Rand Paul

Rand Paul Introduces Bill Banning Refugees From "High-Risk Countries"

The "SECURE Act" also puts a 30-day delay on citizens of countries in the Visa Waiver program.

|

Kentucky senator and Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul has introduced a

Still not gonna crack 10%
Wikimedia/Gage Skidmore

bill, dubbed the "Stop Extremists Coming Under Refugee Entry (SECURE) Act, that would temporarily ban refugees from 32 Muslim-majority countries, as well as the Palestinian territories and North Korea, from entering the US. 

The moratorium on accepting refugees from the "high-risk countries" listed in the bill would end once the Department of Homeland Security demonstrates compliance with six stipulations intended to weed out potential terrorists posing as refugees. Some of the requirements are clear, such as monitoring of all refugees while in the country, though the demand for "enhanced refugee security screening" is more vague. 

My colleague Matt Welch wrote of Paul's intention to bring this bill to the Senate two weeks ago, quoting the senator as saying, "I think Paris should wake us to the fact that we can't let just anyone come to this country without background checks."

As expected, Paul's bill also will deny admission to citizens of any of the 38 countries who participate with the US in the Visa Waiver Program "until after 30 days of security assessments have been conducted on such alien" or unless said individuals are enrolled in the Global Entry trusted traveler program. This appears to be a reaction to the fact that most of the terrorists who committed last month's atrocities in Paris came from France and Belgium, two countries where a visa is not currently required to visit the US.

As noted previously here at Reason, refugees are already subject to rigorous scrutiny and a mere handful of individuals who have come to the US as refugees or asylum seekers have had any involvement with terror plots.

Advertisement

NEXT: Webathon: Support Reason if You Care About Free Minds & Free Markets

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.

  1. Very sensible, IMO, especially since one of the shooters yesterday was an immigrant, and the other (following the Euro pattern) was a second-generation resident.

    1. Yes, Rand is awesome.

      I am looking forward to Bailey’s Olympic linguistic hair splitting on this too.

      1. Another standard-issue “global warming is more dangerous than radical Islam” liberal democrat pretending he’s a libertarian. I wish he’d go peddle his bullcrap somewhere else.

        1. Hasn’t the global warming link to these terrorist attacks been established by such scientific stars as Bernie Sanders (maybe the wrong one)?

          1. Bill Nye the Science Clowny Guy also said same thing at Carbon Con.

            That dude’s bowtie is on just a little too tight.

            1. It could be a little tighter…

              1. It SHOULD be a lot tighter.

                I can’t stand that smug little douchebag. And BTW, smug little douchebag doesn’t have a degree in climate science. Doesn’t that mean we aren’t supposed to listen to him?

                1. doesn’t have a degree in climate science.

                  As if having one would make his claims more credible?

                2. It SHOULD be a lot tighter*.

                  *The metaphorical bowtie should metaphorically be a lot tighter.

            2. Hey now, bow ties are cool…….

              1. Bill Nye makes anything uncool. Put him in a Ferrari (if he can handle the CO2) and suddenly the Ferrari looks like POS. Now envision Candice Swanepoel (in a mini) riding shotgun in said Ferrari, and you’re left thinking what a stupid or greedy woman she must be.

                Nye ruins everything.

              2. Hey now, bow ties are cool…….

                And fezes. And cowboy hats.

            3. How has the escape SUV escaped the global warmer attacks? Didn’t it do as much damage as the guns and pipe bombs?

      2. There’s an old saying: it’s impossible to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not his understanding it.

        1. So, kill all Muslims for world peace. No sarcasm intended.

          1. Start with the Saudis. Take their oil and pay them with lead. In the head, starting with their homo cocksucking king.

    2. Next up RC Dean will call for ‘common-sense gun control’. I mean, why stop using a freak incident to justify just one power-grab?

      1. I’m a big fan of common sense gun control, actually. Starting with:

        1. Always Keep The Muzzle Pointed In A Safe Direction
        2. Firearms Should Be Unloaded When Not Actually In Use
        3. Don’t Rely On Your Gun’s “Safety”
        4. Be Sure Of Your Target And What’s Beyond It
        5. Use Correct Ammunition
        6. If Your Gun Fails To Fire When The Trigger Is Pulled, Handle With Care!
        7. Always Wear Eye And Ear Protection When Shooting
        8. Be Sure The Barrel Is Clear Of Obstructions Before Shooting
        9. Don’t Alter Or Modify Your Gun, And Have Guns Serviced Regularly
        10. Learn The Mechanical And Handling Characteristics Of The Firearm You Are Using

        1. Whoa! No need to get extreme on us!

        2. Fuck off, slaver!

          *goes back to using Glock as a bottle opener*

          1. They should combine this with the “getting a gun should be at least as hard as getting a driver’s license” and ban everyone on the no-fly list from driving. After all, car bombs are a terrorist staple. Alas, it would come too late to help Mary Jo Kopechne.

            1. The silly gun/car one I’ve been hearing is the false idea that one is required to demonstrate proficiency with a car to be able to buy one, therefore the same test should be made of gun purchasers.

              I am not sure where these people are living, but here in Tennessee the bill of sale does not even have a field for recording a driver’s license number. There is no requirement at all that the seller even ask for a license nor assess the ability of the buyer to drive. As far as the notary goes, they will accept all manner of ID to verify the signature, but a drier’s license is not required for them either.

              1. ^^ This. Why should we expect anything less than conflation arguments from the hoplophobes?

        3. “Why do you want to shoot brown children”?

        4. That was the most beautiful comment in here, ever.

        5. 11. Point at at a Muslim’s head.
          12. Pull the trigger several times.

        6. I vehemently disagree with #9a. I think I’ve only followed that one once.

        7. I vehemently disagree with #9a. I think I’ve only followed that one once.

      2. Cytotoxic; I came here specifically to see what kind of derpy derp de derp you would have to contribute here.

        You do not disappoint.

    3. How would this bill have prevented a citizen and someone who entered through a fiancee visa?

      1. Or for that matter, how would the prevent entry of a French national (like most of those who carried out the Paris attack)?

        1. Maybe if you shit your pants harder…

          1. “Maybe if you shit your pants harder…”

            I think I have stumbled onto the solution. Y’all need to be patriotic and wear pants made from an American flag. You wouldn’t shit on the American flag, would you?

        2. Or for that matter, how would the prevent entry of a French national (like most of those who carried out the Paris attack)?

          France should be high risk country anyways. Look at the ideologue progs that country shits out. Beyond some niche items, they don’t export anything else.

      2. How would this bill have prevented a citizen and someone who entered through a fiancee visa?

        It wouldn’t, but again, you raise the question that I asked before– since it has been repeatedly pointed out that it was only immigrants (or recent immigrants) who have have carried out the terrorist attacks, therefore blocking refugees doesn’t make sense– is our immigration policy too lenient?

        1. Make renouncing Islam on video a requirement for entry.

    4. I would think that if a US citizen marries someone from abroad, then he should have the right to bring him/her to this country, otherwise the citizen is told that he has to go abroad in order to exercise his conjugal rights, which IMHO are among the rights “retained by the people” under the 9th Amendment.

      Of course, now that marriage is no longer an exclusive and enduring relationship, that opens the door to a revolving door of marriage/divorce/immigration/divorce as many times as strikes your fancy.

      1. Let us consider if Yassir Arafat had married David Geffen. Fianc?e visa or not?

        1. Necrophilia?

          1. Yassir, that’s my baby.

          2. I used past tense for a reason.

      2. Obviously, immigration controls today won’t stop current citizens from doing anything. But sometimes, it pays to look ahead.

        Perhaps immigration controls today will reduce the number of people in the future who will act like these two did. If you agree that immigrants from certain countries pose a higher risk of problems, then why not limit or end immigration from those countries?

        Consider a scenario where we do throw open the gates to MENA immigrants, and we get thousands, and of those thousands a dozen turn out to be terrorists. Will the reaction to their terror attacks make this country more free, or less free?

        To me, if you are interested in reversing the police state, one of the things you need to do is reduce the number of terror attacks without infringing on our rights. The easiest way to do that is to reduce importing people who pose a risk.

        In the long run, I just believe that this country will be better off if we cut off immigration from places that are exporting terrorists.

        1. I’m for stronger immigration controls, like in Sen. Paul’s bill, I just suggest that in the case of marriage there are higher values.

          1. That is: In my view, potential immigrants have no rights until and unless they become lawful U.S. residents, and that’s up to the authorities to decide.

            But a U.S. citizen married to a foreign national *does* have rights, and if marital relations aren’t among those rights, how do we have *any* 9th Amendment rights whatsoever?

            1. You have have a right to shag whoever you like and engage in whatever religious rites you want with them. But that doesn’t imply a right for any human on the planet you have shagged to enter the US.

              1. OK, so this the bottom line of “deregulating” marriage.

              2. Speciesist! Don’t you feel empathy for all the goats and sheep that want to immigrate to the USA?

        2. You don’t think that stricter immigration control will lead to an increase in the police state?

          I wish I had your optimism.

          1. I’m with R.C. in general – if a potential immigrant doesn’t have a legal stake in this country, (s)he has no right to live here.

            And the govt. gets to be selective in which potential immigrants are allowed to come in.

            It’s not about sealing off the borders, it’s about getting a better, less explody class of immigrants.

            1. Perhaps a ‘mirrored’ arrangement would be appropriate vis-a-vis other countries. How hard is it to (legally) travel or even emigrate to Saudi Arabia? Ditto for Saudi clown coming here.

              1. I’m sure you know this. But it’s practically impossible legally, unless KSA wants you for work or you’re on the Haj.

                …though at the time the Saudi Commission for Tourism and Antiquities had no history of granting tourist visas to non-Muslims. Because I had to get in to complete my quest, I worried that I might have to convert to Islam, memorize the Koran, study with a mullah, attend a mosque, and forget I was an ultra-liberal Jewish atheist.

                This became especially frustrating in 2011, when I was in Bahrain, a quick drive over the King Fahd Causeway to Saudi Arabia. After I failed yet again to get a visa, an unusually candid Saudi consular officer finally told me why. He said, in essence: “Look, we have lots of oil money, so we don’t need your few tourist dollars. We have 2 million Muslim pilgrims visiting every year to do the Hajj”?the annual pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca?”and they are no trouble. Some of our conservative citizens do not want non-Islamic Westerners coming and stirring up our people with liberal ideas. And we certainly do not need the bad publicity if you are hurt or killed in our country by some radical.”

              2. Yeah, if the Saudi govt wants its citizens to be able to come here hassle-free, let’s include that in a treaty with the Saudis.

                Of course the treaty should have other stipulations, like for instance letting Americans come to Saudi Arabia hassle-free, and enjoying the free exercise of their religion once they’re there.

                Even if that religion *isn’t* Wahhabist Islam.

                1. Saudis do not come to the US “hassle-free”. Getting a US visa involves more than paying a fee for a rubber stamp for them.

                  1. I was responding to the libertarian idea that the U.S. should unilaterally open the borders to citizens (subjects) of countries which don’t reciprocate with U.S. citizens.

                  2. They should be allowed to visit if they survive a fall from a tall building or having a wall toppled on them.

            2. It’s not that I necessarily disagree (honestly I don’t care one way or the other cause the government is gonna do whatever the hell it wants regardless), I’m just not sure that it won’t lead to an enlarged police state.

              FWIW, I think our policy should be: If you want to work, we welcome you. If you want free shit, fuck off.

              1. Why would restriction of this type lead to an enlarged police state? Many of the police state laws were enacted following terrorist attacks, and sold on the grounds of preventing terrorist attacks so the logic goes that decreasing immigration from places that are hotbeds of terrorism would at least slow the police state.

                That may or may not be correct but it certainly makes more sense than the idea that this would enlarge the police state.

        3. There are around 3 million Muslims in the country. What evidence is there that they are causing problems any greater than any other demographic?

          1. For terrorist attacks? Quite a bit. For a minority of less than 1% of the population, I’m sure their body count from terrorism is considerably more than 1% of the total body count for terrorism.

            1. Consider: in order for Muslims to pose exactly the same risk of terrorism as others, the 14 killed in CA would have to be a drop in the ocean of 1400 killed by non-Muslim terrorists. I’m pretty sure we haven’t had 1400 other Americans killed by non-Muslim terrorists.

              Note: I may be stealing a base by calling the CA attack a Muslim terrorist attack. I don’t think we really know that yet, although its looking like the way to bet.

              1. Note: I may be stealing a base by calling the CA attack a Muslim terrorist attack. I don’t think we really know that yet, although its looking like the way to bet.

                With the current evidence we have, I’m calling it an “unsupported terrorist attack”.

                And that’s my opinion, which is the only one that matters.

              2. And if we go back a couple of decades to make the comparison, non-Muslims would have to kill over 330,000 people (or around 0.1% of the entire population) to catch up.

            2. I don’t doubt that Muslims are overrepresented among perpetrators of terrorism, studies seem to confirm that. However, is there anything to indicate that in the US they commit murder at a greater rate than the average population? Homicides due to terrorism are a drop in the bucket compared to the overall homicide count.

              As a hypothetical, if there was a study indicating that while Muslims committed terrorism at a greater rate, they also committed homicide at half the rate of the general population, would that affect your thinking at all? Why or why not?

              1. “As a hypothetical, if there was a study indicating that while Muslims committed terrorism at a greater rate, they also committed homicide at half the rate of the general population, would that affect your thinking at all? Why or why not?”

                That’s a good question but I’d have to answer in the negative. Terrorism seems much worse than murder as it usually involves innocent strangers, whereas murder is usually directed towards someone the murder knows or is competing with in some way (quite frequently another criminal).

                Would you disagree?

                1. Yes. I would disagree. The instrumentality of death is irrelevant. Death is death. Just because some people shit their pants irrationally over terrorism (that is, worry about it more than statistically much more probable ways to die) is not a reason to overlook mathematics.

                  1. Death by old age is the cause of 90% of deaths in industrialized countries.

                    By this logic, any effort expended on preventing any other type of death is irrational, since old age is king.

                    It is unclear whether generic “people” worry too much about terrorism without accounting for the costs of the policies they want in place, the stated benefits of said policy, and the feasibility of said policy to get what are claimed to be the benefits.

                  2. “Yes. I would disagree. The instrumentality of death is irrelevant. Death is death. Just because some people shit their pants irrationally over terrorism (that is, worry about it more than statistically much more probable ways to die) is not a reason to overlook mathematics.”

                    Irrelevant you you maybe, what if I’d rather die under particular circumstances than others?

                    I really don’t castigate people who drive out of their way to avoid the “bad part of town” when they’re far more likely to be harmed in a crash from the extra driving. A sense of control just happens to be very important to some.

                    1. No. The instrumentality is irrelevant. The only matter of preference is that on meets it with honour.

              2. I think what separates them is the rationale behind the killings. Black murders tend to be related to drug crimes or domestic situations, not much different in that regard from homicides involving hispanics or whites, though I suspect the drug-related numbers are higher among minorities. When the assailant is Muslim, Islam is often invoked. You could impact the other deaths by doing away with the drug war; I have no idea how you change the mindset of someone willing to kill in religion’s name.

                1. Just as black people tend to be related to drugs crimes and domestic situations.

              3. As a hypothetical,

                Interesting, but would probably not change my desire to shut off immigration from terrorist-exporting countries.

                I’m less worried about the direct threat of terrorism to me personally, than about the likely reaction of our police state to terrorism. If shutting off immigration means fewer terrorist attacks (and I think it would), then that means fewer pretexts for the police state to use to expand its reach.

                1. Do you not see such controls as an opportunity in and of itself for expansion of the police state?

                2. “I’m less worried about the direct threat of terrorism to me personally, than about the likely reaction of our police state to terrorism. If shutting off immigration means fewer terrorist attacks (and I think it would), then that means fewer pretexts for the police state to use to expand its reach.”

                  Interestingly, holding back the police state would more than likely keep the overall body count down given the direct threat of death by cop we have currently. Might hurt Reason.com though.

                  1. Jan 2017: “Zero police shootings for 2016. Radley Balko hardest hit.”

                3. Interesting, but would probably not change my desire to shut off immigration from terrorist-exporting countries.

                  I’m quite sure that will work as well as the prohibition on the import of illegal drugs from illegal drug-exporting countries.

              4. I think I would be more concerned about the overall body count than the number of events.

            3. Most mass shootings in the U.S. are committed by whites, not muslims. Why not deport all white loner dudes that haven’t gotten laid in years? I realize this would cut down on the commentariat, but we must make sacrifices in these dark times.

          2. “There are around 3 million Muslims in the country. What evidence is there that they are causing problems any greater than any other demographic?”

            Just going by the number in prison, a lot! Muslims make up about 9% of the entire US prison population.

            (I know that’s a bit unfair, many many convert while in prison) but just about every single western nation has a disproportionate number of Muslims in prison.

            Compare them to Jews, for a really stark contrast of demographic differences.

            1. I’m ok with importing more Jews. We desperately need more good comedy writers.

              1. If Europe keeps going the way it has been you may be in luck.

          3. America could afford a loss of 3 million of the population. Just go to Detroit Airport and try to hold down your vomit.

        4. Where you run into trouble there is that it only takes one white rabbit to prove not all rabbits are black.

          Since WWII, the concept of an undesirable population has been in bad odor among the enlightened and tolerant. So acknowledging that any such thing exists at all opens up a real can of worms. It acknowledges the legitimacy of the concept of an undesirable population. And if you acknowledge one undesirable population exists, you’ve acknowledged the possibility more than one exists. And obviously, that isn’t going to sit well with some folks.

          So you can expect that no matter how outrageous the situation gets, the open borders types will stolidly sit on a block of ice with their pants around their ankles, lie through their teeth, and try to brazen out the hoots of derision they get for trying to tell us that that rabbit just ain’t white.

          1. I understand. America should have welcomed the Nazis.

    5. RC,

      But gosh, shucks, “only a handfull” of the oodles of asylum seeker / refugees / happy US welfare state residents got into anything terror related. On that note, per the logic of Reason, lets drive recalled cars and eat recalled food, because, gosh, only a handful of people out of oodles of units sold have gotten sick or died. Good call, Reason.

      Oh, and good reasoning on the idea of applying the Libertarian ideal of “no border controls” to a situation where unrestricted access to our welfare to – relatively speaking – desperate populations guarantees ongoing entry of not just the Western Hemispheres poor, but those around the world who have smartphone access to the net and can cobble together cheap air fare to Mexico city, and walk up. Brilliant reasoning, Reason. You wanna pay my taxes to pay for your generosity?

  2. What about natural born citizens? Considering the number of mass shooters who were born in the US, it really safe to let people come and go as they please just because they were born here?

    1. Nobody ruled out shooting them in the act. Well, nobody but California, New York, Illinois, and a few other backwards enclaves.

      1. Shooting people in the act of being natural born citizens does seem like the only libertarian solution. I wonder why I never saw it before.

        1. Yea, shooting violent criminals in the act is not all that obvious to everybody.

    2. Again, one of the rights of citizenship is living in the USA.

      People from other countries don’t have that right unless they’re admitted as immigrants.

      Which begs the question of who should be admitted.

      1. Does it actually say that in the Constitution?

        1. The Constitution frequently refers to the rights of the “people.”

          So it’s quite legitimate to ask which “people” are referenced.

          1. Oddly, the Constitution does not guarantee every single human being on the planet the right to live in the US.

            1. Yeah, I think we need to look at the original understanding.

              And the fact that the text recognizes that after 1808, Congress gets to forbid the “migration” of “persons.”

              Now, the context was the slave trade – any state could allow the “migration or importation” of “persons,” subject only to an import tax – the practical intent was to allow states to import slaves. South Carolina (and sometimes Georgia) took advantage of this to bring in African slaves prior to the cut-off date, when Congress banned the traffic.

              But the phrasing of the clause refers to “migration” as well as “importation,” and migration, IMHO, is voluntary.

              But subject to the will of Congress.

              1. At least since 1808.

              2. It actually says “such persons” referring to slaves. It’s a stretch to claim that covers voluntary migration as well when it’s widely understood what the context is.

                1. I mentioned the context, but the Constitution still says “migration *or* importation.”

                  1. The Framers went out of their way to avoid the s-word (“slave”), preferring elaborate circumlocutions even when they were clearly trying to refer to slavery.

                    But the circumlocutions they used were sometimes broad enough to tackle non-slavery issues. That’s the price they paid for avoiding the specific term “slave.”

                    Importation is what you do with slaves you bring from Africa* – it’s what you do with articles of merchandise.

                    But they mentioned “migration” separately, maybe in their search for broader circumlocutions. Whatever the reason, the text is specific enough that we can’t analyze it away in the name of context.

                    *Not you personally.

                    1. And the constitution refers to commerce with foreign nations as something Congress can regulate.

                      As my British roommate once said to me when the subject came up, if you come to the U.S. you generally have to pay someone to come here, and that sounds a lot like commerce.

            2. A lot of posters here appear to believe otherwise.

          2. Dude, please read the name at the top of the comment. I know it might be confusing to reply to a comment by someone other than yourself, but I asked an actual question with the intention of getting an actual answer.

            1. “Does it actually say that in the Constitution?”

              No. I’m inferring it from the text, history and structure of the Constitution.

              Is that how you got to *your* interpretation?

            2. I asked an actual question with the intention of getting an actual answer.

              No problem. Yes, it specifically states it in the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. I know you know this and are just trolling but the rights not enumerated to the government are “retained by the people”. That means that if the people want to end all immigration it is within their Constitutional right to do so.

              Surely you are not claiming, here of all places, that all the rights of the people are limited to what is specifically in the Constitution.

              Having a super duper “open” mind just leaves you with your brains fallen out.

          3. White people, I think.

      2. Again, one of the rights of citizenship is living in the USA.

        Rights are innately held by everyone. They aren’t granted by governments through citizenship.

        1. Don’t be a retard Apatheist. If that were true, the Bill of rights would be written in terms of restrictions on government action, not in terms of privileges handed out to people who fell out of vaginas on the right side of imaginary lines.

          1. We have to push them out, you shitlord.

            1. We have to push them out, you shitlord.

              If you were in the kitchen making a sandwich like you’re supposed to, gravity would work its magic. Trust a woman to make a job harder than it has to be.

          2. Rights are innate, the Constitution intends to prevent the US government from interfering with them. It is obviously inferred the US cannot prevent rights violations beyond its borders, though it cannot violate rights of others beyond those borders as well.

            So this line of reasoning is entirely irrelevant to the conversation on immigration. Unless you believe immigration is a “right”, but if you do you won’t find it in the constitution so again it’s irrelevant.

            1. If immigration is a right, and at the unilateral discretion of the immigrant, then there are no citizens. Just territorial residents. Which is not what our country was founded on.

              1. The funny thing is, the way the Constitution is written, the feds have control over who gets to be a citizen, and that means immigration is probably left to each state under the 10th Amendment.

              2. I think you’ve got that wrong. When the Constitution was written, there weren’t any immigration controls. Not one of the foreign-born people that founded this country had to go through any process more onerous than getting here to become a citizen of the colony that he or she inhabited. One definition of citizen is, after all, “a native or inhabitant of any place”.

        2. Rights are innately held by everyone. They aren’t granted by governments through citizenship.

          You had to light the Tony signal, didn’t you Apatheist.

  3. “I think Paris should wake us to the fact that we can’t let just anyone come to this country without background checks.”

    I guess no one cares that at most one (1) of the Paris attackers was a refugee, and his passport was fake so that’s not even known.

    1. So, instead people should look Muslims in general rather than immigrants, that’s where you were going with that?

      I don’t people are quite so stupid as to think that immigrants are the sole issue; they just present a less ethically fraught front on which to take action.

      1. Here’s a simple solution: the USA will only admit Muslims who are planning to get gay married after arriving, and serving ham sandwiches at the ceremony.

        Any Muslim willing to abide by those restraints should make for a nifty new citizen.

  4. Makes about as much sense as more gun regs

    1. Gun regs: aimed at inanimate objects.

      Immigration regs: aimed at the people who use inanimate objects.

      Totes the same.

    2. And that’s exactly the framing that Dems will use to argue for more gun control.

      1. Well, you know if you need a license to be married…

  5. Good, since there are too many people here already anyway. You can have a welfare state, or immigrants, but not both.

    And preferable not either one, if the immigrants are coming from a “highly volatile area”, which is my PC speak for, “muslim”.

    1. If you think there are too many people here, Jimbo, you are free to move to a less densely populated country.

      1. Really, Hugh? Going with the, “If you don’t like it, leave” response, which you wouldn’t credit as a valid argument in literally any other scenario?

        “If you think there’s too much government intrusion into the economy, just move to Hong Kong or Somalia!”

        This is MY country, too, and as a citizen I can try to convince others to vote for the kind of society that I believe should be imposed here. Namely, one of no more immigrants until the muslims settle themselves down, and the ones that are here learn to speak English and move into the middle class. We don’t need more yard mowers.

        1. *sarcasm detector explodes*

          1. This is good, but it’s still hard to beat his last bout a few weeks ago. I think that one was on immigration too. Anyone have a link to it? I remember it being glorious: one of the best renditions of Poe’s Law I’d seen.

            1. Can you really be sure its parody though? I mean really? Isn’t it just as likely if not more likely that Jimbo fell off the toilet while attempting autofellatio and woke up a hardline nativist yokeltarian?

              1. I thought he gave us a bit of a wink at the end of the last go-around. Though I may be mis-remebering, and anyway it would have been after several hours of quality trolling.

                FWIW, I was nodding along to several of his points last time. This time, only for the quotes from Saint Milty. Albeit, why does US immigration policy seemingly encourage lower producing folks to emigrate here, while making it damned near impossible for professionals not throwing 95 MPH fastballs to do so?

                1. Thing is, that high quality trolling would be completely lost on a lesser comment board, like Redstate or DKos. We really need to pat ourselves on the back for maintaining a sophisticated commentariat well attuned to such wit.

                  And ban those not native to Reason.com from getting an account and diluting the purity of the board, of course.

                  1. The problem with people cosplaying as retarded nativist yokeltarians is that we already have more than enough actual retarded nativist yokeltarians making arguments that it becomes nearly impossible to tell which is which. Like picking up a girl at a bar and finding out when you get her home that she has a penis. Or like Epi picking up a dude at a bar and finding out when he gets home that it’s actually his mom.

                    1. You should always assume that picking up a girl on a libertarian comment board has a high probability of a six-inch surprise in your near future…

                    2. Or like Epi picking up a dude at a bar and finding out when he gets home that it’s actually his mom.

                      This has happened way too many times for it to still be funny, too.

                2. “and the ones that are here learn to speak English and move into the middle class”

                  In the context of the latest attack, does that count as a wink?

              2. JJ doesn’t use toilets, Hugh. I thought you knew that.

        2. If we didn’t need more yard mowers then there wouldn’t be so many people coming across the border to find work mowing yards. I guess the Market just doesn’t know as much about what people need as you do?

          Also: ‘move into the middle class’ lol

          1. So what if the market demands it? When does “the market” not want more cheap labor? It doesn’t matter, because what the market wants isn’t necessarily what’s best for everybody. And if enough people agree with me, then it gets voted into law, and the market be damned. That’s how not-anarchy works.

            1. You…you do realize that ‘market’ is just a term to describe the countless interactions and transactions that arise from people pursuing what they want, right? Voting might be a blunt indicator of stated beliefs of 51% of the people who bother, but the market is a robust indicator of peoples’ actual revealed preferences.

              1. Again, voting is how we resolve things in a non-anarchist society. I know full well what the market is, and I also know that people often vote for things which the market would seem to indicate they do not want.

                So, considering that government exists, then that government must make decisions somehow. That decision making process sometimes yields results which seem to go contrary to what the market is demanding, or that are contrary to some abstract notion of “liberty”.

                Really, even our codified rights aren’t sacrosanct. It’s theoretically possible for an amendment to be passed declaring someone Maximus Princeps, and voiding the rest of the constitution as a dead letter. If you agreed beforehand to abide by the rules of the decision making process, on what grounds do you object now just because you don’t like the result?

                And the fact of the matter is, people are sick and tired of so many immigrants. It’s what has made so many people support Trump, and why I support him, too. I don’t give a shit about the market. Build a wall, build it 100 feet high, and as deep as Hell.

            2. Gojira|12.3.15 @ 5:50PM|#
              “So what if the market demands it? When does “the market” not want more cheap labor? It doesn’t matter, because what the market wants isn’t necessarily what’s best for everybody.”

              And I guess you do?

          2. We Canadians mow our own yards thank you very much.

            As long as Toro keeps sending us lawn mowers we’re good to cut and mulch.

            1. We Canadians mow our own yards thank you very much.

              Barbarians.

              1. Just got a thought. Trailer Park Boys landscaping company in the U.S..

                1. If i wanted my yard destroyed, sure.

          3. To be fair, the yard mowers are actually moving back across the border because we don’t need them.

            Of course, if we would let people work in whatever profession they were trained in in their home country, they might stay and not have to mow lawns.

            1. There is always IT and customer service

              1. So we need to really worry when Mexicans start moving to India.

          4. Right, and the market wants people on welfare that’s why there’s so many people on welfare. This isn’t a market issue.

  6. As noted previously here at Reason, refugees are already subject to rigorous scrutiny and a mere handful of individuals who have come to the US as refugees or asylum seekers have had any involvement with terror plots.

    Given that it only took a mere handful of dedicated terrorists to bring down the WTC, that statement doesn’t exactly bring tidings of comfort and joy.

    1. Apples and oranges.

      If you are talking about the risk posed by immigrants, you shouldn’t be using information about a small subset (refugees).

      1. I don’t think so. The point I was making had nothing to do with how said terrorists arrived on our shores. The point is that it only takes a small number of terrorists to cause a whole lot of trouble. Telling us we shouldn’t worry because “only a handful” of refugees have had terrorist connections is like your girlfriend telling you she’s only a little pregnant.

    2. The 9/11 attackers were here on student and tourist visas.

      1. And they were well educated engineers.

        1. that probably deserves an asterisk.

          Moussaui if i recall was a total knucklehead, as were a few others. Mohammed Atta and KSM were both engineers, but i think Atta failed out of mechanical and went into urban planning or something less intensive before deciding to redesign the twin towers.

          I recall a study… and here it is…which noted the high prevalence of engineers among islamic terrorists. Of the 9/11 crew, 17 of 25 had college degrees, and 8 of those were in some kind of engineering. I don’t think this necessarily says anything at all about their own intellectual capability or the quality of their degrees, but there’s definitely an over-representation of engineers amongst jihadis

          1. How many women’s studies majors?

            1. I’m pretty sure there’s a paper out there on the Intersectionality of Jihad

          2. That settles it. Engineers need to be watched closely.

            Then there are those liberal arts shitlords, like Weatherman, lead by a female lawyer.

            Engineers, lawyers, and literature majors. Anybody else?

          3. Atta failed out of mechanical and went into urban planning or something less intensive

            So, sort of a terrorist Joe from Lowell?

            1. I think Mohammed Atta was gay, so that’s probably a no. Joe doesn’t have any style.

            2. You know who else fancied himself as an urban planner…

              1. Will Wright?

              2. Albert Speer? No, Hitler!

  7. Obama thinks the solution lies in banning people on the no-fly list from legally purchasing guns. Of course, that would stop the San Bernardino attack… Did they get on the no-fly list after the hajj?

  8. Good.

  9. Also, it’s too late for the pm links, but…the world must know.

    Horse sex on the rise.

    1. *Someone* was having fun publishing that photo.

      1. But not as much fun as, well, you know.

        1. Hitler?

          1. What did you think “Mein Kampf” was *really* about?

            1. This radical new interpretation will blow the lid off conventional histories!

    2. Sez 10 000 Swiss like Horsey ass sex. That’s like, what, .15% of the population?

      1. If they imported more goats and camels, the horses might be able to catch a break.

    3. Yeah, someone posted that the other day. Gross.

        1. I wonder if the embassy would field a reporter’s call to follow up on this story?

        2. Once you have horse cum you never go back.

          1. That’s just foal.

          2. 8 ounces. That’s a lot of spunk.

  10. Rand Paul is a penis.

    1. Sometimes you need dicks to fuck assholes, or else pussies are gonna get shit on.

      1. Rand Paul is a flaccid penis.

        1. This is the best trolling I’ve seen in a long time.

  11. I’ve come to the conclusion libertarians are not in agreement when it comes to immigration.

    Captain Obvious.

  12. Stop Extremists Coming Under Refugee Entry (SECURE) Act

    Well, New Yorkers will be SAFE and SECURE.

  13. TV commercial on for limited edition chia Obama at chiaobama.com.

    Who would buy that?

    1. Hey, I thought that was made illegal years ago!

  14. Isn’t it time for Reason’s annual PBS style fund-raiser?

  15. They should be given a lie detector test. Deep dish or thin crust

    1. (a) Ginger of Mary Ann?

      (b) Daphne or Velma?

      (c) Or Scooby?

      1. 1) circumcised or not
        2) autoloader or wheel gun
        3) Mexican immigration or Syrian immigration

        Go!

      2. (a) Threesome
        (b) Threesome
        (c) No

  16. (a) Both.
    (b) Both.
    (c) He’s already with Shaggy.

  17. Until Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the U.A.E. are overflowing with refugees we shouldn’t take any.

    1. Yeah, I don’t see why that’s so hard.

      1. Or they can wotk at our call centers in India.

        1. “Have you tried blowing the computer up?”

          1. Crap, I laughed. True to my name I waffle on this issue. It’s easy to become emotionally invested in a time like this. So emotionally invested I lose sight of core values. It’s easy to pick on some “other”. Harder when it curtails my freedom. I’m waffles.

  18. So Rand can pander with the best of them? Sorry to hear it.

    1. You fell for it so that makes you the stupid one, stupid.

      1. “You fell for it so that makes you the stupid one, stupid.”

        This from a shitbag who thinks Stalin was just misunderstood.

  19. The refugee scam finally collapsing? Good.

    1. I’d be happier if Paul introduced legislation to do so. Still, we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

  20. There’s a way to price this and we can see just how much risk people think there is in letting in these migrants.

    Per $100,000 dollars of coverage how much of an insurance premium per month would you pay to be covered in the case of a terrorist attack by any of the migrants specifically?

    Not just any Muslim, only the migrants.

    How about $3000 a month? No? $500 a month? Probably not, right? $50 a month? $5 a month?

    I’d be willing to pay, at most, only about 2 cents a month (and even that’s high), that’s how little risk I see with these people.

    Doing it this way moves it from a collective, crisis-politics approach to an individual calculation as it should be in a free country.

    So if you’re going on about how they are a threat yet your personal price isn’t that high then maybe you should stop complaining.

    1. What if, say, a million people pooled their resources to collectively take out insurance against the proposed migrants?

        1. Sure.

    2. Um what?

    3. As it is no additional direct cost for US immigration bureaucracy to refuse to hand out visas to anyone from Muslim majority countries, this calculation is hardly sufficient unless one can make a strong case for indirect benefits above and beyond the collective amount that all citizens would be willing to pay out for such an insurance policy.

      If it’s your posited 2 cents (which is probably low-balling, given that this number is coming from a libertarian less inclined to attach risk to the proposition), then that’s roughly 7 million dollars that it would be worth to the body politic to implement a change that has no direct cost — given that we already have an immigration bureaucracy in place and would continue to have one regardless of what specific policies we implement wrt MENA immigration.

    4. Can you get odds in Vegas on terrorist attacks?

    5. heh that’s a good argument (i wouldnt, by choice, spend any time or money deciding who to let immigrate or not. who cares?)

    6. that’s how little risk I see with these people.

      I’m worried a lot less about the direct risk terrorists pose to me, than the risk they pose for expanding the police state.

      1. Boom. I was thinking that as you were typing it.

      2. Same. That, and there is a non-trivial chance of a large enough Muslim population making the countries they immigrate to adopt or tolerate abhorrent cultural and religious mores from the home country.

        By my reckoning, the chances that a country has an Islamic terror attack which prompts expansion of the police state begins to meaningfully increase after ~1% of the population is Muslim (and continues to increase the larger the Islamic population).

        The chances that Muslims become politically relevant and influential meaningfully increase after roughly 5-10% of the population is Islamic, and continue increasing after that point.

        Both of those outcomes are highly anti-liberty, and have the potential to damage our future liberty.

        1. Are you going to give any substantiation to those numbers?

          1. Just look at any country with a large Muslim minority.

            1. Apparently “substantiation” means “be even more vague”.

              1. It would be pointless to argue with you. One day when you’re willing to consider that everything you believe about multiculturalism might be wrong, when you’re willing to consider that maybe Islamic terrorists are just following their religion, when you’re willing to consider that maybe the Koran encourages this behavior then you will find out on your own. There is plenty of information out there.

                Look I resisted too at first. I didn’t want to believe these people were doing what their religion told them to, I wanted to believe that terrorists just hijacked the Islamic religion, that these people were just nuts. But eventually I decided to get over that, I decided I wasn’t going to be afraid of the truth, that I would open my mind to it no matter how terrible it might be and did my own research.

                Eventually I came to the terrible realization that violent Jihad is an important part of the Islamic religion, it is encouraged by the Koran, and anywhere you get large numbers of Muslims Jihad seems to follow.

                It was like learning that Santa Claus wasn’t real. I didn’t want to believe it at first, but facts are stubborn things.

                1. Maybe one day you will learn to respond to what is said instead of imputing motives.

          2. hahahaha. good one

          3. No problem, here’s my citation:

            Trouser, Immaculate. “Can’t Be Arsed To Find Actual Numbers Since It’s A Blog Comment.” My Asshole, 3 Dec. 2015. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.

            1. Ok, so by my reckoning, any country with a sizeable number of Europeans is likely to erupt in a major war at least twice per century.

              1. Hey, get your own source!

                In all seriousness, the numbers were meant to be hypothetical rather than terribly descriptive. I’d say that after some X%, the chances of either of those two things occurring goes up. X is probably between 1 and 50%, and I’m not particularly interested in finding out what that number is, exactly, for a Western country.

                1. The part I’m missing is that, in all of this correlative statistical “reckoning”, we’re assuming some general lack of intelligent agency on the part of the voting public. So how exactly is it that we’re going to get some kind of sensible consensus on immigration when we can’t get a sensible consensus on anything else?

              2. Sounds about right…

        2. Plus it’s a lot to easier to prevent them from coming here in the first place then figuring out what to do with them once they’re already 10% of your population. Europe is our future if we’re not careful.

          Do the changes taking place in Europe cause the open border crowd to question their beliefs? No, that would require humility, that would require their beliefs to be based on logic and reason, and not faith, and feel good fairy tales. No instead they just double down on stupid.

          1. Does the French history of colonialism have fuck-all to do with “open borders”? No, but admitting that would require you to take a step down from the smug throne for a minute or two.

            1. So what a history of colonialism means you can’t complain when you’re being colonized by a bunch of barbarians? Not all cultures are equal.

              1. What does that have to do with anything I said?

                1. I think I might understand why you said what you said, albeit you are again imputing motives.

                  When I say the French have a history of colonialism, I’m not saying they’re evil colonial oppressors who deserve what they get and/or can’t complain because of original sin or some shit. I’m saying there’s a bunch of Algerians in France because Algeria was a French colony.

                  So yeah I guess they had “open borders” in the sense that they went around conquering places then got pussyfooted about the whole thing and decided to set up the glorious social welfare state “for the benefit of all” then when they ran out of other people’s money and the entitled little shits got uppity about it all, the French lost a bunch of pitched battles and ran away (ahem, “recognized the independence of their former colonies”).

                  Why repeating that strategy domestically (the “banlieues”) didn’t work out for them this time is I’m sure just an unpredictable stroke of bad luck.

                  But apparently the most salient issue here is US border policy.

            2. As to other places in Europe (I picked France because of the Paris attacks and I’m a little more familiar with it than other European countries), some of it is the same or at least similar (e.g. the Indo-Pakistani Muslims in Britain a la Rotherham) and a lot of it has to do with refugees–people who are being specifically invited or at least welcomed into the country by the government to be supported at taxpayer expense.

    7. Well gosh, let’s spend tax payer dollars to INCREASE THAT RISK. Because clearly you’re saying we have it too good and need to be in greater danger of terror attacks, right?

      And then there is that cost. Because those people are all gin got be on welfare. Very libertarian of you.

  21. rand lasted a whole lot longer than i expected without disappointing me, but I knew he would eventually.

  22. rand lasted a whole lot longer than i expected without disappointing me, but I knew he would eventually.

    1. They all think about re-election.

  23. That’s because he’s a libertarian.

    I gave his dad a lot of credit in opposing the Republican party’s war boner, but wasn’t his ultimate rationale that White people shouldn’t be sullying themselves by involving themselves with the Moooslem untouchable?

    1. Shut up, fool. Libertarian does not mean stupid. And it means doing things sometimes no matter what PC morons think.

      1. Does libertarian mean to you that we should just respond to every Mooslem fanatic jackass by closing the border and imposing religious tests? I don’t mind libertarianism as an ideology. If you were to ask me if I want less government I’d probably say yes. But these right-wing assholes who talk about limited government and then want to launch another land war in Iraq and Syria? Yeah, those people are some real pricks.

        1. Yeah, those people are some real pricks.

          Unlike the jihadis who murder dozens or even hundreds of people. They’re just swell!

        2. Rand didn’t say anything about launching a land war. His position on foreign involvement is well known. He’s one of the least hawkish and most common sense guys on foreign policy in Congress.

          You haven’t been paying attention have you? Well, I didn’t expect much.

        3. Right, the socialist way of dealing with Muslims is so much more civilized

          1. Shit, the Muslim (Ottoman) way of dealing with Muslim fanatics (Wahhabis) was to behead them.

            1. Them and the Safavids weren’t exactly part of the hug-in I hear was in style for the Religion of Peace under the Ottomans.

              OTOH, you gotta love it when your dynastic Caliphs have the chutzpah to calling themselves guardians of the Hajj and first among the faithful without so much as taking a single pilgrimage to Mecca in the entire history of the Ottomans.

        4. Does libertarian mean to you that we should just respond to every Mooslem fanatic jackass by closing the border and imposing religious tests?

          No, we should respond to it by repealing the 2nd amendment and sending troops door to door to confiscate existing firearms.

          1. That’s his solution to everything.

            1. That’s step 1 of his solution to everything. Step 2 is starving everyone. Or maybe he’ll get creative and do away with toilet paper first.

  24. Rand, if you’d stop trying to actually do stuff, you know, like introducing legislation and fighting for American’s rights on things no one else will touch, and just say crazy shit that you have no intention of acting on, you might be president soon. I hear it’s a very effective strategy.

    1. A lot of people say they have a winning strategy for putting a candidate into office but oddly enough none of them seem to be employed as campaign managers.

      1. They should hire Trump.

        1. They would get tired of winning

    1. Honey Boo Boo and the Trailer Park Boys ain’t got shit on them thar youngins.

  25. This morning when I arrived at the office of one of my clients, I was listening to a group of people, who I am sure never see any news that is outside of the left leaning MSM, and they were talking about the shooting yesterday by the Muslim terrorists. And they were all like ‘and no one even knows why they did it, it’s a mystery!’. And I’m thinking, shut up you fucking brain dead idiots.

    1. Let’s not jump to conclusions, but they were definitely tea party psychos.

  26. Hey guys, I propose a Hit & Run Team Building Exercise.

    You know, so we can find common ground again. Libertarianism is becoming way too diverse.

    1. So maybe a nice Thick v. Thin discussion is in order?

      1. Talking about women in a positive way is something I can get behind. Right. Behind.

        1. First we should empty all ACs meds into a hat and each randomly take one. See what happens.

          1. Some of us might be too old for a party like that.

    2. Not ’til the ‘deep-dish is pizza’ issue is resolved can we move on.

      1. I propose we sideline deep dish pizza and hammer out the big issues, like who supports and participates in my identity switch to Diane Reynolds?

        1. Is your identity switch, ya know, chop-y?

          1. No, I merely declared it to be so.

        2. I think it’s FABULOUS! /high pitched shrill

        3. This… participation. Tell me more.

        4. Yeah sure whatever.

            1. Who’s the chick to the left of the guy? She’s hhhhuuuuggge!

            2. Bruce went to Earl Shives. That’s fucking classic.

  27. By the way, I like Reason’s scripted fund raising ‘supported by’ banner.

    Supported by: B===========D

    Win.

  28. I vehemently oppose all “Acts” with cutesy fucking acronyms

    1. Great, that would stop legislation cold and you wouldn’t want… oh wait.

  29. Rand Paul is truly not much of a Libertarian, is he ?

  30. I understand every single country being on that list with the exception of North Korea. Are we pretending that a 5th Column of North Korean refugees is a thing that exists outside the narratives of shitty video games? Or is Rand just comfortable with sacrificing folks like Yeon-Mi Park on the altar of “avoiding uncomfortable truths”?

    1. Hey now Homefront had a halfway decent PvP mode.

    2. We already have issues enough with meth, HM.

    3. I think Rand is being politically correct and making look like he’s not just targeting Muslims.

      1. I also think I should have read your post better, because you basically stated this.

          1. Why did I watch that whole thing?

  31. OT: Ulster County Sheriff: All Licensed Handgun Owners Should Carry Them

    Ulster is the county next to mine. I am going to start shaving, just in case.

    1. you tarded up the lank

      1. I will tard your face up!

        Proper link here.

        1. I sense a great disturbance in the gun-control narrative in Ulster.

          /spits on and rubs cloudy crystal ball.

        2. My experience w/ Ulster county is climbing & mountain biking @ new paltz a lot, hang-gliding in Ellenville twice

          IOW, mostly going to small-hippy-towns and doing outdoorsy stuff.

          Somehow i don’t see people in Woodstock, etc, suddenly packing heat all the time.

          I’ve also heard poughkeepsie has gotten pretty thug. and that one should not pick their toes there.

          1. No one will be carrying in New Paltz (or any of the other many hippie towns). Ellenville is a complete dump, and Poughkeepsie is in a different county (and it is not that bad, but it is also not that good).

            I assume the vst majority of people who have carry permits in the county are correction officers, retired correction officers, and the hunting and gun club people, who I assume were carrying anyway.

            I just thought it was pretty cool that he came out and said that.

            1. Indeed.

              I like to think most people are basically reasonable and decent once you scrub all the TEAM B.S. away, and that while there’ll certainly be people who moan, a la = “”I think law enforcement is there and paid by us to look after us, and shouldn’t need help from the citizenry to do that,” one man said.” …. most people probably quietly feel like he’s saying the right thing..

              1. Most of New York is still Kennedy Democrat/pro-union and in favor of the Second Amendment, so it makes sense.

    2. Just so we’re clear. Shave your face, right?

  32. I’m having an online shouting match with some law-and-order drug warrior type who doesn’t understand that you can’t have an actual crime unless you have a victim. Naturally, he’s having none of it. I’m thinking I’d rather have been in that conference room in San Bernardino yesterday than to have to listen to that sort of drivel.

    (Sorry, I had to vent)

    1. Yeah, your wasting your time with them. They don’t want to “get” it

    2. What is its favorite ‘victimless’ crime?

      Or do they invent victims out of the willing? (in the case of say, drug use… and how it hurts, “families”; which is no doubt true, but still)

    3. The first rule of ‘tard fighting club is you have to throw in some comments by the ‘tard. In fact it’s the only rule.

    4. RULES ARE RULES.

      1. I’ve always found that one hilarious – and always felt a little guilty about that.

        1. I know what you mean. Still, it’s making fun of the pretensions of jerkwad intertubez “winnars” rather than singling out the mentally challenges, so it gets a bare pass with me.

      2. That’s not nice. My sister was a ‘tard. Now she’s a pilot.

  33. a mere handful of individuals who have come to the US as refugees or asylum seekers have had any involvement with terror plots.

    Yes, why complain about a few dozen murders for a policy that doesn’t help the country at all?

    Asshole

    1. I assume you’re referring to the Garbage video on the right hand side, in which case approved.

    2. I loosely dated a girl that looked sorta like her.

      1. /stoic stare.

      2. I know what I’m hiding for my granddaughter this Easter.

  34. Some company for Paul

    Leading senators on Thursday evening demanded in a letter that the Obama administration release the immigration records of the two suspected shooters who killed at least 14 people in San Bernardino, California, this week.

    Sens. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) claimed the Obama administration has failed to comply with a request for immigration records of 72 recent terrorists found to be in the United States.

    The attacks this week, they said, highlight the need for greater oversight on those entering the country.

    1. I wonder whether Sally Kohn wears Depends or simply lives with the humiliation of her frequent pants-shitting episodes.

    2. It’s almost not fair. It’s like he’s winning the 100 at the Special Olympics.

  35. Only a handful of people have ever flown airliners into skyscrapers, so ….

  36. On a topical note I liked Rand Paul a lot more before he started to run for president.

    1. In general he’s moving closer close to the Republican mainstream, but then, from my point of view, he tends to do this in areas where I am in sympathy with the Republican mainstream. With some exceptions – I wish he’d simply hand off most drug policy to the states, for example, rather than focusing just on federal drug sentencing (important as that issue is).

  37. He can have my refugees when he pries them from my cold, dead….oh wait no…go ahead.

  38. There doesn’t seem to be a clear pattern on the ethnicity of mass shooters. That whites are more likely are more likely than blacks to go a rampage is a myth. It’s one of those few crime stats where whites and blacks are a close match. The kooks are almost alway men though.

    It might be worth pointing that there are no Thai women who go berserk. Perhaps our immigration policy should be adjusted with that in mind.

    1. The only pattern is with the media.

      http://humanevents.com/2015/11…..an-values/

      1. I managed to get the wife to remove the straight razor from on top the bedroom vanity after 4 or 5 years.

        1. That words one always wants to hear from one’s wife, “OK, I won’t cut off your dick.”

          1. *Those* words

          2. If I had known, I would have insisted that it be included in our vows.

            1. Vows were meant to be broken. It’s like you’re new to this.

      2. You mean unlicensed gender confirmation surgeries?

        1. nice:)

      3. Still better than divorce court.

    2. there are no Thai women who go berserk

      I have 5 years of residency and 10 years of marriage to a national to disprove that theory.

      1. My wife is Asian too. That she doesn’t sport a 5 o’clock shadow squelches my objectivity.

        1. I’ve mentioned on here before that it seems to be a cultural trait for SE Asian women to go absolutely bat-shit insane blood fury berserk when victims of infidelity.

          1. Is it because they’re bat-shit insane loyal to their men?

          2. My Chinese colleague told me he’d find me a wife when we went to china. He was adamant that she wouldn’t be from the south. Is this why?

    1. So if they do business with sex “traffickers” then they shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns?

      http://dailycaller.com/2015/12…..-scandals/

      1. “Are you serious?”

        1. I’m being facetious. They’re so anxious to take away our personal protection.

          1. I’m “being” Nancy Pelosi.

            And no one is going to take away your condoms!

      2. Sex in traffic is really dangerous. Unless there is a designated driver. Like say a chauffeur.

    2. “White House officials and their allies continue to see expanding background checks as the most promising way to prevent at least some gun deaths only potentially-possible action they could push through that would at the very least signal to their batshit crazy anti-gun constituents that they “did something” no matter how ultimately useless… “

      *mild edit

  39. Did anyone else happen to watch the San B. po-po/FBI/Gov press conference a few minutes ago? Zero information, no details, all about the “trauma” to the cops who arrived on-scene.

    When a public event can be covered-up and information shut-down this quickly…

    1. I guess given the situation, it’s a slow news night.

      Nobody showed up anywhere and killed 35 people.

    2. I really think there is major pressure to slow-pedal the investigation and try and downplay the “domestic terrorism” angle as long as possible to try and soften the public perception of the event…

      …because lefties are shitstonkingly terrified that if people really believe that its “terrorism” that they’re completely fucked in any future election.

      So much so that there is intense pressure to “change reality”. Like a freaking black hole bending time.

      There was something similar around the Bo Berghdal event i recall. Where the media was so insistent that Obama not “look bad” that they basically refuse to ask certain questions… and didn’t just play down testimony by Bo’s platoon-maters… they would actually intentionally mis-quote them in stories, or mis-identify them as “critics” instead of fellow-soldiers. It was fucking nuts.

      Similarly, it almost seems like they “don’t want to know” much about what exactly those explosives were going to be used for.

      Of course, its all going to come out…. eventually. Its just that as much as they possibly can, they want to slow it down and dribble things out with a heavy dose of narrative to go with it.

      1. *note = i was accused earlier today for being “Conspiratorial” re: my view of the way the media is handling this thing.

        I guess that might be right in a very broad, general sense…. but i’ve never really considered the idea of ‘institutional media bias’ to be on par with 9/11-trutherism before.

        1. If you haven’t read Sharyl Attkisson’s book “Stonewalled”, I think you’ll find it, um, amusing.

      2. “Islamic terrorism”

        FTFY

    3. Well, what do you expect? Most police press conferences are 90% them congratulating themselves (and other agencies).

    4. They should probably keep that lieutenant away from the camera. He came across as ummm…… Not very smart.

    5. Oh, and apparently Governor Moonbeam managed to get his ugly mug on camera.

      1. “Oh, and apparently Governor Moonbeam managed to get his ugly mug on camera.”

        Prolly 2 fallls out of 3 to beat Newsome.

    6. I find it peculiar that the media (in general) spends so much time and effort being “first” and speculating during the event, but they spend so little time following up.

  40. Boy, GB’s season is taking a turn for the worse. Detroit is heading in the other direction.

    1. Those, “can GB go undefeated discussions” look terrible now. It seems part of their problem is they can’t protect Rodgers.

      1. I’m hearing rumors that Chelsea and Man United may be interested in Allegri.

        1. Guardian story with Allegri denying reports.

          1. Of course he would but there’s a trend among Italian coaches wanting to go to England so it wouldn’t surprise me.

            I thought van Gaal was supposed to be there for the long-haul to rebuild Man U.

            1. van Gaal signed a three year contract and he is half-way through. There seems to be a lot of thinking that he will leave after 3 – vG himself as pretty much said he will retire.

              Express story discussing LvG as well as possibility that MU will go after Carlo Ancelotti.

              1. He makes more sense since A) he turned down Inter and B) expressed wanting to return to England.

                1. I think it was Inter or Milan – I forget.

        2. Did someone say ‘Chelsea ‘?

        3. Studies show that the phrase “Manchester United” appears in news stories an average of five words away from the word “riots.”

          Source: A warm, dark place.

  41. Maybe we should be talking about exporting some folks instead of importing. Or a trade.

    http://www.realclearscience.co…..09475.html

    1. It’s not just killings but the culture facilitating them. The sort of permissive mentality that encourages brutalizing suspects, unnecessary confrontations and pointless hostility, picayune code enforcement, and generally fucking with citizens for profit or jollies is the issue. Lawlessness is the issue. Killings are just the most flagrant abuse from highly abusive people.

    2. I think i heard that Syed F. was a US Citizen.

  42. Obama just dropped a “thoughts and prayers”.

    Didn’t he get the smug talking points?

    1. Why aren’t they releasing the names of the victims? Or did they and I missed it?

      1. They did. They have an entire hour on it on the local news.

        1. Not all, the names have been released, though. There’s a couple where they haven’t made the notifications yet.

          1. https://local.nixle.com/alert/5541309/

            Damn. Young for the most part.

            RIP.

    2. You see, he’s not *just* praying, he’s *doing* stuff, like speaking very sternly and saying Something Must Be Done.

      Totally different from those do-nothing Republicans.

      1. Oh, and he’s working hard with the Democrats to retake Congress.

        If *that’s* not doing something useful, I don’t know what is!

        /sarc

        1. Oh, and keeping the White House.

    3. Pl?ya Manhattan.|12.3.15 @ 9:37PM|#
      “Obama just dropped a “thoughts and prayers”.”

      The News will be on his ass tomorrow.

  43. ExIm Bank returns from the dead via transportation bill.

    The Senate passed the biggest transportation infrastructure bill in a decade Thursday, sending to the White House a $305 billion five-year package that keeps federal money flowing to highway, transit and rail projects ? and reopens the controversial Export-Import Bank.

    1. “Come on man, just another subsidy, just this once…”

  44. He’s against Open Borders! He’s The Devil!

  45. NY Daily News stays classy.

    1. They’re a bunch of deranged assholes.

      What a sad anti-intellectual bunch.

    2. They left out Timothy McVeigh.

  46. From NPR comments:

    Avatar
    ProfessorAlPicante ? 2 hours ago

    The good people of this nation mourn the loss of our brothers and sisters; the NRA counts their money.
    The rational call for common sense regulation; the NRA counts their money.
    Every time a mass shooting occurs, the NRA tells their followers that “this time” Obama is coming for all their guns.
    The NRA says any regulation on semi-automatic weapons means more shootings like this will happen, and their members actually believe them.

    And the NRA counts their money.
    Meanwhile, American lives are lost by the bullet; the NRA counts their money.

    How much money is enough?
    How many American lives is the NRA and their followers willing to sacrifice?
    As many as it takes to make more money.
    Americans bury their loved ones
    And the NRA counts their money.
    Americans bury their loved ones.
    And the NRA counts their money.

    JESUS. CHRIST. These people are sickening as they are retarded.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/th…..o-shooting

    1. Maybe clue them in that the NRA isn’t an actual gun manufacturer?

      1. The NRA is a stooge and a face-man for American Gun Manufacturing.

        Perhaps it didn’t start this way. But it definitely looks so now.

        I’m neither an NRA nor a Gun Control Fan.

        I think America has lost this one. We just can only st here and watch.

        1. The NRA is mostly member-funded and does what any industry trade-association / consumer rights advocate does. Their specific advocacy varies between protecting the industry and protecting their consumers but in the end its the same basic thing = defending members.

          They have no self-interests that aren’t their member’s interests. (*tho there is some debate from purists about whether compromising on the NFA and other laws were ever in their interests or not)

          Hating/demonizing the NRA is stupid and small-minded.

          1. I wouldn’t donate to a group that wasn’t dedicated solely to advocating its members/stated interests.

            1. Sure – but the continued health/existence and prosperity of an industry is certainly in the interests of its consumers. You have to remember that NRA is an umbrella combo-org that pretends to be both a consumer & industry association. there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that by default, but there are potential conflicts of interests that can occur.

              I’m not even 100% straight on how it all works…but i think many people may not even be dues-paying members of NRA…. but DO donate to NRA-ILA & the NRA Civil Rights Defense fund which is the ‘legal action’ arms that is primarily focused on protecting gun owners from shitty regulation. meaning, as a member, you have the flexibility to support the parts you want, and not the parts you don’t.

              1. People get confused about this, mostly because of deliberate misinformation from gun-control advocates.

                The NRA is not an industry or trade group. At all. The NRA is an organization that promotes recreational shooting and firearms-related education. It was founded after some Union generals became aware of how crappy the marksmanship training in the military was.

                A separate division of the NRA, the Institute for Legislative Action, is the lobbying arm. The NRA itself is prohibited from doing direct lobbying for tax reasons.

                The industry association for firearms manufacturers (among others) in the US is the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

          2. The NRA is up there with heroin dealers, cigarette manufacturers, hitmen, and people that make land mines.

            There’s a moral hazard in being the profiteer of other people’s misery with making any good faith in helping a fellow out.

            1. without making any good faith in helping a fellow out.

            2. This is stupid and absurd and hardly worth rebutting.

              Simple question = do you think tobacco should be legal and people free to purchase and consume it?

              1. What’s the matter, G? You don’t like his his poo flinging? I find it amusing.

                1. We need men with large guns to go out and stop men who make land mines. I like this troll.

                2. ah, nothing. i’ve had tiffs with like 4 people today. I blame sugarfree.

        2. You don’t have a single fucking clue what you’re talking about.

  47. Oh, no….no more NPR. Mos Eisley ain’t got nothin’ on NPR commenters.

    And, Avatar can go fuck himself. The one thing he’s not (especially in his screed) is rational.

    1. Or, AlPicante, or whatever his name.

      /pissed off

  48. I guess he got the memo from the Republican base, that they’d rather vote for an insane fascist clown than someone who would even consider liberalizing immigration law.

    1. “Yeah, the Insane Fascist Clowns are my favorite band – I don’t care how much it freaks out the squares!”

  49. The Tasmanian Anti Discrimination Commission has ordered the Catholic Church and the local Archbishop to answer charges that they committed discrimination by circulating a book called *Don’t Mess With Marriage* in Catholic schools.

    The complainant says: “The church is entitled, as we all are, to freedom of speech but there’s an inherent responsibility with that, that you cannot do it in a manner which is offensive and insulting and humiliating.”

    The [Tasmanian?] Senate rejected a resolution which would have defended the right to publish this book.

    A bigwig in the group Australian Marriage Equality, is mad:

    “Defenders of the booklet seem to be saying that church leaders should be free to voice whatever opinion they want but no one else has the right to be offended by those opinions, as if we live in a theocracy….

    “the libertarian movement has criticised the complaint to highlight its case against all hate speech laws….

    “Over the last decade Martine Delaney has taken several hate-speech complaints about statements demeaning same-sex relationships, same-sex marriages and transgender people. Most of them have been conciliated to the satisfaction of both parties…”

    1. And here is how that editorial opens:

      “The Tasmanian anti-discrimination case regarding the Catholic church’s Don’t Mess with Marriage booklet explodes one of the main arguments against marriage equality.

      “It proves marriage equality does not threaten freedom of religion and expression. It also shows why a plebiscite is a bad idea.”

      That’s a relief, I thought these same-sex marriage people were on a rampage against religious liberty.

      1. I had to look up ‘plebiscite’ in the dictionary. That should be evidence enough that they are correct.

        For those of you didn’t score well on your SAT either it means “the direct vote of all the members of an electorate on an important public question such as a change in the constitution.”

        1. I need not have included that part of the quote.

  50. He’s way off in the weeds on this one. I’m all for careful scrutiny of asylum applicants, but stopping all refugees from the countries from which people most need to escape is stupid and churlish.

    -jcr

    1. I think it’s a delay more than a stop.

      1. I mean, for those who get cleared.

    2. Agreed John C. Randolph.

  51. The European Central Bank shocked markets Thursday, delivering an easing package that paled in comparison to market expectations.

    The dollar index sank as the euro abruptly sprinted higher after ECB President Mario Draghi announced an increase in the type of bonds the ECB would buy, but not an anticipated increase in the 60 billion euro bond purchases. The ECB also announced a negative 0.30 deposit rate, when some analysts expected a minus 0.40 percent rate. The easing package comes as the Fed gets set to take an opposite tact and tighten policy with a first rate hike later this month.

    Yellen to raise rates while everyone is lowering.

  52. AND THE LIONS LIONSED IT!!! GREEN BAY WINS ON THE LAST PLAY!

    #MyLions

    1. But holy shit what a play!

    2. You act like you’re surprised.

      1. Well – the did lose to the Bears after 4 tries 8 yards from the goal line.

  53. Exhibit #342,806 proving Rand Paul is no Libertarian.

    1. That might be why he’s running as a (R)epublican…

    2. Fuck Libertarians. A statist is a statist.

      #BTFSTTG

      1. By Their Fruits Shall They…[something]

    3. The 2016 Libertarian line up includes a fellow named Derrick Michael Reid who seems to be wearing a Batman fedora.

      http://2016.libertarian-party.org/

      1. He looks like a typical libertarian to me – that is to say, eccentric enough to make Howard Hughes look like Caspar Milquetoast.

  54. IMO the “SECURE Act” is a bad idea. I have no problem with letting refugees into the U.S, and I have no problem with people from the Middle East immigrating to the U.S. I do have an issue with importing them en masse, and putting them up in economic welfare ghetto’s for 2 or more years like Europe does. Also disarming the general population is an incentive for more terrorism. Then only reason that the shooting in SB happened is because those two murderers were really bad bomb makers. Facing a room full of armed individuals might have changed their minds about shooting the place up.

  55. RIP Scott Weiland. 🙁 I know he did enough heroin to kill a small village, but still… STP was just awesome. I wore out a cassette tape of “Purple” driving around in High School and my freshman year of college.

  56. So is Rand proving he’s not an isolationist by trying to do isolationist things like limit immigration? I’m not commenting one way or the other if his bill is a good idea, but it seems a bit ironic.

  57. YET ANOTHER REASON.COM COMMENTS PAGE DOMINATED BY LYING, PHONY CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS TRYING TO HIDE BEHIND THE “LIBERTARIAN” LABEL. WHERE ARE THE GENUINE LIBERTARIANS OUT THERE? MAYBE IT’S JUST A CASE OF THERE BEING SO FEW OF THEM.

    1. It seems that the world does not pan out or self-organize according to your wishes. What a shame. Worse still is that it does not silence those with whom you disagree. Additionally, the world does not segregate the “phony” libertarians from the “genuine” ones as you expect. What a catastrophe.

      Free speech is a big disappointment for you, I’m afraid. I mean, all of these phonies saying and writing things that you disagree with must be a terrible letdown. Furthermore, the lack of genuine libertarians must be a major disruption in your time-space continuum. How awful it is for your Reason experience. But don’t dispair, I have a solution for you, Vigina Lover.

      Go somewhere else.

      1. You dumb ASSHOLE! YOUR intolerance of MY freedom of speech here merely proves the point that you conservative Republicans (you’re certainly not libertarians) are just as “politically incorrect” as you claim liberals are. Ain’t (sic) that a kick in the head? “Go somewhere else,” you say? Sounds just like those liberals with their “codes of speech” you constantly whine about. Drop dead, prick!

      2. By the way, DUMMY, in your addled conservative mind, are there “genuine” and “phony” liberals?

      3. I can just as well claim that I’M a “libertarian” because I support that ideology when it comes to war, immigration and the “social issues.” Hey, you and I are both libertarians then. Imagine that.

    2. You know who else loved vagina?…

      1. Are you referring to David Vitter?

    3. WHERE ARE THE GENUINE LIBERTARIANS OUT THERE?

      We’re usually called “anarcho-capitalists”. It’s like turning NAP up to 11.

  58. The police found a dozen pipe bombs (having a job didn’t stop him from being a terrorist, imagine that) at Farrok’s house and the garage was a small bomb making facility. This was almost certainly NOT a random mass shooting. It was terrorism. The usual suspects are refusing to make the distinction to push their gun control agenda and ignore the threat of radical Islam.

    The left has no qualms about allowing millions of unverified individuals to own and drive cars, attend school, receive housing support, get jobs, etc. Zero objections, and any concerns are brushed aside as xenophobic. But they piss in their pants about gun laws, which aren’t lax. If the refugees aren’t here, we don’t have to worry about a handful of them getting guns or becoming radical. That’s gun control logic.

    Paris + Mali + SB = almost 180 fatalities. Three acts of terror took more lives than 5 of our most recent mass shootings, and all in places with strict gun controls. Farook was living the American dream and then executed coworkers who threw him a baby shower. All it takes is a few. And the guy was building BOMBS, he could have killed dozens without any guns. The left is covering for radical Islam with their gun control fetish. It’s that simple.

    1. Common sense bomb control is required.

  59. Politicians respond to the mood of the electorate. If they want to get elected.

  60. Shipping in refugees is as libertarian as handing out welfare checks.

    1. Government hating refugees are automatically disqualified. Dang.

  61. Just get it over with and ban French intellectuals from the US. They are all anti American and anti liberty, regardless of religion 🙂

  62. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

  63. So much for Rand. He was never a libertarian. It turns out the apple can fall far from the tree when it is spirited away by fascists.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.