Reason Roundup

Civility, Culture War, and Cake Gives Way to Libertarian Squabbling: Reason Roundup

Plus: The FDA approves a cannabidiol-based drug and The Intercept explores the NSA's secret spy hubs.

|

Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

Gary Johnson, democracy criticized in wake of RedHenGate. We're entering day three of this week's debate over Donald Trump, civility, and free association. Already, plenty of us at Reason have weighed in, and there's not much meat left to dissect with regard to the particulars of White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders being asked to leave the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. However, the incident has spawned some interesting kerfluffles that are worth highlighting before we (hopefully) all move on soon.

Hanging over this latest culture-war spectacle is the recent Masterpiece Cakeshop case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a baker who refused to decorate a wedding cake for a same-sex celebration.

During the 2016 election, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson came under some fire for refusing to unequivocally denounce those who would force bakers to comply with creating cakes they're ethically opposed to (after candidate Austin Peterson proposed a hypothetical Jewish baker who refused to decorate a Nazi cake). And libertarian-leaning Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) isn't ready to let it go.

Massie's Monday tweet garnered a lot of libertarian love—but also some pushback from fellow travelers:

Quite a few commenters suggested that Massie's support for Donald Trump disqualified his disses of Johnson from serious consideration, while others metaphorically rolled their eyes over Massie's all-or-nothing approach to the Libertarian ticket.

Johnson may have been far from a perfect Libertarian candidate, but let's not forget who he was up against in the LP:

Outside of libertarian world, the debate has turned to whether this whole incident represents a crisis of civility or democracy (almost everyone is sure that it represents a crisis of something).

Michelle Goldberg at The New York Times and many other prominent media figures have started suggesting that Sanders getting the boot from a dining establishment showcases how dystopian our nation has become, how uniquely precarious our republic's position. Thankfully, some folks with less hysterical historical ignorance have also entered the debate:

FREE MINDS

The NSA's secret spy hubs. The Intercept "has identified an AT&T facility containing networking equipment that transports large quantities of internet traffic across the United States and the world" in each of eight major American cities. Tucked away in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C., these facilities "are central to an NSA spying initiative that has for years monitored billions of emails, phone calls, and online chats passing across U.S. territory."

"The NSA considers AT&T to be one of its most trusted partners," The Intercept reports. Their collaboration has lasted for decades. And yet…

Little known, however, is that its scope is not restricted to AT&T's customers. According to the NSA's documents, it values AT&T not only because it "has access to information that transits the nation," but also because it maintains unique relationships with other phone and internet providers. The NSA exploits these relationships for surveillance purposes, commandeering AT&T's massive infrastructure and using it as a platform to covertly tap into communications processed by other companies.

Read the whole thing here.

FREE MARKETS

Cannabis-based epilepsy drug gets approval. On Monday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Epidiolex, a prescription drug made with cannabidiol (CBD) that can be used to treat severe epilepsy. Derived from cannabis, it helps squelch epileptic seizures without the psychoactive effects of smoking marijuana (which come courtesy of the plant's THC, not CBD).

"The difficult-to-control seizures that patients with Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome experience have a profound impact on these patients' quality of life," said Billy Dunn, deputy director of the FDA's center for drug evaluation and research, in a statement.

In addition to another important treatment option for Lennox-Gastaut patients, this first-ever approval of a drug specifically for Dravet patients will provide a significant and needed improvement in the therapeutic approach to caring for people with this condition.

But FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb stressed that folks shouldn't get their hopes too high about this step, saying it was important "to note that this is not an approval of marijuana or all of its components. This is the approval of one specific CBD medication for a specific use."

QUICK HITS

  • Republican or conservative: "You have to choose," writes New York Times columnist David Brooks.
  • The Supreme Court sided with American Express in a case that saw the credit card company sued by the federal government and several states.
  • Is this the most 2018 story of the day?
  • The case for expanding telemedicine by removing government barriers.
  • "Orlando has stopped testing Amazon's facial recognition program after rights groups raised concerns that the service could be used in ways that could violate civil liberties," reports Reuters.
  • In Illinois, "the Libertarian Party filed a slate of statewide candidates on Monday," reports NPR. These included gubernatorial candidate Kash Jackson, "a retired Navy veteran [who] wants to legalize recreational marijuana," along with lieutenant governor candidate Sanj Mohip, comptroller candidate Claire Ball, and attorney general candidate Bubba Harsy.
  • Voters in Colorado, Maryland, New York, Oklahoma, and Utah go to the polls today.
  • Seaweed will save us?

NEXT: Police Investigate 20 Kids for Sexting, Charge No One (Thankfully)

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. Seaweed will save us?

    Kinda makes the whole ocean a bong if you think about it, man.

    1. Fist, you’re logged in as one of your socks again.

      1. Is this some kind of Garfield / Jon Arbuckle joke? If so, well done.

      2. I thought you were one of my socks.

    2. Hello.

      Didn’t read Brooks but lemme guess….false dichotomy?

      1. No, classical liberal vs classical collectivist.
        His view appears to be that classical collectivism trumps classical liberalism.

        1. Perhaps more accurately, ‘classical tribalist’ rather than ‘classical collectivist.’

        2. Ah.

      2. Lemme guess, illiterate?

        1. Oh look.

          A bully.

          /flicks her ears.

        2. Are you a fan of David Brooks, Cathy? Or, like the rest of us, do you just know him from his “Brooks and Shields” debates on PBS Newshour?

          1. Personally, I think the Newshour really lost something when Jim Lahrer retired, but that’s just me, maybe. No offense to Judy Woodruff. And obviously, Gwen Ifel was good and her passing is tragic.

            Also, I don’t understand how Brooks and Shields “debate” when they pretty much reach the same conclusion every time

            1. They like both types of music, Country AND Western!

          2. No, David Brooks sucks. So do shitposters like Rufus.

            1. I’m rather proud of my shitposting since 2010!

      3. When was Brooks conservative?

        He jizzed over Obama’s pressing of his pants.

    3. Aquaman’s not here, man.

  2. Republican or conservative: “You have to choose,” writes New York Times columnist David Brooks.

    Which one is anti-Brooks?

  3. Is a Walker tweet the only way we can get his written work on here these days?

    *do not fact check this sick burn

    1. Politifact rates it true. You’re in the clear.

  4. there’s not much meat left to dissect with regard to the particulars of White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders being asked to leave the Red Hen

    Sheesh, Elizabeth — think of the vegans and anti-vivisectionists, would you?

  5. Voters in Colorado, Maryland, New York, Oklahoma, and Utah go to the polls today.

    Not the ones who participated in “Early Voting”. Well, maybe a *few* of them.

  6. John McAfee is a freaking nutbag..

    1. Not one can deny the possibility that he’s a whale fucker.

    2. You shut your filthy whore mouth

    3. No one can accuse McAfee of not truly living.

      1. McAfee is The Most Interesting Man On Earth, if those Dos Equis commercials were rated a hard R.

    1. Hey, it’s cool, Johnny. Just get an angry mob to follow *xi* around.

    2. I don’t believe in such registries. So, I don’t see why this matters.

      1. You have to admit though, it’s not surprising.

        Tavares resigning with the Islanders would be less surprising that’s how unsurprising that is.

        1. Hard leftists always turn out to be some kind of weirdo.

      2. “I don’t believe in such registries.”

        You may not believe in them, but they exist.

      3. Registries are unconstitutional but that does not change the fact that the owners or the Red Hen are having their virtue signalling backfiring on them.

    3. Doxxing’s cool now, I see.

      1. Yep. One set of rules for everyone.

      2. Dunno, since that isn’t doxing.

        One x.

      3. Doxxing’s cool now, I see.

    4. So the silent partner of the Red Hen is a registered sex offender.

      Mutes who love chickens hardest hit.

      1. Which came first: the chicken or the sex offender?

        1. If a chicken gets fucked in the woods, and nobody hears it cluck,… I’m not sure how to finish this.

          1. I’m not sure how to finish this.

            SIV could offer some tips.

  7. FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb stressed that folks shouldn’t get their hopes too high

    I’ll bet Scott didn’t use those words.

  8. Already, plenty of us at Reason have weighed in, and there’s not much meat left to dissect with regard to the particulars of White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders being asked to leave the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia.

    Ever notice that the likes of Tony and PB harass women in Trump’s admin, but never this guy:

    Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis: 7 memorable quotes
    “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you f*** with me, I’ll kill you all.”
    Mattis reportedly said this to Iraqi tribal leaders.

    1. The best confrontation of Trump’s administration so far was contributed by a 21-year-old woman who told Trump “fuck you” to his face (or as close as she could get to the face of a flabby old dude surrounded by a security posse that protects him from 21-year-old women).

      1. Remember when a congressional staffer was fired for critiquing the Obama daughters for their choice in fashion? Good times. Both sides, guys

      2. That’s a pretty pathetic “confrontation”

  9. John McAfee always on point. I love that man

    1. He’s truly the party’s dark reflection.

      1. It’s not dark. It’s radical and flippant. He’s right on almost all the policy. He just refuses to play the game.

        1. I completely agree with you, brother.

      2. That’s more of a burn on the LP than it is on McAfee, BUCS.

        1. And indirectly on BUCS, as he runs the party

          1. Real Talk: i don’t know how this BUCS = Nick Sarwark meme came about, but it amuses me, so keep it up.

            1. It came up because one time BUCS let it slip he is really Sarwark.

  10. Broward Sheriff
    Our new #dodge #charger. Do you like the paint job?

    1. Needs more gold trim and curb feelers.

      1. And a turbo, for those times when you really need to run and hide.

  11. A post that has John literally talking about fucking whales. Certainly this is the most Reason I’d post of the season.

    1. And McAfee still made more sense than 99% of the people on Twitter.

      1. Politifact rates that pants on fire: more like 98%.

  12. Massie is clearly not popular with the Koch crowd. I’m still amazed how Stossel is able to be well liked by everyone while pissing on everyone. It’s got to be the mustache

  13. So my daughter is getting her new driver’s license today and she has decided to register to vote at the same time. She asked me a bit about each of the available parties and after giving her a quick rundown she chose Libertarian. So you all see, I don’t try to discourage my kids from making dumb decisions.

    1. Did you go on to lecture her about how “motor voter” is an abomination?

      1. I don’t lecture her on anything. I give her some details and then my opinion and let her make up her own mind. Like any good parent should do.

        1. Please pretend we are all your daughter.

          1. I don’t think he just says “idiot” to his daughter

          2. Ewww, gross.

        2. How can you be a misanthrope, husband, and father?

          1. It’s a wonder to behold, to be sure.

  14. Proof that living in CA is not a guarantee of insanity:

    “Judge throws out SF and Oakland climate suits against big oil”
    […]
    “The lawsuits argue that like tobacco companies, the oil firms create a public nuisance and should be held accountable. San Francisco alone estimates that rising seas at the hands of climate change has put $10 billion of public property and as much as $39 billion of private land at risk.
    But Alsup, who works in the court’s Northern District of California, opined that the world has undoubtedly benefited from fossil fuels, from the industrial revolution to today’s modern conveniences. The bench, he determined, was not in a position to weigh the industry’s positives against the negative.
    “Having reaped the benefit of that historic progress, would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded?” he wrote. “Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?””
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/
    Judge-throws-out-SF-and-Oakland-climate-
    change-13025637.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result

    1. The entire city of San Fransisco is invested with bums who shit all over the place and leave their used needles on the ground, but it is the oil companies who are the public nuisance.

      1. Don’t forget piss. Those bums piss on everything.

      2. Invested or infested?

        1. Infested. But considering their policy towards bums, invested works as well.

    2. “The lawsuits argue that like tobacco companies, the oil firms create a public nuisance and should be held accountable.”

      We should mention that Al Gore is behind this. He’s using the same tactics he used when he led the charge against the tobacco industry that ultimately drove them to accept a takeover by the government in exchange for immunity from lawsuits that would have bankrupted them. This is the means by which Al Gore wants the government to takeover the oil industry.

      But don’t take my word for it. Listen to Al Gore:

      “What these attorneys general are doing is extremely important. These brave members of this coalition are doing their job like they did in the tobacco case,” said Vice President Gore, comparing fossil fuel companies to the tobacco companies of the 1990s that fell under intense scrutiny over misstatements about cancer and heart disease risks associated with cigarette smoking.”

      —-The Climate Reality Project

      http://www.climaterealityproje…..-coalition

      He’s bragging about it!

    3. The Climate Reality Project is made from the merger of two organizations that were both founded by Al Gore. It was the The Climate Reality Project that launched “AGs United for Clean Power Coalition”, which is coordinating all these various lawsuits by municipalities and states. Again, its intent is for the government to take over the oil industry by bankrupting them with various class action lawsuits–the one going after them for supposedly defrauding their investors by not telling them about the true risks of climate change was also their baby.

      I’d love to see Jesse Walker tackle this topic, but there seems to be a trend among conspiracy theorist types. It’s sort of like Dale on King of the Hill, where he sees the Illuminati’s hand in everything, but doesn’t seem to realize that his wife is cheating on him, and he isn’t really the father of his biracial son. People argue about the science all day long, when that isn’t the real issue. Regardless of whether the science is true, we don’t want the government nationalizing the oil industry (like fucking Hugo Chavez) to force us to stop using oil like the tried to force us to stop smoking cigarettes. If we want to stop a conspiracy, leave the scientists alone and let’s focus on this!

      1. OT: While Dale isn’t Joseph’s biological father, he is a pretty good dad to him, and treats him the way you’d expect a good father to treat his son. In that instance, Dale is really Joseph’s father, and is perhaps a better father than Hank Hill (in part because he has an easier time accepting that his son isn’t him).

        1. Man, that’s a good point and heartwarming

        2. It is off topic.

          I hope the point is getting through.

          I had the same frustration talking to people about Hillary Clinton’s various misdeeds ahead of the 2016 election.

          Everybody kept ranting about her email server. Why won’t the FBI give us the truth about HER EMAIL SERVER?!!!

          Meanwhile, there’s this:

          “In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.”

          —-Mother Jones

          http://www.motherjones.com/pol…..rms-deals/

          No need for a subpoena even! Hillary Clinton reported this stuff herself!

          If she’d done it in secret, I guess everyone would be upset, but because she announced she’d robbed a bank, she gets a free pass?

          That’s the way I feel about climate change. Everybody wants to find the secret conspiracy to trick us into thinking that temperatures are rising. Al Gore publicly announces and implements a strategy to take over the oil industry like he took over the tobacco industry, and no one seems to give a shit.

          1. “If she’d done it in secret, I guess everyone would be upset, but because she announced she’d robbed a bank, she gets a free pass?”

            And to read Tony and turd on the issue, she really didn’t do it, even though she admitted doing it!
            TDS is a real and serious problem, but there’s a similar (if opposite effect) derangement syndrome regarding that slimy hag.

          2. Let’s say that you don’t agree the government should take away freedoms in order to combat climate change.

            Now let’s say that you concede that climate change is happening.

            The terms of the debate immediately shift from “climate change is happening, so you need to give us power” to “give us power to confront a problem that you admit exists.”

            The issue that needs to be proven then isn’t whether or not climate change is a real concern, but whether or not something needs to be done about it. And as I’m sure we all know, the “do something” impulse is powerful and destructive.

            The other part that you’re complaining about is basically refuge in audacity. It’s so unbelievably ballsy that you just sit back and say “yeah okay”. It’s compounded by the fact that you KNOW this is something in character for these people and that they won’t suffer any backlash for it from their base: Hillary was always going to win the Democratic nomination, and what’re you gonna do if you’re a good little liberal, vote Republican? Nah. And Al Gore trying to shut down oil companies, well, the people who support him want to do the same (in theory, although I guarantee they’d hate the results).

            1. Though they would not blame the inevitable results on him either.

            2. The issue that needs to be proven then isn’t whether or not climate change is a real concern, but whether or not something needs to be done about it. And as I’m sure we all know, the “do something” impulse is powerful and destructive.

              Even if you come to the conclusion that something needs to be done, there is still the debate about who needs to do what. I respect Ron Bailey’s position on this issue which appears to be that the free market is best equipped to handle a potential crisis. Solar and wind might be the answer, but government is almost assured to push a specific answer (like solar and wind), while the market would let all possible solutions compete. Do something-ism stifles innovation.

              Oh and Al Gore is only involved because he sees money to be made in government mandating his chosen technologies. This is classic rent-seeking at best.

            3. “The terms of the debate immediately shift from “climate change is happening, so you need to give us power” to “give us power to confront a problem that you admit exists.”

              Don’t ignore the fact that I oppose nationalizing the oil industry–regardless of whether climate change is happening.

              And we’re playing a much more dangerous game if we base our objection to nationalizing the oil industry on the assertion that climate change doesn’t exist–because that means that IF IF IF and when they find persuasive evidence of climate change in the future, the basis of our argument against nationalizing the oil industry will be gone.

          3. “”I guess everyone would be upset, but because she announced she’d robbed a bank, she gets a free pass?””

            The Whitewater land deal was pretty much bank robbery. The Clintons got a pass on that. She doesn’t expect the law to apply to her. This was evident in the way she handled classified information at the State Department. Laws are for little people. Look at the contrast of investigator techniques and conduct between the investigation of her, and Trump. Trump is getting the classic overzealous prosecutor treatment. They went out of their way to not do that to Hillary.

            1. Something that has irked me about the email scandal. People, including many a learned lawyer, kept focusing on whether or not there was any classified material involved. That is totally irrelevant. The law was broken (100’s of thousands of times) if there was State Department materials transmitted and stored outside the State Department system and also if State Department property was retained by Hillary when she resigned her job.

              1. And she got a clean pass on THAT, too!
                Meanwhile, if Mueller found a Trump unpaid parking ticket, CNN among others would be screaming *SMOKING GUN!!!!! IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE!!!*

                1. “”Meanwhile, if Mueller found a Trump unpaid parking ticket,””

                  What I find interesting in all this is how the anti-Trumpers believe that if Trump’s associates are guilty, then so is Trump. But Clinton’s associates going to jail in the Whitewater scandal does not make Hillary guilty.

              2. Agreed.

                I was also agree that having a server built for you to put in your home would cover the question of intent.

            2. “The Whitewater land deal was pretty much bank robbery.”

              At least that was a backroom deal.

              “In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.”

              Foreign governments gave her millions while she was the Secretary of State. That’s unacceptable and without justification.

              And it wasn’t a backroom deal. She reported it by way of Clinton Foundation public filings and it was reported by the State Department itself in public records.

              Out in the open!

              If she’d done it behind closed doors, we’d be talking about nothing else.

              Because she reported it herself in broad daylight, you can’t even get the conspiracy theorists interested.

              1. It’s the same thing with Al Gore. If he were secretly coordinating a conspiracy among progressive attorneys general in numerous states and the mayors of progressive cities to bankrupt the oil industry and initiate a government takeover, I suppose the conspiracy theorists would go wild.

                Instead, he announces that he’s doing exactly that, and no one wants to talk about it! The conspiracy theorists would rather argue over the minutia of the science or attack the integrity of the scientists’ secret motivations. I guess it’s a hallmark of easily distracted and stupid people–they refuse to believe the truth if the truth is laid out in front of them. In order to get them to believe something, you have to lie about it first. They only believe the opposite of lies. They don’t have the intellectual capacity or honesty, themselves, to perceive the truth by itself.

          4. Even worse…all of that money stopped IMMEDIATELY after she lost.

            Does nobody in the media find it odd that they went from MILLIONS of donations to basically none?

  15. Orlando has stopped testing Amazon’s facial recognition program after rights groups raised concerns that the service could be used in ways that could violate civil liberties.

    You mean, like tracking members of “rights groups”?

  16. http://www.washingtontimes.com…..t-social-/

    Army training to focus on actual battlefield skills and not social issues. The horror.

    1. leaders are making optional previously mandatory training on issues such as transgender transition and drug abuse.

      How about making optional previously mandatory payment of taxes dealing with such issues?

  17. McAfee is waaaaayyyyyy out there.

    He’s Beyond Kramer.

    1. McAfee is the greatest thing to happen to American politics since the last budget shutdown

    2. Ok, serious question. How is someone able to get an erection swimming in the ocean next to a whale? I have to be in a “I am not in immediate danger of expiring” mind set to even think about getting hard.

      1. The men who compete are athletes. They train for this moment

        1. If they bang Orcas and humans, you might call this activity a….

          (Dons tinted swimming goggles)

          Biathlon

      2. Did the whale have big tits?

      3. Whales are some of the friendliest creatures on the planet, and most of them are completely non-threatening to humans. They’re basically the dogs of the sea; they’d much rather play with you than try to eat you.

        Orcas are the exception, but even wild orca attacks on humans are pretty rare.

        1. Apparently Simple Mikey’s dream is to have hot hot sex every hour with Dave Weigel while sailing across the seas whale watching.

          It’s a simple dream that would be almost beautiful were Simple Mikey not involved.

          1. Your dream is to one day have cognitive functions higher than a Down’s Syndrome child.

            1. No need to insult Down’s Syndrome kids, Simple Mikey. Even they can see that you’re deranged on certain subjects.

        2. There’s actually only one documented account of a wild orca biting a human, and the guy lived – it apparently thought he was a sea lion and let go as soon as it realized its mistake. Captive orcas have killed a bunch of people, though.

          Sperm whales have been known to ram divers and attack boats, but given the history of human-sperm whale relations, who could blame them.

          1. Not many people go swimming with Orcas in the wild, no surprise there aren’t many attacks.

            Dolphins can get aggressive at times. They are not always the altruistic Flippers.

            Regarding Sperm Whales, I have only one thing to say: JOHN BONHAM… MOBY DICK!!!

            1. Some marine biologist lady was pushed by a whale away from what she later found out was a group of sharks.

              I think whales come in violent, non-violent, and Libertarian versions based on their interactions with humans.

            2. Regarding Sperm Whales, I have only one thing to say: JOHN BONHAM… MOBY DICK!!!

              Don’t discount Jimmy Page’s contributions on the subject. What a classic riff.

              1. True. That is one of his best riffs and is a bit wasted considering it is used only as an intro and outro to the drum solo and was never developed into a full blown rock and roll masterpiece.

                1. Actually, listening to that riff, I would bet 10 dollars that John Paul Jones wrote it. That sounds like a bass riff to me.

                  1. It’s 12 bar blues, which is right up Page’s alley of influence.

                    Interestingly Wikipedia claims the riff is based on “Watch Your Step” by Bobby Parker. I listened to that song for the first time just now. It’s actually a great song, and you can certainly hear the influence. Page adds a lot more flair (as you would expect).

                    1. It’s just very bass riffy sounding to me. And Jones was often an underappreciated member of the band, while also being probably the most musically literate out of the crew.

                      Black Dog is also straight blues scaling, and that’s Jones.

            3. Apparently, sperm whales have the power to totally fuck up the bag of meat that makes up the human body with their powerful sonar. Also, most sperm whale encounters are with females, as the males spend most of their time around Antarctica and only come up to the tropics to breed. Also, the males are much bigger and more testy.

      4. For some of us, the danger is the aphrodisiac.

  18. “The NSA considers AT&T to be one of its most trusted partners,”

    Ma Bell likes the NSA dick.

  19. Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and pressure on Tehran is having precisely the intended result–sooner than I anticipated.

    “TEHRAN, Iran?Hundreds protested in the Iranian capital on Monday while merchants in the city’s oldest bazaar shut their shops to protest economic woes and a collapsing currency as the U.S. restores sanctions.

    The protests were a fresh challenge to President Hassan Rouhani’s government just months after widespread street demonstrations roiled the Islamic Republic. The government has struggled to tackle persistent double-digit inflation and unemployment.

    The Iranian rial has tumbled against the U.S. dollar in recent months over economic concerns that were aggravated by the Trump administration’s exit from the 2015 nuclear deal in May and its move to restore economic penalties.
    . . . .

    While most demonstrations appeared to be against the Rouhani government’s handling of the economy, some videos showed protesters shouting political slogans against Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the ultimate authority of the country’s Islamic government.

    . . . .

    The rial hit 88,000 to the dollar on Monday in the black market, sharply lower than 59,000 in early May, according to some traders who said transactions were few due to the limited availability of foreign currency.”

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/ne…..529963125?

    1. Theses are the conditions that drove Iran to the negotiating table over their nuclear weapons program last time.

      The question we should be asking ourselves is why the Iranian regime would suffer all the negative consequences of enriching their own uranium rather than simply accept uranium from their allies–that’s already been sufficiently enriched for civilian purposes.

    2. But Islam is the only active worldwide force available to #Resist dirty capitalism. We can’t let it fail. Give them another pallet of 20s.

      1. This isn’t about Islam. We are allying with a more extreme brand of Islam against a more tepid brand in Iran.

        1. Iran funds Palistanian terrrorists.

          1. True. I’m not defending Iran. But, we are tough on Iran at the behest of the Saudis, in part. The Saudis fund Al Qaeda and other similar groups.

            1. You saying that “The Saudis” are funding Al Qaeda is a little misleading.

              The House of Saud now has 15,000 members. If none of them were supportive of jihadis, that would be extraordinary.

              The faction that controls the throne now is not supporting Al Qaeda. The present faction has been throwing other members of the House of Saud in prison for defying them–as they open up further to the west. The faction that controls the throne has allowed women in movie theaters, in sporting events, and they’re letting women drive for the first time–all over the objections of those who support Al Qaeda.

              Our foreign policy shouldn’t be driven by what’s in the best interests of anyone but the U.S., and if you want to argue that our alliance with Saudi Arabia again Iran isn’t in our security interests, I’m all ears. When you do that, you might want to get a little more precise in your criticism. 15,000 (fifteen thousand) members of the Saudi royal family! When you say, “The Saudis fund Al Qaeda”, what do you mean? Have you been paying attention to the internal power struggles within the Saudi royal family lately?

              1. Your right Ken, but the House of Saud still funds Wahabbism, which is the radical version of Islam that serves as the inspiration for nearly all Islamic terrorist group.

                1. The present regime is doing more to undermine extremism in that country than any of their leaders ever have before.

                  Saudi Arabia was unified when Muhammad bin Saud made a pact with the family of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirate_of_Diriyah

                  They’ve worked hand in hand together ever since. Saudi Arabia wouldn’t have become an independent state without that alliance, and it’s unclear whether the state would break apart if that alliance were to fall apart.

                  Regardless, it is not clear to me that breaking off our military alliance with Saudi Arabia until they commit political suicide and plunge their own country into a civil war is in America’s best security interests–no matter what the neoconservatives would have us believe.

    1. Reason continues to insist that open borders are popular.

      1. They do?

      2. I don’t think they argue that. I think they argue that principle dictates that there be no borders and it should not be left up to the political process. I think this position is insane and based on a flimsy argument, but they are not arguing that their position has anything to do with its popularity among the public

          1. That specifically relates to Dreamers, which I think generally garner more sympathy with voters. Someone would have to be pretty far moved from reality to believe that “open borders” is a popular position. So, yeah, it’s possible that Shikha has an article arguing that.

            1. Fair enough.

        1. So after decades of arguing that liberal principles necessitate adopting policies that are stupid, crazy and self-destructive, they’re appalled to find that a substantial number of people are starting to believe this liberalism thing just kind of sucks.

          Well, surprise, surprise!

      3. Amongst the writers anyway.

    2. The same polls that said Hillary would win?

      1. [golf clap]

      2. maybe. You believed those didn’t you? So why are you not believing this one?

      3. “””The same polls that said Hillary would win?”‘

        I remember seeing an Email from Podesta talking about oversampling in demographics that favor Hillary to make her poll numbers look better. If you removed all polls which were from a news agency where democrat political operatives were, there were no polls that showed Hillary with a clear win.

    3. It’s symbolic. Just think, if we do it right, after our civilizations collapse, in about 1 thousand years it’ll be quite a tourist attraction.

      1. The Chinese rally around their Great Wall and have come back a lot from their last dynasty collapse.

        Why can’t the USA come back after the Clinton dynasty collapse of 2016.

        1. THEY WILL!

          #Bluewave
          #poundmetoo

          1. I spit my drink out with the #poundmetoo

            Hilarious! Nice one Cy.

  20. http://www.americanthinker.com…..ar_ii.html

    New poll ranks Obama worst President since World War II and by a wide margin.

    1. Rayciss!

    2. Politifact rates this false: poll was taken in 2014, the results are invalid.

    3. Interesting how the one impeached Clinton fairs decent compared to Nixon who resigned but was never actually impeached.

      Obama and Boosh were horrible presidents.

  21. I was thinking about the difficulty certain people have with making a distinction between the legality of public association and morally condemning some of the choices business owners make. I wonder if part of it stems from never having a job where you had any interaction with customers. The thing is that business owners make choices all the time not to work with or for certain people. (No shoes no shirt ring a bell?) Usually those choices go under the political radar because they aren’t politically based. So if you know anything about anything, the debate isn’t: can we allow business owners to make choices if it makes us feel icky? Because they do and you can’t do anything about it most of the time. The debate is, do we allow politically connected people to punish business owners for doing their job when it hurts their feelings.

    And when you realize that business owners discriminate all the time, it becomes easy to see why morally condemning it is probably more important than even discussing the legal situation because it is part of society, and society is molded by people not government

    1. No shoes no shirt ring a bell?

      Serious question: What if your religion requires you to go barefoot?

      1. Tell people you are wearing flesh-colored Five Fingers.

        1. That’s the most disgusting and don’t I’ve seen discussed here.

      2. “Serious question: What if your religion requires you to go barefoot?”

        Serious answer: Go barefoot to your heart’s content….. outside.

    2. The baker refusing to bake the gay wedding cake and the Red Hen refusing to serve Sanders are not analogous situations. The baker didn’t refuse service to the gay couple. They just said they wouldn’t bake a wedding cake. The Red Hen refused any service to Sanders. The analogous situation to the baker would be if the Red Hen was happy to serve Sanders but just refused to host a Trump victory dinner.

      Second, the law isn’t forcing the Red Hen to do anything. The law bankrupted the baker. The baker case is about government coercion and religious freedom. The Red Hen case is about civility and the need to get along with each other. Those are two different issues. Anyone who compares the two cases either hasn’t thought about the issue very much or is just engaging in false equivalence.

      1. Anyone who compares the two cases either hasn’t thought about the issue very much or is just engaging in false equivalence.

        Or is not comparing them on the basis you keep insisting on.

        1. How are they comparing them? Your response doesn’t make any sense. The two situations are different and raise different issues. The baker case is about government coercion. That alone makes it different. You can think both places are wrong but still defend the baker’s right to be wrong in the face of government coercion.

          You don’t seem to understand this issue very well. Like Chipper below, you need to think a little harder and see if you can come up with a better point.

          1. You don’t seem to understand this issue very well.

            John code for I disagree so you’re wrong. You’re the biggest fucking dumbass on the planet. This is really the only response you’re worthy of anymore.

            1. No. You don’t seem to understand the issue. What is your position? That the government coercion in the Baker case doesn’t matter? That you can’t defend someone you think is wrong from being harmed by the government?

              Your position doesn’t make any sense. You really don’t seem to have one, to be honest. Try explaining what your position is and I can figure out if I agree with it or not. Right now, you haven’t really thought enough about the issue to even qualify as having an opinion.

              1. No, you’re problem is that you don’t understand any viewpoint other than your own. You don’t disagree, you misunderstand. And not understanding scares you and your fear is what drives your rage. You’re the same kind of emotional, overreacting jerkwad that you constantly accuse those evil proggies of being.

                1. Okay, Sparky, once again, what is your view point? You claim I don’t understand it. And I for the third time now am giving you an opportunity to explain it. Before you accuse me of not understanding your viewpoint again. Try explaining what it is.

      2. Yes, the two cases are different in so many ways. Also, one was a restaurant and the other a bakery. One was in Virginia, the other in Oregon. One is owned by a leftie nutjob, the other is owned by a rightie nutjob. And on and on it goes.

        1. Some differences matter. The differences I site are material differences. The baker would have had a much less sympathetic case if he refused to serve any gay person at all rather than just refused to make a wedding cake. The Red Hen would be a real victim if the country sheriff showed up and closed them down for their refusal to serve Sanders.

          The cases raise different issues and are not analogous. If you think they are, then explain why my differences are not material. Just throwing up other nonmaterial differences as some kind of proof that no real material differences exist doesn’t respond to my point. It just makes you look like a moron who doesn’t understand what is going on. So, go back to the drawing board and see if you can come up with a better response. If you can’t, just move on and concede the point.

      3. I’m not sure if I gave the impression that I think they are the same, but I don’t

        1. You didn’t. I was agreeing with you.

      4. John is correct. (It can happen). The Baker’s decision had nothing to do with who the customer was. The Baker balked at being compelled to participate in speech which was contrary to his religion. If my straight mother was the customer trying to get a gay wedding cake made for her nephew’s wedding, she would have been refused too. I don’t recall that the gay cake customers were ever asked to leave the bake shop.

        On the contrary, Sanders was asked to leave the restaurant, period.

        Disclosure: I support the right of anybody (private, not public) to discriminate against anybody for any reason.

        1. So do I. But the “right to do something” means the right to do it without the government showing up and closing you down or punishing you. It does not mean the right to do something and be free of criticism. A decent number of people on here seem to be unable to grasp the idea that someone can be worthy of defense against government coercion even though their actions are worthy of condemnation. The whole “I disagree with you and think you are wrong but will defend your right to do it” seems to have entirely been forgotten.

          1. It’s tattooed on the back of my neck.

    3. business owners discriminate all the time, it becomes easy to see why morally condemning it is probably more important than even discussing the legal situation

      Serious question: do you believe that business owners should always be morally condemned for making certain decisions? I can’t really tell from your post.

      1. That’s a strange question since “moral condemnation” is a subjective matter

        1. I didn’t ask for your opinion.

          1. Idiot

            1. Cheerleader

              1. Imbecile

                1. Every time I read your comments I can feel hate spilling out from the monitor.

                  1. Really? You should probably look into getting a new monitor. Be careful of the new 4K ones though. One of the guys I work with bought one and had all kinds of issues. He returned it and had issues with the second one as well. He returned it and got a third one which so far is working but I don’t know if it’s worth all the cost and the grief.

                    1. I have a 4k monitor and tv. They are fucking awesome!

                      Far better than Plasma were. I can see all of Hihn’s bold type like pavement across the screen.

                      Sometimes, you just get what you pay for. Splurge for a good 4k, as you will never need a better picture the rest of your life.

                    2. Splurge for a good 4k

                      If I recall correctly, he said he paid around $500 for a 27″ monitor. That’s splurging if you ask me.

                      you will never need a better picture the rest of your life.

                      Gee I’ve never heard anyone say that before about new technology.

                    3. Wait for OLED to come down, that’s a much bigger jump forward than 4k. 4k is not bad for a computer monitor though. Not really useful for a TV unless you sit close to it.

                  2. Give him a break, he’s a perfect father.

                    1. he’s a perfect father.

                      Hey, thanks.

                    2. Judging from your remarks about your daughter it does appear that you are a good father and that’s the most important thing in life

      2. Clearly, she does not. I don’t see anything in her post that implies that. Businesses owners should be condemned when they make decisions that are worthy of condemnation. Not all decisions, even those that discriminate or worthy of condemnation. If, for example, they had refused service to Huckabee because she wasn’t wearing shoes or didn’t meet the dress code, that would be discriminating against her. That, however, would not be worthy of moral condemnation. If, however, they had refused to serve her because she was a woman who was not accompanied by her husband, that would be worthy of moral condemnation. Is refusing service to her because she works for Trump more like the first example or the second? That is the entire debate that you seem not to understand much less have an answer for.

        1. I didn’t ask for your opinion.

          1. Luckily for you, I gave it and you hopefully learned something.

            1. I didn’t read your nonsense because I didn’t ask for your nonsense.

              1. How do you know it was nonsense?

                1. Because it’s John.

                2. He doesn’t Tom. Knowing it is nonsense would require him understanding it.

                  Actually, he knows it is not nonsense. He knows it is right. Sparky gets really pissey when he loses an argument or is called to defend his position.

      3. should always be morally condemned for making certain decisions?

        That’s a weird way to phrase that question. Depends what those “certain decisions” are, I guess. Some decisions deserve criticism. I don’t see how that is an especially remarkable thing to say.

        1. Some decisions deserve criticism

          That’s fair. I didn’t want to say “decisions you don’t like” because I wanted it to be more of a general question.

  22. Civility shall set you free

    After the Blue Wave, just put up these signs over the immigrant internment camps and start rounding up the republitards.

    1. Thank God, no Democratic president had immigrant internment camps

    1. do you think everyone who attends a rally you find offensive should be subject to criminal prosecution? If not, then why do you think this is justice being served?

      1. He was in the military, which has rules outside of those afforded to average citizens. I see your point, but this may not be the best case to make this argument

        1. Okay. He disobeyed orders. I have no beef with his being convicted. But, I don’t really see how that is “justice being served” any more than the dozens of other cases where military people are punished for such actions.

          I never see Jeff taking any special pleasure in those. What is special about this other than in this case, Jeff doesn’t like the guy’s opinion?

          1. John, read the linked article. It documents this Marine’s acts of violence. As in personal…individual. This is the way we like people to be judged, remember?

            1. Interestingly, he was not convicted for assault. He was convicted for disobeying orders and false official statement. I find it hard to believe that the Marine Corps let him off on the more serious charge of assault out of kindness. The more likely explanation is that he was not convicted of those things because they couldn’t prove he was guilty, most likely meaning he had a legitimate claim of self-defense. Given all that, I don’t see how you can fairly slander the guy as violent when he was not convicted of such.

              1. To be fair, the Marines do train people to be violent killers.

                His ‘war face’ just had swastika painted on it.

              2. from the article:

                “Today cracked 3 skulls open with virtually no damage to myself,” Pistolis wrote on Aug. 12, 2017, the day of the event. Other Atomwaffen members warned Pistolis not to boast about his criminal exploits in the group’s private chats. “We don’t post anything that incriminates anyone on here,” a user with the handle of “Jason” reminded him.

                Photographs taken at the rally show Pistolis clubbing an unidentified counter-protester with a wooden flagpole. Pistolis would later post photos of his bloody custom-made Confederate flag to chat logs, with the addendum, “not my blood.”

                Pistolis also bragged about assaulting a well-known local activist, Emily Gorcenski, on the night of Aug. 11, 2017. Multiple videos taken that evening show Pistolis, dressed in a black Adidas tracksuit, launch a flying kick in the direction of Gorcenski, although it is unclear if he connected. In Atomwaffen’s chats, Pistolis claimed that “I drop kicked Emily Gorcenski.”

                1. He seems like a nice fellow and a credit to any society that would have him.

    2. There were probably ex-military members there too.

      You cannot be active duty military and violate the UCMJ or they can hammer you with military justice.

  23. Johnson may have been far from a perfect Libertarian candidate, but let’s not forget who he was up against in the LP

    A much better Libertarian, obviously.

    1. True.

    2. “let’s not forget who he was up against in the LP”

      Someone more interesting?

    1. In any other year I’d agree with this. But decent people have nothing to learn from Trump supporters but which direction to spit in.

      All class. Remember, it was Trump who made politics vicious. All Trump has done is reveal who these people are. To the extent Trump is vulgar and uncivil, it is because he was before he ran for President part of the media elite and is exactly what they all are.

      And the thought of a metrosexual like Sanchez spitting on some Trump supporter and the inevitable ass kicking that would result is actually quite humorous. Who is that little dweeb think he is kidding?

    2. Sanchez has thoroughly discredited himself during the Trump era, but that could be said for a lot of people

      1. HIs Twitter feed is a trainwreck of crazy and stupid. He was never the best reason writer but he was never the worst either. He has totally lost his mind. He makes Suderman seem calm and measured by comparison.

        1. He actively defends the FBI and pushes the most insane Russia fever dreams. He’s not well. But, he is certainly not the only one

    3. Julian Sanchez is so angry he could just spit!

      Thanks! That made my day!

      #MAGA

  24. Perhaps the problem is we are being civil with a government which doesn’t treat us civilly? BTW, how do I send this so the NSA gets it and puts me on a “watch” list?

    1. “Haha”, the contractor laughed as he read the comment. “Check out this guy. He thinks that he’s not already on a watch list.” His gut jiggled with each bellow. “He’s a Nazi obviously” his co-worker declared. “He’s questioning the government- ergo he’s a Nazi.” The contractor wiggled in his chair. His morbid rear itched from sitting hours on end monitoring the ramblings of commentators. “We’re just like the Allies storming the beaches of Normandy.” He told his coworker as he squeezed his hand under his ass attempting to scratch himself. “We’re so brave.” His co-worker responded with all seriousness.

      1. Politifact rates this Pants on Fire: Nobody is monitoring you, citizen. Feel free to go about your life normally. The new table is not a recording device, it is a free table that magically appeared in your room.

        1. Get bless the brave and totally non-partisan people at Politifact. Just like firefighters- they never get fired no matter how horrible of a job they do

          1. *God bless*

            1. “Get blessed, mother fuckers.”

        2. Funny how a bunch of “fact checking” lefty websites popped up when Americans starting getting too skeptical of media’s lefty bias.

          These lefties actually think they can lie to cover facts via their ‘fact checking’ and Americans will believe them.

          Election 2016 should have been the wake up call.

          1. They have a rating system conducive to posting on social media. They have a title, then a ranking . People then assume that the title question is what is being rebuked. When oftentimes, in the body of the article, they do strange logical twists to define the question in a strange way they can proclaim false.

  25. Is this the most 2018 story of the day?

    If by “2018” you mean “I am so tired of this stupid garbage” and “I hate everyone involved”… sure why not. Until the next outrage! comes along.

    1. I bet Stormy Daniels and her attorney are so pissed at the owners of the Red Hen.

    2. I think it’s the most “2018 internet” story of the month.

      What is it about the internet that sparks people’s inner retardation?

        1. But a lot of these people aren’t anonymous, is the thing. They’re proud of being morons. How does that work?

          1. I think being out’n’proud is the next step in fuckwad social evolution.

            1. I can’t wait for Mikey’s coming out party.

            2. Dammit, us gays had fifty years of uphill climbing to get equality and now you’re telling me that fuckwads are just gonna do it right now, no problem? Fuck them! Let’s attach a few of those bitches to some car bumpers, see how they fucking like it!

  26. Boaz said you shouldn’t reject a candidate simply because of “one issue.”

    But that depends on the issue.

    Specifically, if an LP candidate said he’s going to accept some established and popular government policy and focus on more winnable issues, that would be one thing.

    But if the candidate takes a liberty issue which is still being debated in mainstream politics, and commits himself to the anti-liberty side of that issue, that’s another thing.

    So if Johnson had said “I don’t want to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but I don’t think we need to expand it,” we could understand.

    But he wanted the government should go beyond current law (in many jurisdictions) add more protected classes.

    He also sold out religious freedom at a time when many citizens were finally waking up to the importance of such freedom.

    If you have an LP candidate who is crusading for *more* government restrictions on the private sector, that goes beyond “oh, well, so he’s not a purist.”

    1. “So if Johnson had said “I don’t want to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but I don’t think we need to expand it,” we could understand.”

      Pretty much. It’s fun watching people still defending Johnson after the fact. Say what you will about Bob Barr, but at least no one defended his garbage positions after the fact.

  27. “The NSA considers AT&T to be one of its most trusted partners,” The Intercept reports. Their collaboration has lasted for decades. And yet…

    Nothing like being the government’s poster child for crony capitalism and then parlay that corruption into massive partial monopolies around the USA to earn the big bucks.

    Then take those big bucks and buy media content.

    The white whale must remain afloat to help government undermine liberties.

    1. Read the brief. Only confirmed “foreign to foreign” goes to the NSA. They are not spying on you, holding your metadata, or anything like that. Only confirmed foreign to foreign.

      I would say whatever “patriot” exposed this program just did a big favor for China and Russia.

      1. “”holding your metadata, or anything like that. Only confirmed foreign to foreign.””

        I forget which intel boss it was, but he was talking to congress surveillance, He said that finding terrorist is like finding a needle in a haystack, and in order to do that you need the whole haystack.

        What do you think he meant by the whole haystack?

      2. Foreign to foreign? Did you even read the fucking article? In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the agency began eavesdropping on Americans’ international calls and emails that were passing between the U.S. and other countries. That practice was exposed by the New York Times in 2005 and triggered what became known as the “warrantless wiretapping” scandal. And if you think that is all they collected, then I have ocean front property in Iowa for sale.

        1. DIFFERENT PROGRAM. This is NOT Prism. The article conflates and obfuscates this program with Prism too (which you would have realized if you read the article with an ounce of critical reading skills).

    2. The brief looks old, from 2012 timeframe, would not surprise me if it was from Snowden (defected in 2013). The gift that keeps on giving all the way from Mother Russia.

      Whatever good that guy might have/had done dwarfs my distaste for him as a traitor of the first measure, defecting to China then Russia. Barf.

      1. Ahh, it is from Snowden. It says in the Intercept piece. What a fucking piece of trash. I assume he has already provided all of this shit to the Chinese and Russians so whatever harm can come from this has probably already been done (at least from them).

      2. He should have stayed at home and allowed himself to be executed. How dare him show us how the gubmint uses the constitution as their toilet paper!

        1. Snowden revealed to the American people the pervasiveness of NSA domestic surveillance. Calling that revelation “treason” is an admission that the US government considers the citizens of the United States to be its enemies.

          1. Defected to Russia. That is not the mark of a patriot.

  28. Oh boy, get ready for Welchie Boy and his minions to blow their (Mary) stack: the SCOTUS has apparently upheld Trump’s travel ban, which of course was 100% obvious and predictable for anyone with a brain.

    1. P.S.: Eat a ginormous bag of dicks, all you Islamonazi-loving leftards.

        1. That’s a rather insane comment even by our loose standards here, no?

          1. He’s not really wrong with the first part.

            I have never seen Hillary eating a bag of dicks but I can see it happening at Chelsea’s house.

          2. Beagles Sock Bling is rather insane even by our loose standards here, no?

          3. Mike M. chooses his words very carefully.

            1. Whoa, sick burn on Mikey.

          4. Maybe, but that’s my papa!

    2. Actually, Solimin and Volkh have most disgraced themselves on that issue. Welch is just a hack who can legitimately claim not to know any better. Solimin and Volkh are law professors and absolutely know better. There is no way they didn’t know how stupid their arguments against the travel ban were. They just made them because they are dishonest and willing to say anything in furtherance of whatever their cause is these days.

      1. Yeah, you don’t have to be a lawyer, a law professor, or even a law student to have figured out that the rulings of the activist lower judges on this issue never had a chance of surviving. The Court has granted the president wide discretionary latitude when it comes to protect Americans from foreign threats for pretty much the entire history of the country.

        The lame and rather pathetic argument that the rules should be different for Trump because he’s a big fat poopy-head and a unique threat to freedom in America never had a legal leg to stand on.

        1. The best thing about this is that the dicta explicitly overrules Korematsu. That is a great thing and should be welcomed by every person who cares about civil liberties. Watching the wokeltarians shit their pants and rage against the decision that overrules Korematsu is going to be delicious.

      2. Expect the next two-week news cycle to barf 5 articles a day against this good decision.

        1. Yep. Anyone headed to the vicinity of DuPont Circle should bring an umbrella, because the heads are exploding and the enraged spittle is flying.

    3. Predictable? 9-0 or 8-1 ruling would be predictable. 5-4 was hardly predictable and shows there’s a shit-ton of lawyers and judges in the U.S. who don’t give a crap about what the Constitution says.

  29. But FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb stressed that folks shouldn’t get their hopes too high about this step, saying it was important “to note that this is not an approval of marijuana or all of its components. This is the approval of one specific CBD medication for a specific use.”

    So, if the FDA has approved a marijuana pharmaceutical for medical use, does that mean that the DEA will finally be forced to reschedule marijuana, since the facade of “no medical use” can clearly no longer be maintained?

    1. I know, I know. No, and FYTW.

  30. Well, Trump and freedom had solid days in SCOTUS.

  31. Gary Johnson not True(tm) Libertarian! So I voted Trump!

  32. I was really missing my wife when she left me for someone else. I was weak to take care of some situations and i let her slip my arms. I had to talk to my partner at the office who recently got her husband back. She told me to get in touch with Dr Mack who helped her get her husband back with a love spell. I was very sure of this because Dr Mack has helped my partner get her husband back. So i called Dr Mack and told him i lost my lover and wanted her back. He encouraged me and told me to be happy. He did his thing and told me my wife will be back in 45 hours. I waited for that time and my wife called me and told me that she has forgiven me and ready to take me back in her life. Since then, my wife and i have been enjoying our marriage with our lovely 4 kids. I am very grateful to John for what he has done for me. I’d advice you to ask him for help if you have any problem on your relationship and some other aspects of life. His email is dr_mack@ yahoo. com 🙂

  33. Thomas Massie also endorsed Roy Moore. The idea that he gets to pose as the libertarian purist over Johnson/Weld is absurd.

  34. Congressman Massie understands nobody should be forced to bake a cake. Instead, they should be forced to pay subsidies for Ken Ham’s creationist theme park.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.