the blue states anymore. They are down to the Presidency, California, New York and a few small states and that is it. If they don’t retain the Presidency in 2016, they are going to be in a lot of trouble.

            1. It’s really quite pathetic how Obama talks about unilaterally increasing taxes and how he’s all about the middle class.

              The rich can either afford a tax hike or they won’t be affected much by it because their income is not wage based. The poor already don’t pay taxes and so it doesn’t affect them. The middle class will absorb nearly all of any tax hikes. How does this help the middle class?

      3. I was watching the Nazi series last night that is on H2.

        Which one?

  15. It all started with a total surveillance state, and then they starting confiscating people’s property.

    Neither of which we have.

    I get the feeling that a large subset of libertarians really wants the US to be a totalitarian state because then they’d feel vindicated in their beliefs.

    1. A descent into totalitarianism could at least expedite a path to the societal reset switch. Burn the horrors of statism so hard into a people’s cultural memory that they repel towards Libertarianism. Then again, those memories never seem to stick for very many generations?

      1. That is the optimistic view. I don’t think we are going to get to full on totalitarian horror state. i do, however, think that things are quickly getting bad enough to sour nearly everyone on government. The Progrressives are destroying themselves by doing these kinds of things. They see no problem with politicizing the government and using it as a weapon for their political ends. The problem is that their entire ideology depends on a competent trustworthy government that people believe can solve their problems. Once government becomes a political took, people stop believing in it and the Progressives have sowed the seeds of their own destruction. That is what you are seeing now. Progressives can ignore things like the IRS scandal or pretend that Obamacare is a success or that lying to the public is okay but the non progressive voters see the truth. And they are likely to never support a big progressive project again.

        1. Obama is just getting started. The internet thing is really going to blow up, and he’s already talking about unilateral tax hikes by executive action. Who knows what is next, he’s went completely lawless.

          1. He is. And I don’t think he cares about the larger cause. The genius of the Progs has always been that they play the long game. They grab as much power for as long as they can but when the public starts to stir they retrench and tried to appear reasonable while they consolidate their gains. Even when they suffer a set back like under Reagan, they engaged in a tactical retreat and waited for their next chance to advance.
            Obama is such a narcissist and so out of touch with the country, he seems unable to do that. A smart prog in Obama’s position, would have triangulated after the 14 midterms. He would have given the Republicans a few bones and looked reasonable and taken away the justification for the Republican nominee in 2016. Get another Democrat in and just keep chipping away. Obama can’t do that. He lacks the intellectual capacity to play the long game or understand his opponents’ well enough to co-opt them. So he is just going all out. He is trading the long term viability of the movement and maybe even the Democratic Party for a bunch of short term and easily reversible gains.

          2. Fake. Scandals.

          3. I read the other day that 25 of the 33 Senators up for re-election in 2018 are Democrats. If the Republicans win in 2016 and even stay even in the Senate, much less pick up a seat or two, the Democrats are looking at full scale Armageddon in 2018. They are almost certain to be a minority in the house and could be well under 40 votes in the Senate. Worse still, they have no one under 65 who shows any potential to run for President.

        2. That is the optimistic view. I don’t think we are going to get to full on totalitarian horror state.

          Since the basic equilibria game of contemporary govt is to see how much power it can accrue for itself w/o completely breaking a civilization, I don’t think we’ll get the full-on totalitarian horror show either; some form of passive-aggressive totalitarianism (i.e. the bureaucratic technocracy state) would be more likely.

          Though I’m optimistic that libertarianism will win in the longer run?albeit slowly and imperceptibly, via technological/market forces diminishing govts’ ability to exert substantive control over society?such that future humans will enjoy an increasingly apolitical life. It’s just a question of how much religious statolatry we’ll have to shovel thru in the meantime.

      2. A descent into totalitarianism could at least expedite a path to the societal reset switch.

        Yeah, the switch gets set so that’s normal, expected, etc.

  16. I’m pretty excited to see the mourning Lynx. I think all these upgrades are really gonna make it pop.

    1. It’s popping alright, like a deflated balloon struck by lightening.

  17. testing
    one
    two
    three
    (??? ??)
    does this work. hello world. asfasfasfsdfsadfsadfasfsa

    uno

    dos

    ( ?? ?? ?? )

    1. does this work. hello world. asfasfasfsdfsadfsadfasfsa

      uno

      dos

      ( ?? ?? ?? )

      Racism.

  18. Rounding up people in the thousands, putting them in camps and forcibly expelling them entails some civil liberty violations? Who’d a thunk it!

    1. Except we are not doing that and this is still occurring. Again, if this were happening under some hard core closed border administration, it would be expected and in some ways less disturbing. That it is happening under an administration that shows open contempt for closing the border, means they are doing it for reasons that have nothing to do with border security.

      1. Aren’t deportations under Obama up?

        1. No. They count people turned away at the border as “deportations” to produce those numbers. Previous administrations didn’t count those. If you count it the old way, they are way down.

        2. No. They count people turned away at the border as “deportations” to produce those numbers. Previous administrations didn’t count those. If you count it the old way, they are way down.

      2. Obama want’s the border closed, just not coming in. People coming in, to him, means more tax revenue and more democrat voters. He wants it closed going out. Hitler’s 90% tax on the Jews who wanted to leave is an idea that statists across the board love.

    2. I read your post and was all like “what is he talking about?” Then I remebered the topic was about BP, not how H&R is broken.

  19. The first 100 miles north of Mexico does not include “two-thirds of the U.S. population”.

    1. They harrass people near Canada too.

    2. It also includes people within 100 miles of Canada (as Rhywun stated) as well as coastlines.

      1. Okay this makes much more sense. Thanks.

  20. Just because previous courts have determined that something was okay does not make it it okay if this were true the south would still have slaves.

  21. “There are two ways to view the video of Richard Rynearson’s March 2010 encounter…”

    No, there is only ONE way that any REAL American could possibly view that video: These “agents” were completely out of line and should be fired/jailed.

  22. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,,,,,

    http://www.work-mill.com

  23. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,,,,,

    http://www.work-mill.com

  24. The increasingly accepted practice of denying persons their rights in this manner may be objectionable to some. But it also creates opportunities that can be exploited by those seeking to provide drugs, guns, labor, and other useful and much in-demand products and services throughout this great land. By employing 4th amendment cars to go ahead of their precious cargoes they could greatly increase their chances of passing through checkpoints unmolested. The imbecilic and bullying nature of border guards is a largely untapped –and renewable– resource that should not be sneered at. These proven reserves should be exploited to the fullest for the benefit of all.

  25. Couldn’t the Air Force, you know, accidentally drop a bomb on the Border Patrol? Oops, it slipped.

    1. Your joking comment makes for an interesting hypothetical. If a federal Air Force officer were to do that, what would the two-judge majority here rule? Would they rule, as they did here, that there is no clearly established right of the Border Patrol agents not to have a bomb dropped on them by an Air Force aircraft, flying at X altitude, with such and such fuse setting and munitions, and therefore they need not hold the pilot accountable or even entertain whether or not a law was actually broken? And refuse to create case law for the future to keep pilots from dive bombing border checkpoints? That would be ridiculous for sure.

      Also ridiculous is that there really is no clearly established law saying that Air Force pilots can’t bomb Border Patrol stations. I’m quite certain there is no case law providing “fair warning” to military pilots not to bomb checkpoints. But there actually is clearly established law saying these interior checkpoint stops must be brief, minimally intrusive, and limited to the time reasonably necessary to investigate immigration status.

      So your silly comment about Air Force pilots bombing checkpoints (an action that would be clearly immoral and unlawful and worthy of the strict and sterile imposition of law we pay our judges to impose from the bench), is actually nowhere near as silly as the two-judge majority ruling in this case.

      1. That’s exactly what I was thinking when I wrote it, because the parallel is about that close.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.