Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Reason Roundup

Federal Judge Halts ICE Family Separations, Says Policy 'Cannot Satisfy the Requirements of Due Process': Reason Roundup

Plus: Oklahoma legalizes medical marijuana and Russian pop star linked to Trumps releases bizarre music video.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 6.27.2018 9:30 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | LOREN ELLIOTT/REUTERS/Newscom
(LOREN ELLIOTT/REUTERS/Newscom)

LOREN ELLIOTT/REUTERS/Newscom

Preliminary injunction on ICE family separation policy. A federal court says the Trump administration's policy of separating migrant children from parents caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border must stop, and that families who have already been separated must be reunited within one month.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials have 10 days to put detained immigrant parents in phone contract with their children, ruled Judge Dana Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Tuesday.

  • Within 14 days, all children under the age of 5 must be reunified with parents (unless the parent is determined to be unfit or declines reunification).
  • Within 30 days, and all minors ages five and above must be reunited with their parents.

"Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in their favor, thus warranting issuance of a preliminary injunction," wrote Sabraw. More from his ruling:

This Order does not implicate the Government's discretionary authority to enforce immigration or other criminal laws, including its decisions to release or detain class members. Rather, the Order addresses only the circumstances under which the Government may separate class members from their children, as well as the reunification of class members who are returned to immigration custody upon completion of any criminal proceedings….

The practice of separating these families was implemented without any effective system or procedure for (1) tracking the children after they were separated from their parents, (2) enabling communication between the parents and their children after separation, and (3) reuniting the parents and children after the parents are returned to immigration custody following completion of their criminal sentence. This is a startling reality.

The government readily keeps track of personal property of detainees in criminal and immigration proceedings. Money, important documents, and automobiles, to name a few, are routinely catalogued, stored, tracked and produced upon a detainees' release, at all levels—state and federal, citizen and alien. Yet, the government has no system in place to keep track of, provide effective communication with, and promptly produce alien children. The unfortunate reality is that under the present system migrant children are not accounted for with the same efficiency and accuracy as property. Certainly, that cannot satisfy the requirements of due process.

The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in February on behalf of a Congolese woman whom ICE separated from her 7-year-old child and the "hundreds of other parents whom the government has forcibly separated." The suit asserted that ICE was engaging in the "forcible separation of parents from their young children for no legitimate reason," in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

"Whether or not the Trump administration wants to call this a 'policy,' it certainly is engaged in a widespread practice of tearing children away from their parents," Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, told CNN about the case last March.

In his Tuesday order, Judge Sabraw described the situation as a case of "reactive governance—responses to address a chaotic circumstance of the Government's own making" that "belie measured and ordered governance, which is central to the concept of due process enshrined in our Constitution."

FREE MINDS

Oklahoma passes very permissive medical pot bill.

BIG win for my conservative state of Oklahoma. LEGALIZED MEDICAL MARIJUANA!!! cc @nickgillespie @MattWelch

— Mary #FlyTheW (@mchastain81) June 27, 2018

In yesterday's primary elections, Oklahoma voters approved an initiative legalizing medical marijuana. This makes Oklahoma the 30th U.S. state to decriminalize marijuana use by people who get a doctor's permission. And though Oklahoma tends to be a conservative state, its medical marijuana measure is one of the most expansive in the country. "The measure," notes The Washington Post,

… is notable for reflecting one of the most permissive medical cannabis policies in the country. While most states specify a narrow list of medical conditions for which doctors can recommend the plant, in Oklahoma doctors will be able to recommend it for any condition.

FREE MARKETS

BREAKING: Canada is now preparing steel quotas and tariffs on China and others to prevent producers there from dumping the goods that they can't sell to the US https://t.co/5QL6kcRBBQ

— Joe Weisenthal (@TheStalwart) June 26, 2018

RUSSIA WATCH

Bolton in Moscow and Trump look-alikes in Russian pop video. National security adviser John Bolton will powwow with Vladimir Putin in Moscow today. "The president will receive Bolton at the Kremlin," spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. The two men are prepping for a meeting between Putin and President Trump that is supposed to take place in mid-July. "The Trump-Putin summit would be the first meeting of the two presidents not taking place on the sidelines of a broader international gathering," notes The Washington Post.

Meanwhile, Emin Agalavor—the Russian trust-fund kid and pseudo-pop star who helped arrange Donald Trump's Jr.'s infamous Trump Town meeting with Russians during the 2016 election—just released a new music video in which Agalarov appears alongside lookalikes of Trump, Stormy Daniels, Hillary Clinton, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

"The video's political message is not entirely clear," asserts NBC News. "Julia Ioffe, a correspondent for GQ who has written extensively about Russia under President Vladimir Putin, raised one possibility, tweeting that American viewers were being 'trolled and made fun of by Emin Agalarov.'"

QUICK HITS

  • 10-term U.S. Rep. Joseph Crowley (D–N.Y.)—described roundly as "the Queens Democratic party boss" and floated as the Democrats next House speaker if the party can take back Congress—lost in Tuesday's primary elections to 28-year-old Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidate and political newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
  • Libertarians in New Mexico failed to get enough votes in yesterday's primary to qualify for spots on the general election ballot.
  • Congress just passed a bill to investigate "the full extent of how virtual currencies are being used to facilitate drug and sex trafficking."
  • Uber can once-again operate legally in London, at least for now.
  • "In a survey of more than 8,000 employees" of the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marshals Service, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, "22 percent of women and 43 percent of female criminal investigators at the agencies reported some form of gender discrimination in the past five years," according to a new inspector general's report.

"Does Godwin's Law need to be updated? Suspended? Repealed? I get asked this question from time to time because I'm the guy who came up with the law more than a quarter century ago." https://t.co/AkBPT9BavV @sfmnemonic

— R Street Institute (@RSI) June 27, 2018

  • "Supporters of the referendum to ban brothels argue that this will prevent sex trafficking and help [exploited] women," writes Allison Schrader at Qz. But "I interviewed dozens of women who work in [legal Nevada] brothels. All claimed that they felt safe at work. … Meanwhile, all the women I spoke with who'd done sex work illegally had encountered clients who would not pay or were violent.…Banning brothels only eliminates another safe refuge to do the work."

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Brickbat: Think of the Children

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

Reason Roundup
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (303)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Longtorso, Johnny   7 years ago

    NRATV
    This is how the violent left treats Sec. Elaine Chao. An immigrant. The first Asian America woman and the first Chinese America to serve as a Cabinet member in American history. Don't be fooled. If you're looking for a true big tent movement, look no further than the NRA.

    1. Rufus The Monocled   7 years ago

      Hello.

      "Libertarians in New Mexico failed to get enough votes in yesterday's primary to qualify for spots on the general election ballot."

      What am I going to do with all these 'I'm with Libertarian moment' t-shirts?

      1. Leo Kovalensky II   7 years ago

        Box them up with the "Vegas Golden Knights: Stanley Cup Champions" shirts and send them to Cuba.

        1. Rufus The Monocled   7 years ago

          Or Venezuela?

          1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

            Where's your bully today, Rufus?

            1. Rufus The Monocled   7 years ago

              Shhh! I already spent my lunch money!

  2. Longtorso, Johnny   7 years ago

    BREAKING: New RNC ad slams democrats for unleashing pattern of violence across the United States

    1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

      "Just don't be crazy, please". The consultant pleaded with the Democratic Party activists. "All historical indicators say that you are going to win back the House, at the very least, if you can just not shout down speakers and not elect bat shit crazy socialists." His voice had grown hoarse from lecturing the rabble of twenty-something year-old liberal arts majors. "'Crazy' is a Western patriarchal construct" a woman in the back of the crowd protested. Her thick framed glasses framed her wide-eyed stare. "What you call 'crazy' we call a 'people's struggle' against the oligarchy." "Christ!" the consultant exclaimed. "You went to Brown, asshole. And you grew-up on the upper east side of Manhattan!" Another activist took offense to the implication made: "Are you denying her lived experience?"

      1. Shirley Knott   7 years ago

        To which the appropriate reply is along the lines of "no, I'm denying the validity of the elaborated fantasies she's erected over that base. 'Patriarchal construct' is a conclusion, not a 'lived experience'."
        Lived experience is a valid concept.
        Its use by the Left is basically never valid.

        1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

          I'll throw your rebuttal into the next story

  3. Longtorso, Johnny   7 years ago

    Japanese blogger stabbed to death after internet abuse seminar

    1. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

      Ninja attack?

  4. Rhywun   7 years ago

    Apparently the ACLU would rather see the kids join their parents in prison. Well done.

  5. Just the Tip   7 years ago

    You know who else wanted to update laws to reflect the times?

    1. Rufus The Monocled   7 years ago

      Moses?

    2. Rich   7 years ago

      The Sulzberger family?

    3. Sometimes a Great Notion   7 years ago

      Draco?

    4. Z565   7 years ago

      The opposite of a conservative

    5. Just Say'n   7 years ago

      Socialists?

    6. $park? The Misanthrope   7 years ago

      Hammurabi?

    7. Drave Robber   7 years ago

      Gracchus brothers?

    8. Vernon Depner   7 years ago

      Pope Francis?

    9. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

      Muhammad?

    10. Earth Skeptic   7 years ago

      Me, losing at Monopoly?

    11. Shirley Knott   7 years ago

      The second caveman to get a club?

    12. Fist of Etiquette   7 years ago

      WAFFLERS

  6. Longtorso, Johnny   7 years ago

    SAMANTHA BEE WRITER: 'CIVILITY IS A TOOL OF WHITE SUPREMACY'

    1. damikesc   7 years ago

      Seems kinda racist to say that non-whites are incapable of civil behavior.

    2. Rufus The Monocled   7 years ago

      "But what about civility we keep preaching?"

      "Oh shove it up your ass!'

      "So no....going high when they go.....low?"

      "Stop being an idiot. Go LOWER!'

      1. mad.casual   7 years ago

        *cunt punt*

    3. Rich   7 years ago

      "My personal opinion: No matter how much we dislike or disagree with someone, we should not deny them the chance to have a meal," [wrote Arne Duncan.]

      "That's it! Duncan's on the list, too!"

      1. Rufus The Monocled   7 years ago

        "If you want to protest and resist, do it in the proper place....Starbucks!'

      2. Nardz   7 years ago

        Providing meals is an oppressive, patriarchal construct

        1. Earth Skeptic   7 years ago

          But access to bathrooms is a HUMAN RIGHT!

  7. Rich   7 years ago

    Within 14 days, all children under the age of 5 must be reunified with parents (unless the parent is determined to be unfit or declines reunification).

    Emphasis added. In which case the parent is immediately deported, right? RIGHT?!

    1. Citizen X   7 years ago

      Real Talk: even the best, most loving parents have days when they'd at least consider declining reunification.

      1. $park? The Misanthrope   7 years ago

        #NotMyChild

        1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

          #HashtagsShouldBeCalledPoundSignsAgain

          1. Citizen X   7 years ago

            #IStillCallThemTicTacToeBoards

            1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

              #WhatAreYouTwelve?

              1. Citizen X   7 years ago

                #WhatAreYouTheTwitterNomenclaturePolice #GoGargleBalls

                1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

                  #WellPlayed

                  1. General Skarr's Prize Petunias   7 years ago

                    #ICallThemNumeralSigns
                    #WhenTheFuckWereTheyPoundSigns
                    #WhatIsAPoundSignAnyway
                    #IsItASignTellingYouToPoundSand
                    #BecauseInThatCase
                    #

                    1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

                      #AreYouKiddingMe?

                      #OnLandlinesTheyWereAlwaysCalledPoundSigns

                    2. Leo Kovalensky II   7 years ago

                      #MeToo #HardestHit

                    3. $park? The Misanthrope   7 years ago

                      #GoPoundSand
                      #IsAGoodResponse
                      #ToMorons

                      #HaikusAre
                      #KindOfDifficult
                      #TwoBeatsLost

                    4. BestUsedCarSales   7 years ago

                      #HaikuJustTakeTime
                      #YourHatredMakesItHarder
                      #YouAreSoSaucy

                    5. $park? The Misanthrope   7 years ago

                      Dude, you're waaaay over. You have to read the hashtag/pound sign.

                    6. BestUsedCarSales   7 years ago

                      No. Go back to Twitter, gayboy.

    2. Rhywun   7 years ago

      My guess is that was inserted in recognition of the fact that many of those kids came with "guardians" who are not in fact their parents.

      1. John   7 years ago

        Good guess. And if the parents don't get deported, that does nothing but make the problem bigger as everyone realizes that the way to get into the country is to bring a minor child with you.

      2. Rich   7 years ago

        So how then does the parent decline? Hell of a ruling, Dana.

    3. Rufus The Monocled   7 years ago

      Do kids separated at the border from drug smugglers count and do they get their faces put on a milk carton?

  8. Chinny Chin Chin   7 years ago

    "reactive governance?responses to address a chaotic circumstance of the Government's own making" that "belie measured and ordered governance, which is central to the concept of due process enshrined in our Constitution."

    A good description of most government action.

  9. sarcasmic   7 years ago

    Within 14 days, all children under the age of 5 must be reunified with parents (unless the parent is determined to be unfit or declines reunification).
    Within 30 days, and all minors ages five and above must be reunited with their parents.

    There must be some furious Republicans out there. After all, these illegals are illegal, and because they're illegal they deserve to have their illegal children taken from them. Due process is for citizens, not illegals, so these illegal families should be broken up because they're illegal.

    1. Brett Bellmore   7 years ago

      Look, so far as Republicans are concerned, they don't want these families split up. They want them deported intact.

      But if you can't deport a family instantly, you have to detain them, and the family separation was due to a court ruling during the Obama administration barring detaining children along with their families.

      Open borders fanatics are just trying to create a legal catch-22, where you can't detain children with their parents, and can't detail parents without their children, and you can't just skip to immediate deportation, so that by default the only remaining option is to let them go.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   7 years ago

        Actually, "open borders fanatics" (meaning, here: anyone who doesn't appreciate the admin's current tactics) are pointing out, quite correctly, the ever-increasing ratchet of enforcement that necessarily must occur in order to enforce any prohibition.

        Passing one law isn't enough. Then more laws, then more goons with guns to enforce those laws, more liberties restricted, until the lawbreakers find a way around THOSE laws, etc., etc... Repeat ad infinitum.

        What will you do when family separation doesn't prove an effective deterrent? Start shooting them at the border?

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   7 years ago

          Seriously, what is the end game here for the border-restrictionist crowd? It's not possible to have a 100% secure border. Keep increasing the heat on the illegal human border crossers until... what condition is met? And what level of tactics are you willing to endorse in order to obtain that condition?

          1. sarcasmic   7 years ago

            Seriously, what is the end game here for the border-restrictionist crowd?

            Machine guns. Let the piles of rotting corpses serve as a deterrent.

            1. mad.casual   7 years ago

              Let the piles of rotting corpses serve as a deterrent.

              Piles are only good for mass graves and news reels. As a deterrent along a border, you'd want to spread them out.

            2. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

              And yet that is NOT happening.

              Its funny to twist an American Rule of Law and securing of the Border argument into Americans killing a bunch of immigrants.

              Keep it up. Trump is becoming more popular by the day.

            3. Earth Skeptic   7 years ago

              Land mines shift the blame to the "user".

              1. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

                As long as the mine field is properly labelled.

                Skull and crossbones are universally understood as something bad is ahead.

          2. mad.casual   7 years ago

            Keep increasing the heat on the illegal human border crossers until... what condition is met?

            The welfare state is dismantled. The drug war is ended. Healthcare is repealed. Income taxes suspended.

            I'd love to believe it's not an either/or option, a false dichotomy, except even the more sensible members/side of your argument is effectively, "We've leveraged ourselves into debt so deep that we need to import people into the tax base to keep moving forward." rather than anything that even remotely resembles "Fuck You, Cut Spending."

            1. BYODB   7 years ago

              ^ This.

              People fail to realize that immigration issues are an end result of other things, so 'fixing' immigration requires 'fixing' a host of things that are widely popular that people don't want fixed.

              For example, you'd have to burn credentialing and the minimum wage to the ground as one example of a prerequisite. You might think that's a good idea, lord knows I do, but if you can't get your way there then you also won't get the immigration system you want. What is the movement on the minimum wage? Oh, right, increasing it which is the opposite of helping immigration arguments.

              Put your energy and rhetoric to better use, because loudly proclaiming that you want open immigration assumes that anyone in the populace agrees on the baseline requirements to get there. Spoiler Alert: most people don't want those things, and they can't have their cake and eat it too.

          3. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

            Make is abundantly clear that Americans run the show in America.

            See the tactics about the catch-22 as Brett Bellmore said? "where you can't detain children with their parents, and can't detail parents without their children, and you can't just skip to immediate deportation, so that by default the only remaining option is to let them go."

            This is evidence that the open border people and non-Americans dont get it. You will never win and the more you fight Americans wanting relatively secure borders the more you push people to side with Trump.

            Furthermore, the longer this goes on the less likely Americans will want border policy relaxed anytime soon.

            You people have really underestimated American resolve to secure the border and enforce immigration policy.

            1. mad.casual   7 years ago

              You will never win and the more you fight Americans wanting relatively secure borders the more you push people to side with Trump.

              Not to put too fine a point on it but the other side needs to realize that the 'Fuck [white nationalist] Americans' attitude is going to bite them in the ass as well. Legal immigrants and the children of immigrants favor more secure borders, especially when a democrat is leading them or at least promising them free shit. They specifically did/do the opposite of what both/either side doesn't want them to do and at least one side claims they wouldn't do. Come in, vote democrat, expand the welfare state (either by direct consumption or legal advocacy), and demand secure borders.

              This is not the libertopia you are searching for.

              1. mad.casual   7 years ago

                They specifically did/do the opposite of what both/either side doesn't want

                Well that was complete shit. They specifically did/do the opposite of what both/either (libertarian) side wants.

              2. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

                Legal immigrants went through the process and probably realize how different American Rule of Law compared to their home country. After being accepted as as American citizen, it is evidently very ego boosting. You need to fight for the country that embraced you and protect its freedoms and the Constitution that tries to protect those freedoms.

        2. John   7 years ago

          You get more of whatever you reward. If the rule is anyone who shows up with a small child gets released into the country with no real way to make them show up to a court hearing or be deported, then everyone in Central America who wants to come to the US will show up with a child.

          To the extent there is a crisis of children coming to the border, it is one that has been entirely created by first Obama and now the courts insisting that anyone who shows up with a child can't be detained. Either be honest and admit that you want the US to accept virtually the entire population of Mexico and Central America as refugees or admit your culpability in helping to create this problem.

          If you are disturbed by children being detained at the border, the solution to that is to get people to stop showing up at the border with minor children. And you don't do that by telling them doing so means a free pass into the country. Grow the fuck up and start making choices based on the facts as they are and not as you want them to be.

          1. sarcasmic   7 years ago

            Either be honest and admit that you want the US to accept virtually the entire population of Mexico and Central America as refugees or admit your culpability in helping to create this problem.

            That's one of the best false-dichotomies I've seen in a while. Very nice.

            1. John   7 years ago

              Why is it a false dichotomy? The choices are as follows; let everyone in or not let everyone in and detain those who show up before you deport them. What other choice is there? If you want to enforce the border and not let everyone in, then you can't have a system that tells people they can come in just so long as they have a child. So, if you want to enforce the border, you are going to have to detain children. If you are unwilling to do that, then people are going to show up with children.

              Foreseeable consequences are not unintended. If you don't like the foreseeable consequences of the policies you support, support different policies. But don't feed me a line of horseshit about how you are not responsible for those consequences because you didn't mean for them to happen. You absolutely did because they were the foreseeable result of the policies you support.

              1. sarcasmic   7 years ago

                Why is it a false dichotomy?

                All or nothing is almost always a false dichotomy. Especially when you say that people who disagree with you is to blame.

                1. John   7 years ago

                  Don't just make the charge. Explain why it is. I just explained why those are the options available. Sayin that is a false dichotomy means there is some third choice I haven't mentioned. Okay, what is it? What is the solution other than detain kids or let them all in? If you can't give one, then it isn't a false dichotomy.

                  1. sarcasmic   7 years ago

                    You said that anyone who disagrees with you wants to invite the entire population of Latin America into the States, or must admit to creating the current problem.

                    It's more like a false-dichotomy seesaw with a straw man on each end.

                    1. John   7 years ago

                      You said that anyone who disagrees with you wants to invite the entire population of Latin America into the States, or must admit to creating the current problem.

                      If you refuse to detain children, that is effectively what you want. Again, foreseeable consequences are not unintended consequences. If you are not willing to detain children, then there is no way to prevent everyone down there who wants to come from coming here.

                    2. sarcasmic   7 years ago

                      If you refuse to detain children, that is effectively what you want.

                      The issue was separating families. Run, Forest, run! Take those goalposts and run!

                    3. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

                      You're an anarchist. You want open borders and no government.

                      You're arguing for a government policy that YOU dont even want because it gets you one step closer to destroying Rule of Law.

                    4. sarcasmic   7 years ago

                      You're an anarchist. You want open borders and no government.

                      Um, yeah. That's what I said.

                      ..it gets you one step closer to destroying Rule of Law.

                      More like taking us one step closer to affirming Rule of Law. When legislation written by man and imposed upon society conflicts with what society considers to be right and wrong, you have Rule of Man, not Rule of Law.

                      You claim to support Rule of Law, but you don't give a shit about society. You just want to impose your will upon anyone who you don't like. That's Rule of Man.

                    5. sarcasmic   7 years ago

                      I oppose children being taken from their families in part because it's happened to me and it is horrible.

                      You seem to enjoy inflicting that horror on families. Why? Because they're illegal. They're not even human. Right? No horror is horrible enough because they don't have their papers. Because they haven't conformed to your precious Rule of Man.

                    6. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

                      As a Constitutionalist and Libertarian I want Rule of Man minimized as much as possible.

                      A small limited government does that or tries to. That is the society that I want.

                      Kids get taken from their parents all the time and in America that is limited more than many countries on this planet. If you are trying to scam the USA and enter without us letting you, then fuck you. We will treat you humanely but you WILL be deported. We are not going to fall for some pedo mixed within families to hurt some kid in our custody so the lefty media can use that to derail deportations.

                      Non-Americans have zero right to over-ride the rights of Americans to self-govern the USA.

                      Sucks that you were separated from your parents. I doubt it was because of you and your family trying to enter the USA illegally since you would virtue signaled for years about that by now.

                      Kids get separated from their parents when the parents get arrested.

                      DONT VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONAL US LAWS. If you don't and the government is doing something to separate kids, then I am the People's side.

                  2. sarcasmic   7 years ago

                    What is the solution other than detain kids or let them all in?

                    And here I thought we were talking about how pissed you are that families aren't going to be separated, not whether or not kids will be detained.

                    1. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

                      Unite all of them on the Mexican side of the US border.

                      Problem solved.

      2. sarcasmic   7 years ago

        I'm talking about the Republican posters on this site who were appalled at those of us who thought that separating families was appalling.

        1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

          I think most of the criticism was about the rather unhinged hyperbole that compared the practice to Nazi Germany and ICE to the Gestapo. And that criticism was more than fair

          1. sarcasmic   7 years ago

            I dunno about that. What I saw was a rousing defense of the practice on the grounds that crossing the border without papers is equivalent to violent crimes that result in children being taken from their parents, so they families deserved it. That and Obama did it first, which means if you don't like it you are an Obama supporter with no grounds to criticize.

            1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

              Maybe. I don't know. But, I think it's fair to say that everyone had a different reason behind the arguments that they made. It might be wrong to label all those arguing against the policy of promoting hyperbole and open borders and it might also might be wrong to label all those arguing in defense of the policy of simply agreeing with the policy.

              1. sarcasmic   7 years ago

                I just know what I saw. John confirmed it above by saying you want open borders or you created the problem (presumably by voting for Obama).

                1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

                  I mean, there is a discrepancy in the media coverage and immigrant activist reaction between now and under the Obama administration. And I understand the argument that the Trump administration technically changed policy by instituting "zero tolerance" at the border, but under the Obama administration there were three times as many children detained as there are now. Suggesting that the hyperbolic emotional response from the media and activists is all due to a change in policy to "zero tolerance" is splitting hairs and being disingenuous. We all know that this is being fueled by the concept of children being locked away.

                  1. sarcasmic   7 years ago

                    Suggesting that the hyperbolic emotional response from the media and activists is all due to a change in policy to "zero tolerance" is splitting hairs and being disingenuous.

                    I don't think that's the reason. I think it's because the administration made it news. If Obama had bragged about it then there may have been a reaction. Maybe not. After all, he was a good person with good intentions while Trump is a bad person with bad intentions. And intentions are all the left (and left-run media) care about. Principals, not principles.

                    We all know that this is being fueled by the concept of children being locked away.

                    More like children being taken from their families.

                    I had my daughter taken from me by DHHS and I fought to get her back. Now the ex is trying to take her away. It is one of the worst things I have ever experienced. Twice now.

                    To arbitrarily take children from their parents as some sort of deterrent is just sick as far as I'm concerned. And anyone who defends it is equally sick.

                    1. Donald Trump   7 years ago

                      "We all know that this is being fueled by the concept of children being locked away.

                      More like children being taken from their families."

                      Your "more like" was the same thing only less outrageous.

                      Maybe you are just stupid.

                2. Donald Trump   7 years ago

                  "I just know what I saw. John confirmed it above "

                  I didn't see him confirm anything like what you're claiming and I'm starting to think you were lying.

              2. Rhywun   7 years ago

                Bailey called people who question open borders "bigots" yesterday. It's not just the commentariat.

            2. Donald Trump   7 years ago

              "What I saw was a rousing defense of the practice on the grounds that crossing the border without papers is equivalent to violent crimes that result in children being taken from their parents, "

              Who said that? Quote that shit and shame them ( while also proving that you aren't completely full of shit)

              1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

                Shouldn't you be talking trash about someone on Twitter, Mr. President?

                1. Donald Trump   7 years ago

                  I can multitask

                  1. Donald Trump   7 years ago

                    See, sarc talks about "crossing the border without papers is equivalent to violent crimes that result in children being taken from their parents" and the people who made that comparison.

                    I am saying no one did.

                    People pointed out that the US takes kids as a matter of course, and the outrage was manufactured and fake. They use the example of all the kids taken every day that have nothing to do with immigration, and the UTTER SILENCE on the issue.

                    What I'm trying to figure out is where the " equivalent to violent crimes" stuff comes from. The kids get taken for all kinds of reasons, and I never once saw ANYONE compare immigration to violent crimes. Either sarc is so fucking stupid that he doesn't realize they get taken FOR NON VIOLENT CRIMES TOO, or he's being dishonest.

                    I personally think he's being dishonest.

                    The sad part is, he thinks the people making those comparisons think the policy is correct, when many of them think it is abhorrent, but aren't willing to abide the newcomers pretending they care about something they've been silent about until it could be hung around my neck.

                    1. Donald Trump   7 years ago

                      So it's been an hour, sarc has obviously seen this since he posted and replied to other posts in this thread, so it's safe to conclude he knows he was lying.

                2. General Skarr's Prize Petunias   7 years ago

                  Ssh, the President is posting on Reason. LIBERTARIAN MOMENT!

                  1. Donald Trump   7 years ago

                    Sad!

    2. chemjeff radical individualist   7 years ago

      Due process is only for people who obey the law! If you break the law, you don't deserve due process, you're just scum!

      1. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

        They are getting Due Process. The US Government is determining that their claims to be inside the USA are denied and they are being deported en masse (just like under Obama).

        Constitution satisfied.

      2. Nardz   7 years ago

        Illegal immigration is explicitly an attempt to avoid due process

        1. Donald Trump   7 years ago

          Ohhhh!! Truth burn!!!

      3. Azathoth!!   7 years ago

        IF YOU ARE CAUGHT IN THE PROCESS OF BREAKING THE LAW then the only 'due process' you get is sentencing.

        Because there's no question that you're guilty.

        What is wrong with that?

    3. Azathoth!!   7 years ago

      Why do the same people who demand that the US not be the world police simultaneously demand that the US be world daddy?

  10. Citizen X   7 years ago

    "The video's political message is not entirely clear," asserts NBC News.

    It is truly a dark time when we can no longer look to pop stars for thoughtful political analysis.

    1. Ken Shultz   7 years ago

      There's very little that celebrities don't know, but at least we have ENB to keep us informed about the things that really matter.

    2. Just Say'n   7 years ago

      The Russians hacked NBC News and brainwashed them into taking Dan Rather seriously again. I WANT TO BELIEVE!

  11. Ken Shultz   7 years ago

    "A federal court says the Trump administration's policy of separating migrant children from parents caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border must stop

    The separations stopped a week ago.

    "Whether or not the Trump administration wants to call this a 'policy,' it certainly is engaged in a widespread practice of tearing children away from their parents," Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, told CNN about the case last March."

    Last March?

    Wasn't necessarily a policy--and that was last March?

    No mention of the Supreme Court upholding the travel band . . . um . . . yesterday?

    1. Elizabeth Nolan Brown   7 years ago

      Ken, I'm gonna jump in here this once & explain something to you in the hopes of stopping very similar complaints week in and week out: the content of the Roundup is determined by many things, including what stories I or others at Reason feel are most important, what stories are getting the most general attention, what stories might be of interest to libertarians that are getting overlooked, what stories appeal to my own idiosyncratic tastes, and *what stories we have already covered elsewhere on the site* or have in the immediate works. This Roundup doesn't mention the travel ban because it's been covered in multiple other recent/featured posts 'round these parts, and in others planned to come. Chill

      1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

        She does read the comments. Now, I feel bad for you, ENB. Just avert your eyes

      2. Weigel's Cock Ring   7 years ago

        Stop pretending you're a libertarian. You're a mostly conventional, standard-issue left liberal following the agenda and the template of the Washington Post, CNN, NBC, Bloomberg, and all the rest of liberal media outlets you get all your information from.

        1. $park? The Misanthrope   7 years ago

          Stop pretending you're a libertarian.

        2. Just Say'n   7 years ago

          Like I said, avert your eyes! This is a land of wolves (and roosters for some reason)! Promise me that you will never, under any circumstances, ever read SIV or Weigel's remarks. They. Will. Haunt. You

          1. Citizen X   7 years ago

            It's way too late for that. She's even responded to Simple Mikey's mewlings before - with a sort of puzzled amusement, which is probably the best way to approach Mikey, if approach him you must.

            1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

              It amazes me that Gillespie, of all people, is the one with the foresight to avoid the comment section.

              1. Citizen X   7 years ago

                I don't think Britches has ever stuck his toe in this particular cesspool either, but that's because his disdain for the commentariat knows no bounds.

                1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

                  I wish Stossel would join in the comment section. No one every says anything critical about the 'stache

                  1. Citizen X   7 years ago

                    Even Kurt Loder jumps in the comments on occasion. Kurt Loder! Teenage me from the '90s gets a thrill every time.

                    1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

                      It's pretty sweet to watch 90's MTV VJs writing and talking about libertarianism. I'm not going to lie that I lusted after Kennedy as a wee lad. Also, Kurt Loder. Who can say no to that dad bod?

                  2. Weigel's Cock Ring   7 years ago

                    That's because Stossel is a real, honest-to-goodness libertarian, and everyone knows that.

          2. Weigel's Cock Ring   7 years ago

            All you have to do is just look at her links. With the exception of a couple that are from offbeat source like NORML and something called "coindesk", they're always all from the standard liberal media cesspool and Twitter.

            I will admit that her obsession with hookers, sex slaves, and legal prostitution is a libertarian position that is somewhat outside the conventional lefty media norm. It's kind of her thing.

            1. Citizen X   7 years ago

              Simple Mikey Hears Dog Whistle, Is Dog

            2. General Skarr's Prize Petunias   7 years ago

              ...so you're saying that you have a problem with the fact she sources the roundup from mainstream sources rather than sites like TIMECUBE. From what I know about you, that makes perfect sense.

            3. chemjeff radical individualist   7 years ago

              Because as everyone knows, the correct sources for a true libertarian to cite are Breitbart and Infowars.

      3. $park? The Misanthrope   7 years ago

        Chill

        Yeah, good luck with that.

      4. Donald Trump   7 years ago

        "Chill"

        Jesus Christ you are fucking lame

      5. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

        ...the content of the Roundup is determined by many things, including what stories I or others at Reason feel are most important, what stories are getting the most general attention, what stories might be of interest to libertarians that are getting overlooked, what stories appeal to my own idiosyncratic tastes, and *what stories we have already covered elsewhere on the site* or have in the immediate works.

        So Reason staff as a group does determine what the narrative will be.

        ENB, Trump won the Travel ban case. That is news. Its not the news that many at Reason want. Instead the immigration narrative of Reason went for two weeks about how bad, blah blah, Trump is. Reason staff's position was rejected by the SCOTUS.

      6. OGREtheTroll   7 years ago

        I took his comment about 'no mention of the travel ban' to be referring to that article in particular, or possibly the judge's order itself, and not to the Roundup. Of his four questions, the first is directly responding to the first quoted section of that particular article, and then there are three questions after the second quoted section; the first two are directly in response to the quoted section and presumably the last question is too.

      7. Rebel Scum   7 years ago

        what stories might be of interest to libertarians that are getting overlooked

        Let me know when you guys start doing that again. Also, let me know when you guys start taking libertarian perspectives on things again. It seems to me that the reliable libertarian perspectives come from Stossel and Tucile. Maybe give them more posts.

        1. MasterThief   7 years ago

          That's what I've been finding. Was a little annoyed to see Tucille join in on the overwhelming open borders crusade of Reason writers last week.
          To be fair, Stossel is a bit of a right wing/conservative brand of libertarian. Not totally sure what side Tucille falls on, but it does seem vaguely left if not in the middle of that divide. ENB, Newly Woke Welch (who used to seem vaguely right-leaning), Shikha (why is she even here?), Soave, and a number of other prominent writers here are very left wing. Gillespie was getting really bad, but by comparison is starting to look moderate. Bailey frustrates me with his AGW and SJW beliefs/rhetoric but even more so in poorly evaluating information and getting enthused over ideas that would have horrible outcomes for libertarians (if he thought deeper)
          I get that I'm fairly right wing and conservative but have a strong libertarian streak. I started coming here because I wanted a more consistent libertarian take on the news. I'm getting to the point where I'll just go to right wing news sources and put up with their religion and 'Murrika cheerleading because they otherwise are presenting more of a classical liberal view than Reason

    2. mad.casual   7 years ago

      The separations stopped a week ago.

      At the border. CPS separations of domestic families on private property (some of them immigrants as well) still continue at the rate of 1 three-week immigration policy fiasco every three days.

      1. Donald Trump   7 years ago

        And the silence is deafening.

  12. damikesc   7 years ago

    Simple solution.

    No amnesty at border. Full stop.

    If you're at the border, you're turned away. No hearing at all. Just sent back home.

    1. Rich   7 years ago

      You monster! At least give 'em an ice-cold Coca-Cola first!

      1. Citizen X   7 years ago

        Mexican Coke is better anyway. They use real sugar, you know.

        1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

          ^ So much this.

    2. Ken Shultz   7 years ago

      We'd need to secure the border first, and as several other commenters here have pointed out in recent months, that's unpossible because of the Constitution and the technology necessary to keep walls from being climbed over is at least several thousand years away.

      1. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

        A trickle of dedicated illegals circumventing a wall, Border Patrol, and risk of deportation is far better than ignoring the issue and let non-Americans do whatever they want.

        I remember you mentioned that secure border Americans would come around to relaxing border restrictions if they were not pushed so much. I agree with that statement.

        The more the open border and non-Americans push, the more resolved secure border Americans will become.

        Open border people will never win and the fight will be more restrictive laws, based on constitutional authority, and a more secure border than originally planned.

    3. chemjeff radical individualist   7 years ago

      You know, the government has signed treaties that deal with claims of asylum.

      Should the government just ignore those treaties?

      1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

        An argument based upon an appeal to international agreements falls flat for me

        1. Happy Chandler   7 years ago

          An argument based on the Constitution, you mean?

      2. Vernon Depner   7 years ago

        Yes.

        1. mad.casual   7 years ago

          OK, now, should Trump just ignore those treaties?

        2. chemjeff radical individualist   7 years ago

          Well, so much for THE SACRED RULE OF LAW.

          1. Vernon Depner   7 years ago

            Maybe, instead of just ignoring them, it would be more appropriate have some sort of public ceremony at which copies of the treaties are torn up or burned.

      3. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

        You meant the treaty that America only has to accept Mexican and Canadian asylum seekers? Mexico has to handle all asylum seekers coming north from Central America?

        Asylum is not a magic pass into the USA.

      4. Azathoth!!   7 years ago

        Again, not talking about asylum, or actual refugees.

        Talking about illegal migration--hence the term 'amnestiy'. Refugees are not 'amnestied'.

    4. Vernon Depner   7 years ago

      Most illegal border crossers are not apprehended at the border. They're caught later further inside the country, which makes some process necessary to determine they are in country illegally before they can be deported.

      Obviously, increased border security that would allow more of them to be caught red-handed could expedite deportations.

  13. Rhywun   7 years ago

    Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidate and political newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

    Oh lord I heard that airhead squawking on my morning news. Conveniently, that interesting nugget of information was left out of the story. If the GOP bothers to run anyone against her, they might want to consider reminding voters that she is a socialist?

    1. John   7 years ago

      I don't understand how her winning a single primary somehow means "socialism is on the rise". Bernie Sanders has been in the Senate for decades. The far left has always been socialist. The fact that they can win a Democratic primary just shows how far out of the mainstream the Democrats have become not that socialism is any more popular than it ever was.

      1. Rhywun   7 years ago

        I bet my monocle she won entirely because of her hue and her last name, not her views. Expect to hear stories about how she "looks like Queens".

        1. John   7 years ago

          I am quite sure of that. Expect to also hear stories about how she is a national sensation. Nothing is going to sell in places like Ohio and Michigan than a New York Socialist.

          1. Drave Robber   7 years ago

            "national socialist sensation"

            1. John   7 years ago

              Ten bucks says some journalist uses that phrase without a hint of irony.

            2. Citizen X   7 years ago

              You know who else... you know what, never mind.

              1. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

                Chicken.

        2. Rich   7 years ago

          What's a 'Queens'?

          1. Rhywun   7 years ago

            A place that doesn't have as many old white farts like Crowley hanging around as it used to.

          2. Shirley Knott   7 years ago

            Fat guy with semi-hot wife on a TV series mostly populated by has-been and wannabes.

            Or a gaggle of prancing gay men not on stage.

            1. John   7 years ago

              The sexism of TV sitcoms is really remarkable. On that show, a fat guy with a dead end job somehow has a fairly hot wife who stayed thin despite having kids. Jim Belushi used to have a show where he played some schlub whose wife was Courtney Thorne Smith. The Big Bang Theory is about a bunch of nerds who somehow manage to bang a series of very hot women, though the biggest nerd of all ends up with Miam Bilialick in a rare nod to realism.

              1. General_Tso   7 years ago

                Further back was 'Still Standing'. Fat Mark Addy (Robert Baratheon on GOT) married to the delectable Jami Gertz.

          3. General_Tso   7 years ago

            'Boy the way Glenn Miller played...'

            1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

              "....songs that made the Hit Parade...."

        3. mad.casual   7 years ago

          Expect to hear stories about how she "looks like Queens".

          All I can hear is "Not a threat to the West or the American way of life."

    2. $park? The Misanthrope   7 years ago

      Isn't Romney the Republican opponent? I thought I heard somewhere that her winning is basically just symbolic because Romney is going to crush her. I may have my stories mixed up though.

      1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

        No, this socialist was elected to a safe Democratic congressional seat. She unseated Crowley, who's a high ranking Democratic member of Congress

        1. $park? The Misanthrope   7 years ago

          Shit, she's from NY. I definitely got my stories crossed somehow. I blame Savannah Guthrie.

      2. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

        Romney is a RINO. A mormon RINO.

        1. Nardz   7 years ago

          A Morino?

          1. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

            Nice!

    3. Robert   7 years ago

      I won't say Crowley lost the D primary because I moved out of his district, but...he did sometimes have Conserative Party cross-endorsement.

  14. sarcasmic   7 years ago

    Anyone else notice how the price of wood has gone through the roof? Fucking protectionist assholes.

    1. Z565   7 years ago

      I noticed that. Prices are rising everywhere it seems
      Fucking sucks.

      1. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

        Prices have been rising since Booosh and wen through the roof under Obama.

        Its called inflation.

        1. Happy Chandler   7 years ago

          http://markets.businessinsider.....mber-price

          Data goes to 2004. Downward trend into the recession, bottoming ~$200. Up and down, between $200-300 under Obama. Latest price $563.

          http://futures.tradingcharts.c.....nuous.html

          Before Bush, heading into the dot-com bust lumber was dropping from $300 to $200.

          So, basically everything you said was fiction.

          1. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

            Those are markets and futures, dumb dumb. That is not the same as market price for lumber.

            Lumber price also varies from region to region and other market factors like taxation, regulation, and availability of supply can up prices.

            1. Happy Chandler   7 years ago

              Is there any evidence that price of lumber has gone up? Because inflation has been near zero.

    2. H. Farnham   7 years ago

      Yup. Payed well over 30 bucks for a sheet of half inch RTD plywood the other weekend. The guy behind the counter said something about trade with Canada and my buddy (hard-core Republican) immediately jumped into "well if we finally figure out that we can make this stuff over here and get some tariffs in place then maybe prices will come down". The guy looked over at me, and I just smiled and shook my head. Economic ignorance isn't just for Democrats.

      1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

        You discussed trade policy at a hardware stores? You and me visit very different hardware stores

        1. H. Farnham   7 years ago

          Nope, specifically why I just shook my head and didn't say anything. Politics seems to be a pretty common topic of conversation in rural Kansas, though. I figured it was pretty normal everywhere.

      2. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

        I guess the hardware guys didn't mention that prices of wood have been going up for years because Canada needs more money to pay for welfare programs.

        Funny thing when socialist governments like Canada raise prices artificially above market price and not a peep from economic illiterates.

        1. H. Farnham   7 years ago

          No, he didn't mention anything like that, because it was just a quick exchange about how quickly and recently the price of lumber has shot up and we were bitching about prices. Then my buddy threw in a Republican platitude, and we left to go build a cabinet.

          1. Citizen X   7 years ago

            Then my buddy threw in a Republican platitude, and we left to go build a cabinet.

            In a more rational world, this would be the complete extent that politics would impact daily life.

            1. H. Farnham   7 years ago

              Hey it's what Jesus the carpenter used to do. They talk about it in the fifth book of the gospel; the one the two party duopoly doesn't want you to read.

              1. Citizen X   7 years ago

                The First Council of Nicaea left out the Gospel of Hank because it was just 20 chapters of Jesus drinking beer and shooting the shit with his neighbor. Which is too bad, because it's supposed to have some really good car maintenance tips in it.

                1. H. Farnham   7 years ago

                  Damn Partii di Republicanus et Democratus have been screwing things up since 325.

        2. Happy Chandler   7 years ago

          http://markets.businessinsider.....mber-price
          He didn't mention it because it isn't true.

          1. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

            Oh dumb dumb, those are commodity prices not prices of lumber at the store.

            If you built things, you would know from month to month and year to year what lumber costs.

            1. Happy Chandler   7 years ago

              Ah, proof through assertion of anecdote.

              If the price increase is not due to the cost of lumber, where's it going? Not to Canada, as was asserted.

              The commodity price is more important, because that's what goes into construction. Your average homebuilder is not buying their lumber at Home Depot.

              1. Azathoth!!   7 years ago

                The complaints about lumber prices weren't coming from homebuilders.

                They were coming from people picking up lumber at Home Depot.

                Pay attention.

    3. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

      My stocks are going through the roof too!

  15. Just Say'n   7 years ago

    "RUSSIA WATCH"

    WTF? LOL

    1. Leo Kovalensky II   7 years ago

      Whoever said Sarah Palin was irrelevant was wrong. We need her watching now more than ever.

      1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

        Seriously. Why isn't she keeping an eye on this? Good thing libertarians and the Weekly Standard are paying attention to make believe

  16. Just Say'n   7 years ago

    There was also a major free speech victory at the Supreme Court yesterday.

  17. John   7 years ago

    Whenever anyone compares Trump to Hitler, their knowledge of Hitler and the Nazis inevitably consists of having seen Schindler's list and once having flipped through a copy of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich in a bookstore while briefly considering buying it.

    I know they are dishonest and stupid. But as much as anything they are ignorant. They think Trump is Hitler because they don't know anything about Hitler but think they do because they believe whatever makes them feel good.

    1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

      You just don't get it, do you?

      Trump and his supporters are literally Hitler, but the people who are electing open socialists are not socialists for reasons.

      Got it, Nazi?

      1. John   7 years ago

        That is right. Trump, a guy who was lawfully elected and has respected every court order that has been issued against him is Hitler. The people sending violent mobs of thugs out to harass and attack their political opponents are the forces of democracy and good.

    2. Ken Shultz   7 years ago

      Watching progressives compare Trump to something from Orwell is arguably worse.

      The progressives are arguing for some of the same fundamental things Orwell was decrying, and to see them cite Orwell in their defense . . . Orwell would have denounced them.

      "The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians."

      ----George Orwell

      Using the coercive power of government to force people to behave as if the believed certain things for the common "good" is what being a progressive is all about--and they want to compare Trump to something from Orwell?!

      1. Ken Shultz   7 years ago

        P.S. Here's progressives on Trump from Orwell:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KeX5OZr0A4

        Is that Shika Dalmia in the third row?

    3. Happy Chandler   7 years ago

      You might want to read Masha Gessen.

      You may disagree with her. But you cannot call her ignorant. You may even learn something.

      1. John   7 years ago

        If she thinks Trump is anything like Hitler, she is ignorant or lying. I might as well be reading someone who claims the earth is flat. No. I won't learn anything other than how stupid or more likely dishonest Gessen is.

        1. Happy Chandler   7 years ago

          Okay, you're not interested in challenging your positions. Only throwing out uninformed attacks.

          Many smarter people than you or me have examined parallels. If you truly believe in liberty, it is something to be aware of.

          1. Azathoth!!   7 years ago

            There is no need to 'challenge' a position like 'Trump is not like Hitler'. It is a demonstrable truth.

            A person who claims to have examined 'parallels' is not smart. At all. Intelligence, of any type, is foreign to such a person. Such a person would aspire to idiocy.

            But you are correct in one particular.

            Such a person is far smarter than you.

  18. Rich   7 years ago

    43 percent of female criminal investigators at the agencies reported some form of gender discrimination

    Nowl, *that* is especially heinous.

  19. Citizen X   7 years ago

    10-term U.S. Rep. Joseph Crowley (D?N.Y.)?described roundly as "the Queens Democratic party boss" and floated as the Democrats next House speaker if the party can take back Congress?lost in Tuesday's primary elections to 28-year-old Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidate and political newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

    She's pretty cute, for a wannabe tyrant with shitty ideas.

    1. Leo Kovalensky II   7 years ago

      Share some of that wealth, baby.

      1. John   7 years ago

        I hear Bernie Sanders has a really nice vacation house. There seems to be a lot of money to be made demanding everyone else give up theirs.

        1. Citizen X   7 years ago

          He earned that dacha fair and square by conceding primary defeat to Herself!

  20. Longtorso, Johnny   7 years ago

    Mob Violence and Gun Ownership
    However, what if these seemingly disconnected issues run on converging tracks, rather than merely parallel ones? We are watching Democrats, perpetrators of the incremental coup, encouraging the rise in political mob violence to overthrow the existing political order. Eventually, sooner than later, the Democratic mob will feel empowered by its immunity from consequences to expand its tactics and target nongovernment citizens for bullying, intimidation, and inevitable violence. This is exactly the tactic the political left understands will be enabled most by strict gun control, meaning confiscation. After all, mob violence as a tool of political enforcement, will be far easier and more effective if those against whom it is deployed are not capable of defending themselves. Disarmament of the law-abiding has always preceded violent revolution. This is the entire purpose of "gun control." Only one side will be equipped for the impending violence.

    1. John   7 years ago

      I have been saying this forever. Antifa talks a lot of shit about going into people's homes and terrorizing them, but they never actually do it because to invade people's homes in this country requires a death wish. If the Progs ever succeeded and disarming this country, that would not be the case and Antifa and their ilk would start doing things like that.

      The left is a fascist movement. Fascist movements depend upon the use of mob political violence to terrorize their opponents until they take power and can use the ordinary powers of government to do so. The only thing that prevents the left from doing that is the US public being well armed. One of the biggest lies the left tells is the idea that the Right has guns because they may someday take on the army. No, by the time the army is against you, it is too late. You need a gun so that you can defend yourself against political terrorism so that they army never turns against you.

      1. Palin's Buttplug   7 years ago

        Right-wing terrorism is terrorism motivated by a variety of ideologies and beliefs, including Islamophobia, anti-communism, neo-fascism and neo-Nazism, and a mindset against abortion. This type of terrorism has been sporadic, with little or no international cooperation.[1] Modern radical right-wing terrorism first appeared in Western Europe in the 1970s and it first appeared in Eastern Europe following the dissolution of the Soviet Union.[2]

        Right-wing terrorists aim to overthrow governments and replace them with nationalist or fascist-oriented regimes.[1] The core of this movement includes neo-fascist skinheads, far-right extremists, and youth sympathisers who believe that the state must rid itself of foreign elements in order to protect its citizens.[3] However, they usually lack a rigid ideology

        You're an idiot.

        1. John   7 years ago

          You are a retard. You are so stupid, you can't even make a sensible response to a post. We are talking about mob violence. Some unsited quote about "right wing terrorism" whatever that is, has nothing to do with the point. You really are a waste of space.

          1. Weigel's Cock Ring   7 years ago

            Dipshit Dsve Weigel is back from his busy week of covering the elections.

          2. Palin's Buttplug   7 years ago

            There is no real "mob violence" you stupid bastard. What domestic terrorism there is comes from your conservative brethren like Dylann Roof.

            1. John   7 years ago

              Roof was an idiot who shot up a church because he couldn't get laid. That is not political violence dumb ass. Political violence is the Bernie Bro trying to murder Republican Congressman.

              1. Happy Chandler   7 years ago

                It is also a Trump guy driving into a crowd and murdering someone.
                It is also anti abortion activists murdering doctors and shooting at clinics.
                It's also a Trump guy stabbing people after yelling epithets on a train.

                The list goes on.

                1. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

                  The lefties always have everyone beat in the USA relating to violence.
                  List of Weatherman group violence

                  Front be Liberation de Quebec
                  This is for you Rufus

                  Symbionese Liberation Army

                  May 19 Commies

                  United Freedom Front

                  Nazi Bund

                2. Azathoth!!   7 years ago

                  It's also a Trump guy stabbing people after yelling epithets on a train

                  He's a berniebro.

  21. Palin's Buttplug   7 years ago

    Trump tax cuts carry a big price tag: Huge debt and risk of another financial crisis, budget office warns

    To bring the red ink down to the historical average level, taxes would need to increase 17% -- $2,000 per household -- or government spending would need to be cut by 15%. Over the last 50 years, federal debt has average about 41% of the gross domestic product.

    Just keeping the federal debt at its current, historically high level would require increasing taxes by 11% ? $1,300 per household ? or cutting spending by 10%.

    http://www.latimes.com/politic.....story.html

    Cut spening - you Con Man Jackass.

    1. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   7 years ago

      Paul Krugman's prediction was essentially correct. Drumpf's election has caused economic ruin.

    2. Citizen X   7 years ago

      Hey shreek, where've you been? And how soon can you go back to there?

  22. Rich   7 years ago

    Within 30 days, and [sic] all minors ages five and above must be reunited with their parents.

    Serious question: If a judge can mandate stuff like this, why can't they mandate stuff like, say, "Within 30 months, the government must enable teleportation of minors to the destination of their choice"?

    1. Jgalt1975   7 years ago

      Because one is realistically feasible and remedies due process concerns, whereas the other one isn't and doesn't?

      1. mad.casual   7 years ago

        Because one is realistically feasible and remedies due process concerns, whereas the other one isn't and doesn't?

        It didn't remedy jack shit. The policy of reunification was SOP since the Obama administration or are you people morons enough to believe that the separations that occurred even then just ended with leaving these kids in foster care or releasing them to the wild? The only time it didn't apply was when parentage and/or reunification wasn't clear or necessarily desired but a judge mandated it in order to fix a problem that didn't exist; so, off we go.

  23. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

    Preliminary injunction on ICE family separation policy. A federal court says the Trump administration's policy of separating migrant children from parents caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border must stop, and that families who have already been separated must be reunited within one month.

    So after the SCOTUS mentioned that federal district courts issuing national injunctions will not be tolerated, a federal district court judge does exactly that?

    They are "district" for a reason. Their district court jurisdiction covers a relatively small area.

    1. John   7 years ago

      This will be overturned. And the judge knows it. But it will take a few months and the judge will feel he has done his duty to the cause. This is the kind of crap that needs to get judges impeached. What is the point of having a judge if they are going to ignore the law laid down by Congress and interpreted by higher courts?

      1. Rich   7 years ago

        This is the kind of crap that needs to get judges impeached.

        CONTEMPT!

      2. Just Say'n   7 years ago

        The majority opinion from yesterday suggested as much

    2. Weigel's Cock Ring   7 years ago

      They're doing this because they think they will win the long game playing it this way.

      The insane left has decided they're not going to follow any rules any longer. They're out for blood and total war.

      1. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

        The mistake of this thinking is it gives the SCOTUS precedent to control lower courts.

        If Congress would grow some balls, they could impeach these judges for intentionally refusing to follow precedent.

  24. Weigel's Cock Ring   7 years ago

    Canada is now preparing steel quotas and tariffs on China and others to prevent producers there from dumping the goods that they can't sell to the US.

    The thing about the idea of total, unfettered free trade is that almost nobody actually believes in it. Most people believe in doing what they think is in the best interests of them and their people (whether their particular decisions are right or wrong is another question).

    Anyone who thought Trudeau was awesome simply because he stood up to the big poopyhead was kidding themselves. Trudeau is just doing what he believes to be in the best interest of Canadians, and I strongly suspect that most Canadians are quite OK with that. That's all.

    1. Rufus The Monocled   7 years ago

      Pretty much. Canadians are the most apathetic bunch of people around. They'll happily sleep at the switch so long as they believe anything we do is swell because we're Canadian and Canadians always do the right thing.

      We're getting raped and pillaged by the dairy cartel but who cares? As long as we don't have the choice of American competition and their 'cheap' dairy!

      1. Weigel's Cock Ring   7 years ago

        I do think that the best thing for the world as a whole, especially in the long run, would be if everyone voluntarily agreed to eliminate all of their tariffs across the board.

        But that will never, ever happen. There will always be someone out there trying to game the system in their favor.

        1. Rufus The Monocled   7 years ago

          Trump did ask for that and was laughed right out of the room.

          France is possibly the most protectionist country in the G7.

          1. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

            Shame Reason blames Trump when countries like France refuse to lower tariffs and Trump offers to get rid of tariffs.

      2. John   7 years ago

        Rufus, I give you the most Canadian war ever

        http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11.....napps.html

        1. Rufus The Monocled   7 years ago

          I remember that. Pointed directly to the foolishness of our attitude towards the military in the post-war era.

      3. Ken Shultz   7 years ago

        Seems to me that Canadians are very much in tune with the idea that Canadian trade policy should benefit Canadian companies at the expense of their competitors from elsewhere. You won't find many people in Canada, I suspect, who think otherwise.

        Can't say I'm opposed to the idea that American trade policy should primarily benefit Americans myself. It's just that my focus is on American consumers, their standard of living, and their quality of life. Focus on that, and I come to the conclusion that protecting American companies from their competitors overseas is not in the best interests the United States.

        Anyway, Trudeau isn't an ideologue so much as he's trying to deal with the political fallout of upcoming concessions to Trump on NAFTA. That's why he ran his mouth when he should have stayed quiet ahead of Trump's meeting with Kim, and that's what's driving all of his thinking on trade now.

        If he makes concessions, he can't make it look like he's Trump's lapdog--so he as to growl a lot.

        If he doens't make concessions, it may hurt the Canadian economy, and there's political fallout associated with that, as well.

        1. Rufus The Monocled   7 years ago

          The last two sentences: You just highlighted a dimension in Canadian politics every PM has had to carefully weigh: How to not look like you're bowing to America while making it look like we're sovereign.

          1. John   7 years ago

            Sometimes I wonder if maybe Quebec wouldn't be better off on its own. At least it has its own identity that involves something besides "we are not Americans".

            1. Rufus The Monocled   7 years ago

              There are pros and cons. There are some criteria met I would like first before I consent.

              1. John   7 years ago

                It is my understanding that Quebec is broke and could never leave without sticking the rest of Canada with an enormous bill. I don't know that much about Canadian politics, but my instinct says that if it was ever going to happen, it would have happened by now.

                1. Rufus The Monocled   7 years ago

                  Yes and I agree.

                  Quebec misplayed its card and the bottom line remains it signed on to Confederation.

                  It has a lot of powers anyway.

          2. Donald Trump   7 years ago

            "How to not look like you're bowing to America while making it look like we're sovereign."

            Which of course means you are bowing to America by even considering the issue in the first place.

  25. creech   7 years ago

    Network news yesterday ran some clip of a kid crying for her mother in a detention center. Followed by peal-clutching from the news reader. Hey, you can see that every day in every day care center in the U.S. and most summer camps too. Guess every American kid ever has been traumatized for life.

    1. John   7 years ago

      They can't seem to figure out that anyone dumb enough not to understand that this sort of thing is an unfortunate consequence of the actions of the parents and went on under every administration is already voting Democrat. They are not persuading anyone to come to their side.

      1. jcw   7 years ago

        Thanks John, I needed a comment blaming the victim(s) of the separation.

        1. John   7 years ago

          Yes. No one makes them show up at the border. If you bring your kid to the border, you know what is going to happen. So, yes you are responsible for it occurring. It is called personal responsibility.

          1. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

            Many of the immigrants know better than Americans how our immigration system works.

            They are counting on their kids being accepted into the USA based on emotion and Americans charitable spirit. Then the kids get assigned an immigration attorney and probably a social worker because they are minors. The parents and family then use the kid to get visas.

            Its a scam and fucking up the real people who are begging for political asylum because they will be murdered for being Libertarians in their socialist shithole country that the poor immigrants then left to try and get inside the USA.

            We don't want scammer immigrants who do not respect that the USA has immigration rules to follow.

        2. Donald Trump   7 years ago

          Well, when you know the consequences and you do it anyway, you sound a little silly blaming other people.

  26. lap83   7 years ago

    lost in Tuesday's primary elections to 28-year-old Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidate and political newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

    A rare good-looking Democratic socialist? Dammit, we're never going to hear the end of her

    1. lap83   7 years ago

      she's inexperienced though, so the political machine will probably spit her out in a few years looking like a haggard old shoe

      1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

        Damn political machine preventing good socialists from socialisming the shit out of everyone

      2. Rhywun   7 years ago

        Maxine Waters is only 35 and look at her.

        1. $park? The Misanthrope   7 years ago

          Oh SNAP!

    2. Rich   7 years ago

      You know who else was a good-looking Democratic socialist?

      1. Citizen X   7 years ago

        [crickets]

        1. Rich   7 years ago

          Well, I was thinking of the weeping secretary in the Downfall parody, but that answer will do.

      2. Just Say'n   7 years ago

        Trotsky. Duh

      3. John   7 years ago

        http://www.google.com/search?q.....20&bih=945

        Leni Riefenstahl?

      4. Weigel's Cock Ring   7 years ago

        Elizabeth Nolan Brown?

        1. $park? The Misanthrope   7 years ago

          Nice try a negging, Captain Dumbshit.

          1. Weigel's Cock Ring   7 years ago

            I know I have no shot now that's she's officially married to the George Clooney of Mother Jones magazine.

            1. Citizen X   7 years ago

              That is far from the only reason you don't have a shot.

      5. Drave Robber   7 years ago

        Ferrets look mostly good, and they subscribe to democratic socialism in the form of "what is mine is mine, what is yours is up for grabs".

      6. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

        FDR?

    3. John   7 years ago

      She is the only good looking female Democratic politician. Can you name another? I can't.

      1. sarcasmic   7 years ago

        Of course not. If they're pretty then they must be dumb, which is why the pretty ones are all Republicans.

        1. Rich   7 years ago

          Wait a minute .... Is that *sexual harassment*?

      2. Just Say'n   7 years ago

        Tulsi Gabbard. Also, one of the last sane Democrats. More anti-war than most libertarian publications and groups.

        1. John   7 years ago

          Never heard of her but she is pretty cute.

          1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

            The American Conservative, Mises, and the other anti-war types have been pimping her since 2010 or so.

          2. lap83   7 years ago

            She criticized Obama for failing to identify Islamic extremism as the enemy when he talked about ISIS in his SOTU a few years ago and she has been out of lockstep with the Dem establishment in other areas too, especially foreign policy

            1. John   7 years ago

              I really wish the Democratic party would regain its sanity. As it is, there is no real way to hold the GOP accountable. Voting the Republicans out of office effectively means turning the country over to the "Too Crazy, Stupid, and Evil to Vote For Under Any Circumstances Party". And that is not a good situation for anyone.

            2. Just Say'n   7 years ago

              She's more known for opposing our actions in Syria, Iraq, exiting the Iran Deal, and our current Russia fever dream panic.

              She's no different from Rand, Massie, and sometimes Amash with regards to foreign policy

              1. lap83   7 years ago

                She is pretty anti-war, which is good obviously,but she also recognizes that radical Islam is a threat, unlike a lot of anti-war types (coughReasoncough) who seem to think it will magically correct itself if we're just nicer to the terrorists.

      3. lap83   7 years ago

        The only one I can think of is Tulsi Gabbard, but she's not a typical Democrat. I don't know what it is, the power-hungry craziness affects their appearance in some way?

        1. John   7 years ago

          Democrats are all feminists. And feminism has always been nothing but a power play by the ugly girls to take revenge and power back from the pretty ones. So, it would make sense that most Democratic women are homely.

  27. DajjaI   7 years ago

    Weep not, my darling Drumpfkenc?cken. Weep.... not.......

  28. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   7 years ago

    National security adviser John Bolton will powwow with Vladimir Putin in Moscow today. "The president will receive Bolton at the Kremlin," spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. The two men are prepping for a meeting between Putin and President Trump that is supposed to take place in mid-July. "The Trump-Putin summit would be the first meeting of the two presidents not taking place on the sidelines of a broader international gathering," notes The Washington Post.

    Hurry up Mueller and kick him out of office already!

    #TrumpRussia

    1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

      Bolton, the man who advocated for war against Russia during the Bush administration, is a Russian stooge. So smart

  29. Longtorso, Johnny   7 years ago

    By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court just ruled that compulsory union dues for government employees violate the First Amendment. Alito wrote the majority opinion.

    1. Rich   7 years ago

      Hmm. Any ruling on compulsory income taxes?

      1. Citizen X   7 years ago

        They're the price we pay for a polite society, you know. You can tell by how polite society is now.

        1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

          Go gargle balls

          1. Citizen X   7 years ago

            YOU go gargle balls.

            1. Aloysious   7 years ago

              Is anybody here licensed to gargle Balls? No? What about bonded. No?

              Then stop this illegal black market ball gargling this instant!

    2. Leo Kovalensky II   7 years ago

      This is going to cause lots of gnashing of teeth from the left. Hold on tight!

      1. John   7 years ago

        This is to quote our former VP a big fucking deal. Public employee unions are nothing but a giant ATM for the left. This ruling means they can no longer force people to pay them dues and actually have to account to their members for how they spend the money. That means they will have a fraction of the money they have now and likely won't be able to use the money they do have to fund the rest of the left. This ruling is to the left what ending Prohibition was the mafia.

        1. Leo Kovalensky II   7 years ago

          It goes beyond that. Union membership will decline because there's more incentive to be a "free rider" now. So it will be a battle to maintain 50%+1 among the people who don't want to pay more than their co-workers.

          1. John   7 years ago

            I think the free rider issue is overrated. Unions exist in open shop states. The difference is that in open shop states they have to give their employees value. The thing about being in a union shop where you don't have to join is that when you do they have to care about you in particular, since there is no guarantee that your replacement should you be fired or leave. That means the union really goes to bat in grievances and disputes with your employer. And that is a good thing. That is what you pay a union for. Your wages are set by the market. Unions have a lot less to do with that than they claim. There is only so much money a company can pay. But how they treat you is something that unions can make a difference and that is not something that you can free ride on. Unions in closed shop states generally don't do that as much since all they care about is your dues and your position not who fills it.

            The way to think about open and closed shop is that it is like school choice. Whenever you are forced to pay your money to something, that entity is never going to care about giving value in return the way it would if it had to compete for your dollar. Unions are no different in that regard.

    3. Weigel's Cock Ring   7 years ago

      AFSCME, which I think is the biggest union left in the U.S. (I may be wrong about that), is about to take a massive hit, as is the democratic party in general.

      Even liberal government employees prefer to keep their money, given the choice.

    4. Rhywun   7 years ago

      Nice. I can't wait to drink to this tonight. The left is going to go apeshit.

  30. John   7 years ago

    http://ijr.com/2018/06/1106138.....-children/

    Democratic volunteer threatens to shoot Republican reps children.

    Behold the inherent violence of Trump's America.

    1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

      Not getting a lot of media attention.

      I swear to God if someone tries to murder Rand Paul again and he doesn't shoot back, he's dead to me

      1. mad.casual   7 years ago

        I swear to God if someone tries to murder Rand Paul again and he doesn't shoot back, he's dead to me

        He was on the mower oblivious to being tackled. I'm not entirely convinced that, had he been armed, he wouldn't have wound up shot with his own gun.

      2. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

        Rand Paul is rich enough to hire a body guard for a few years.

        He needs to be packing heat. Most politicians are chickenshit which is why they need protection details.

        If Rand Paul shot someone in self-defense while being attacked, the lefties would never mess with him again.

        Freedom is not free.

    2. Citizen X   7 years ago

      Well, we were warned that the election of Donald Trump was going to lead to an upsurge in fascist violence.

      1. John   7 years ago

        It still amazes even me how the Scalizi shooting has just been written out of history. Had that guy had better aim it would have been the worst political killing in US history. And the media made sure it was out of the papers by the next week.

        1. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

          I don't even see any updates on James Thomas Hodgkinson, who did the shooting.

          1. Citizen X   7 years ago

            Here's your update: he continues to be dead.

            1. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

              Thanks. I forgot that he died.

              I think the last thing that I saw on him was that he was seriously injured by return fire.

              Your best comment this year Citizen.

    3. lap83   7 years ago

      Please don't associate us with him, he doesn't deserve the "Florida man" label. We have standards. /other Florida men

    4. Eidde   7 years ago

      "His banner picture showed his support for Planned Parenthood."

      So he's consistent.

      At least it's an ethos.

  31. Cynical Asshole   7 years ago

    Anyone else seen this steaming pile of dogshit? I'll withhold further comment for the time being, so if anyone is curious what I'm linking to, you;ll have to subject yourself to clicking on it. Just be warned: have a barf bag handy.

    1. Citizen X   7 years ago

      Are they joking? That clip is a bad joke, right? Like, somebody was trying to be ironically unbearable but overshot the mark?

      1. Cynical Asshole   7 years ago

        Sadly, I don't think it's a joke. I caught the tail end of a commercial for it last weekend just as I turned on the TV (they wouldn't be running ads for if it was a joke) - so I looked up the trailer out of curiosity. Now I wish I had just left it alone. It looks more like "The Fast and The Furious the Series" set in Hawai'i where the characters all have the same names from a popular 80's TV show (I probably just gave it away) while having as little to do with the 80's series as possible outside of the character names.

      2. mad.casual   7 years ago

        Are they joking? That clip is a bad joke, right? Like, somebody was trying to be ironically unbearable but overshot the mark?

        Actually, I kinda wanna commend whomever made the clip. If I'd said, "Condense an entire season of unwatchable garbage down to 4 min. of highlights that both sizzles with action and ward people off watching." I couldn't have gotten a better product. I simultaneously feel slaked by the action, confident that everything else about the show is garbage, and that I don't need to see any more.

        The only thing I can say is, needs more mustache.

    2. John   7 years ago

      We really do live in a world where nothing is sacred. Let me guess, he probably drives a Tesla. The horror.

    3. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

      Fucking Hollywood and their utter lack of creativity to remake a popular show for its time and fuck up the legacy.

      He fucking doesn't even have a Selleck or Stossel mustache. Punk has afternoon shadow.

      He drives the Ferraris though. Gotta be cool.

  32. Earth Skeptic   7 years ago

    Oh fuck it. Just build a wall around California, and open the border to Baja.

  33. Rebel Scum   7 years ago

    forcible separation of parents from their young children for no legitimate reason,"

    Jailing and prosecuting the (ostensible) parents for committing a crime is "no legitimate reason"...

  34. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

    Air Force veteran sets self on fire to protest treatment under VA
    Veteran engages in self-immolation to protest treatment by VA

    This was barely mentioned in the news outside of Atlanta but the news is all over Joe Jackson dying.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

How Making GLP-1s Available Over the Counter Can Unlock Their Full Potential

Jeffrey A. Singer | From the June 2025 issue

Bob Menendez Does Not Deserve a Pardon

Billy Binion | 5.30.2025 5:25 PM

12-Year-Old Tennessee Boy Arrested for Instagram Post Says He Was Trying To Warn Students of a School Shooting

Autumn Billings | 5.30.2025 5:12 PM

Texas Ten Commandments Bill Is the Latest Example of Forcing Religious Texts In Public Schools

Emma Camp | 5.30.2025 3:46 PM

DOGE's Newly Listed 'Regulatory Savings' for Businesses Have Nothing to Do With Cutting Federal Spending

Jacob Sullum | 5.30.2025 3:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!