Reason Roundup

Children Left Crying in Streets After ICE Arrests Parents in Massive Mississippi Raid

Plus: Chelsea Manning's latest motion is denied, Prager University's Google lawsuit is nonsense, and more...

|

An immigration enforcement operation in Mississippi has led to 680 people being detained. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted the raids at seven food processing plants around the state Wednesday.

"The raids happened in small towns near Jackson with a workforce made up largely of Latino immigrants. The towns hit include Bay Springs, Carthage, Canton, Morton, Pelahatchie and Sebastapol," the Clarion Ledger reports.

In Scott County alone, at least six families with school-age children had parents taken in yesterday's ICE raids, says the paper. "Reports from the scene of the raids mentioned children waving goodbye to their parents as the adults were taken into custody. It is not publicly known how many children are being impacted by the arrests."

In Forrest, Mississippi, the "children of those who were arrested are left alone in the streets crying for help," tweeted WJTV 12 News staffer Alex Love. "Strangers and neighbors are taking them to a local gym to be put up for the night."

Later, from the gym, Love reported that many of the kids there—some of them only toddlers—were "left scared & crying after coming home from school & being locked out without their parents. Donated food & drinks are being provided."

One 11-year-old girl cried: "Government, please show some heart. Let my parent be free." (More here.)

Acting Director of ICE Matthew Albence bragged to the AP that this was biggest workplace sting operation conducted in more than a decade and likely the largest ever conducted in one state.

Those apprehended are being processed at a military facility in Flowood. The AP "witnessed dozens of agents ready to process the workers…with seven lines, one for each location."

Some local reporters got video of the raids:


FREE MINDS

Chelsea Manning's motion to reconsider the steep sanctions imposed on her has been denied:

The Judge denied her motion without holding a hearing on the matter, although both parties had consented to and anticipated an opportunity to present further evidence and argument. In a footnote, Judge Trenga explained his unexpected decision by saying "The Court…finds, based upon the nature and volume of documents proffered, that a hearing would not aid the decision process and therefore decides the Motion without a hearing."


FREE MARKETS

Walter Olson offers some caveats about Prager University's lawsuit against YouTube:

YouTube's optional "restricted mode," meant to limit kid viewing, isn't important or much used (only 1.5% of users enable it). The PragerU shows at issue did have some content about topics like rape, murder, and genocide that might disturb younger children. And many other well-known shows see a larger share of their episodes put into restricted mode. Thus 12% of Prager U. videos have been put in restricted mode, compared with 24% of History Channel videos, 28% of Vox videos and 54% of Daily Show videos….One irony I see in this is that conservatives up till recently have tended to favor promoting parental-control modes in social media, or even making them the default, and have accepted the inevitability that the automated algorithms that inevitably drive these modes when applied to large bodies of material may sometimes sweep broadly enough to screen out even some responsible, sober, and fact-based discussions of topics to which parents might not want to expose younger teens. Having now seen these modes in action, they seem to be having second thoughts.


QUICK HITS

  • Human Rights Watch endorses the decriminalization of sex work. Meanwhile:

  • Six terrible new tech bills in Congress.
  • A 41-year-old man who spoke no Arabic, was born in Greece, and had been living in the U.S. since he was a baby was deported to Iraq (where he had never lived) in June. His family reports that he has died there from complications trying to obtain his diabetes medication.
  • Bill de Blasio is in a very stupid Twitter spat with Rudy Giuliani:

  • Google searches for "lesbian" will get less pornographic.
  • Huck magazine profiles porn star and sex worker rights activist Conner Habib.
  • A new show on Fox will feature the former cast of Beverly Hills, 90210 reuniting to play themselves reuniting for a fake version of the show.
  • Cheers:

NEXT: 6 Terrible New Tech Bills in Congress

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted the raids at seven food processing plants around the state Wednesday.

    Yeah, get those freeloaders.

    1. Hello.

      “One 11-year-old girl cried: “Government, please show some heart. Let my parent be free.” ”

      Rufus ICE: You know the song? It’s a no fun being an illegal alien.

    2. ITT thread, we learn that three losers, Chipper Sparky and the dumbass I fooled with “Swale Brinkman” are afraid of me.

      That’s fucking awesome.

    3. “Nobody is above the law.” – Corey Booker, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Julian Castro, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bill de Blasio, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Jerrold Nadler, Eric Swallwell, Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, Chris Cuomo, Rachel Maddow, Rosie O’Donnell and others too numerous to mention

      My heart bleeds for these poor children, but what can I say? The mob has spoken.

      1. These kids are just snowflakes. When I was a kid and my parents were deported, we just sucked it up and went to the mill and filled the new job opening. AND we paid mill owner for his generosity in giving us work experience.

      2. Their parents broke the law.

        If you rob a bank, you get arrested and are seperated from your children.

    1. “vaya con dios”

      1. Do you not know Spanish where “ll” is pronounced ‘ya’?

  2. It is not publicly known how many children are being impacted by the arrests.

    If only journalists would tug at America’s heartstrings over kids watching their parents dragged away in the War on Drug Users.

    1. How about children of white supremacists?

      1. children of white supremacists

        Nice band name,;but maybe too close to Children of Bodom, so nice support group name.

        1. Oh, how I miss the old Children of Bodom. What happened to them after the first three albums?

          1. At least we have a new Tool song. It’s not an evolution of their sound, but sometimes more of the same is great.

      2. All 20 of them?

        Being proud of one’s race and one’s nation is not a crime?

  3. Iran is reportedly jamming ship GPS navigation systems to get them to wander into Iranian waters

    There is only one way to deal with pirates and it involves strength thru superior firepower.

    1. Also, letters of marque and reprisal.

      1. No no JFree stupidly insists those are illegal.

      2. Definitely, get that constitutional authority to blast them out of the water.

      3. So issue letters of marque to anyone who wants to take on the Iranian navy and military without pay but allowing them to keep any booty they capture.

        Yup that is going to work.

        1. You can pay people who are commissioned by the US government.

          I would do it for free. I get to keep the explosives and automatic weapons that I recover and bring them back to the USA.

          1. Then you are hiring mercenaries. Not a letter of marque.

          2. The US has hired mercenaries and certainly still does they call them contractors now. Not sure how you would use them in this situation.

          3. As you know privateers and the letters were a pretty good deal and lots of countries used them. If your commercial ships were being attacked by another country and you could not protect them all you issued these things. Then your, basically a licensed pirate ship could go ahead and plunder but only against the enemy. They could keep whatever they got which was much more than the navy would pay. Of course some of them got rich and some got hung anyway. So cost you nothing.

            Was thinking you could do something like that with cyberwar, I think it already happens. You want to mess with the money in country X’s central bank so you make a deal with hackers that they are exempt from prosecution and get to keep all or part of the profits.

    2. something something millions for defense, not one cent for tribute something

      Gone are the days, my friends – – – – –

    3. At this point can’t they put a line of buoys out there to mark the freaking line?

      1. We also need to get Oman to let ships sail more inside their territorial waters and probably dredge deeper channels inside the those territorial waters.

        If this become a shooting war, those Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf need to disappear. The Iranians use those islands to force ships out 12 nautical miles from the islands.

    4. Outfit some Q ships.

    5. Where are those literal combat ships we put out billions for? Oh right.

      The money should have been used to build fast destroyers equipped with deck guns to take out those small fast boats the Iranians used.

      The real problem here is we don’t have enough of the right kind of ships for proper escort duty.

  4. Acting Director of ICE Matthew Albence bragged to the AP that this was biggest workplace sting operation conducted in more than a decade and likely the largest ever conducted in one state.

    Someone isn’t reading the room and honestly I’m not sure who that is.

    1. One thing is for sure, Fist had his coffee and cracked his knuckles for a day of Firsts.

      1. I have not yet begun to first.

        1. I just wanted to get a few comments in ahead of Tulpa and Chemjeff taking over the thread.

          1. Don’t worry, I have finally learned my lesson w.r.t. Tulpa.

            1. Yeah, just ignore him. Train your eyes to skip over his comments.

              1. Here’s a tip if you absolutely feel that if you must respond if you see a post. Click the flag then refresh the page. Whether or not anything ever happens to the comment, it will be forever hidden under the comment flagged message.

                1. Nice self help support group you three have formed. Less tears than a sunday womens book club after the latest oprah must read I hope.

                  1. God damn its so pathetic that they’re afraid of me.

                  2. I guess Sparky’s looking to replace mcgoo in the dickless squad

                  3. Haha. $parkY, Jeffey, and Chipper MD dont even realize that many of us already skip over their garbage comments.

                  4. Some of us are not terribly appreciative of Tulpa’s and others’ attempts to try to turn this place into a sewer.

                    1. YOU turned it into a sewer long ago.

                      That and shitty reason staff articles.

                    2. Jeff you’re a troll and trash. Everyone sees it.

                2. That is a good suggestion, thanks.

        2. Now I fully expect you to post a comment before the article drops.

          1. Nuts. Threading fail.

            1. Not sure what exactly you were doing, but I hope you are able to extricate your nuts safely.

              1. I’ve heard of threading eyebrows, but never down there.

                1. If you have eyebrows down there, more power to you, I guess.

  5. “Government, please show some heart.”

    Prepare for a tough life lesson, kid.

    1. /throws copy of Reason magazine at kid’s feet.

      1. Throws poutine at Rufus’ feet.

        1. /kicks that junk away.

          1. Throws Playboy featuring Erika Eleniak at Rufus’ feet.

  6. The Dow Would Be Up Wednesday If It Weren’t for Disney Stock

    Wait…wait…WAIT. I have been assured by Boehm and the other hack writers at reason that Trump’s tariffs are the problem, not Mickey Mouse Supremacy boycotts.

    1. Disney is blaming Star Wars Land for their losses. I agree with them. Star wars sucks.

      1. Disney controls some news media IIRC, so those outlets seem to be mitigating the looming financial issues for Disney.

        Disney bought all sorts of content and rights to content and it’s not paying off like they hoped.

        I suspect AT&T will have the same issue but at least Ma Bell has a diversified portfolio of ISP and cell service to hold them up.

        1. Yeah. Given the new slate of Marvel movies planned…yeah, good luck with milking THOSE. Female Thor sold a shit ton of comics, right?

          No?

          Oh well. I’m sure making movies based on comics nobody wants to read can ONLY lead to massive box office receipts.

          1. Why make a female Thor? Seems kind of boring. Come up with a new idea, new character that also happens to be female and badass, maybe even a goddess. It could be really good.

            Instead, they’re making a female Thor, which will forever be compared to and living in the shadow of the real Thor. Then, they’ll complain about the comparisons as if they are sexist, but the reality is that people will comparing it to the real Thor because the real Thor came out first and the new one is, by its very nature, based on the real Thor.

        2. ATT has 5G and a few other things to give it some tailwinds, but it also has a massive pile of debt. The juicy dividend keeps investors interested though.

      2. So, Disney managed to make the most money making movie franchise in history into a money loser. I think you are right that the Star Wars franchise is to blame for a lot of their problems. I do, however, see how that helps their cause.

        1. Star wars was living off nostalgia. Disney made a pillow of nostalgia and smothered the franchise.

          1. They took a franchise that made billions of dollars selling to boys and young men and decided what it really needed to be was feminist. The force is female you know.

            It is like trying to do a reboot of Sex in the City with the cast of American Chopper.

            1. I’d watch that.

              1. Me as well.

                It’d be nice to see a show where the only discussions of a horse involve the HP of a bike and not how the lead resembles one.

            2. It is kinda disappointing that the new movies were so Disneyfied. I suspect they believed they’d make more money by pandering to the grrl power and social justice nitwits that inhabit Twitter and Instagram.

              1. Wow you made an observation three people already made, and you thought it was worth posting.

                Great job that’s actually good for you!

                1. I’d like to re-iterate that you two should get it over with and fuck already.

                  Release the tension already. The public display is weird.

                  1. I’ve offered. He refuses to bottom for me, and that’s insulting since it’s how he usually gets paid.

                    And I refuse to pay him.

              2. “I suspect they believed they’d make more money by pandering to the grrl power and social justice nitwits that inhabit Twitter and Instagram.”

                No, they don’t. Making money is nice, but not as important as The Message. Even though they’re public companies, and in theory, ethically obligated to provide the greatest return to their shareholders. Not like the shareholders can do much about it, these days.

                This attitude on the part of Disney stems from the idea that a business should be concerned about things like “social consciousness” or anything other than legally making money for its investors or shareholders. Personally, I started seeing that crap in undergraduate and graduate business courses about 25 years ago, and I guess those people are now in decision-making positions within large companies.

                But, no, Disney and the like don’t do things like torpedo Star Wars out of an honest disagreement about the way to make the most money. They don’t have making money as their foremost goal. Which is something they have in common with companies like PDVSA. Or I.G. Farben.

                1. I do not agree that it about social messaging so much. It is more about creating stories and characters that will endure and they can mine forever. Some of those do well others do not but in obtaining Lucas films, Pixar, and Marvel along with their own studios you own a huge chunk of talent and content.

                  The past few years have been about acquisitions and expansion so if the latest earnings were a little off no big deal. The new streaming service should offset that. They know they can’t get by in the long run with just movies and theme parks.

                  It is one of those long term buy and hold stocks in my opinion.

            3. “It is like trying to do a reboot of Sex in the City with the cast of American Chopper.”

              John’s full of great ideas today.

        2. Star Wars was damaged by the prequels…but they are now just painfully predictable.

          “Wow, these women are ALL so much more competent than the men. Why did Rey even need to meet Luke as she seemed quite competent at the force with zero training and all.”

          Add in the trolling of the audience who will still give the next slate of Marvel movies a chance and you don’t have a recipe for success.

          1. I learned that they originally planned to roll out the sequels right after ROTJ starting in 1986 with a new one every 2-3 years. I don’t know why they waited until 1999, but I think they would have been much better movies if made pre-CGI. If Episode III were made in the mid 90s though, something tells me there would be some terrible CGI in it and they would have called it innovative even though it probably wouldn’t have been as good as Jurassic Park.

        3. Actually, if you actually read what the Disney CEO said about the whole problem with the Star Wars section at Disney land it actually went like this:

          1. Everyone expected it to be very popular and crowded.
          2. Everyone thought this would negatively affect guest experiences.
          3. Therefore no one showed up.

          1. Should’ve gone with “We are getting more selective with who our audience is”…

      3. They will make money on the Star Wars lands it is just that they had to put out a ton of it. Disney is playing the long game. If it drops any lower good chance to buy.

    2. MARKETS IMPLODING!

      1. Buy gold or silver or gold coins or catheters. The rapture is neigh.

  7. More bad economic news.

    Pizza Hut To Close Hundreds Of Dine-In Restaurants Nationwide

    The economy is so bad, people cannot even afford to eat pizza.

    #DrumpfRecession
    #KrugmanWasRight

    1. Who will save the bad pizza?

      1. I blame the change of recipe from a few years back.

        1. And a general improvement in American food. Thirty years ago, it was impossible to get even edible pizza outside of the Northeast or a few other big metro areas. Now it is not.

          1. Yeh, but a lot of it is over damn rated.

            1. This is making me nostalgic for a good ol “deep dish vs. thin crust” donnybrook

              1. What’s more disgusting, regular Pizza Hut crust, or deep dish cardboard?

                1. You. You’re more disgusting.

              2. DON’T. START.

            2. The hipster foodies took it over. I don’t want “New Haven Style with Kale and Dragon fruit”.

              1. Not even on a cauliflower crust??

                1. Dude, cauliflower crust is awesome.

                  1. Ahahah I could have guessed that your taste in food is as shitty as your taste in music.

                  2. I have tried it since my wife can’t eat regular pizza crust because of gluten allergy. It is surprisingly not bad. Crisps up nicely.

              2. Coal fired/wood oven with soppressata, speck and prosciutto – cool?

                1. That is a fancy way of saying “traditional Italian with a few kinds of meat”. Yes, it is.

                  1. That is a fancy way of saying “traditional Italian with a few kinds of meat”.

                    But one you can charge 8 bucks a pie, and the other you can get 25 bucks for. It’s all about telling a story.

                2. Yes. Way cool.

          2. In the south 30 years ago there was Pizza Inn, which had fucking awesome pizza (not at every location).

      2. Detroit pizza is still around though.

        1. Nuke it from orbit. Only way to be sure.

          1. *googles Detroit pizza*

            I see nothing wrong.

            1. Nor do I. I love all of God’s greasy, doughy meat pie children.

              From the meat crackers with delusions of grandeur; to roll up like a paper plate and enjoy, NYC cheese pizza; to the bizarre casserole of Lou Malnati’s: it’s all delicious.

              I also don’t get people who bitch that such and such smoked meat dish isn’t BBQ.

            2. They use cheddar blend.

      3. Couple months back while on our summer road trip we stopped at a Pizza Hut for the first time in, well actually I can’t even remember the last time I went to a Pizza Hut. I’ll just say at least 15 years.

        It was awful to say the least.

        I’m not a pizza snob, and while I do prefer the creations of the masters of pizza craft (Giordano’s, Lou Malnati’s, etc), I will happily eat Casey’s pizza (gas station for you non-midwesterners) any day of the week.

        1. Giordano’s is the tip top. Nothing else comes close.

    2. A soft economy for the Pizza Slut.

  8. There looks to be no danger, but Federal agents and a helicopter are flying over PECO.

    The G-Men were afraid of weaponized salmonella from the food handlers.

  9. 4 Killed, 2 Wounded in Series of O.C. Attacks; Suspect Arrested

    Police said a 33-year-old Hispanic male from Garden Grove was arrested outside a 7-11 in Santa Ana, after a series of robberies and violent attacks that Lt. Carl Whitney with Garden Grove Police Department called “pure evil” at a news conference

    We’ll see if he is “evil” White Hispanic male or “good” Hispanic male based on Propaganda coverage by the MSM.

    1. He is a white Hispanic. Everyone knows brown people are incapable of evil.

    2. What? No manifesto?

      1. Chemjeff knows what he was thinking so it isn’t necessary.

    3. But was it an assault knife?

      1. You mean a bayonet?

    4. Hispanic on Hispanic knife crime. We won’t see shit from the MSM, other than to maybe mention how much worse it would’ve been if he’d had a gun.

      (Despite the fact that a handgun is really just a way to drill small-diameter holes in someone at a distance. Like getting stabbed with a rapier, but without the slicing.)

      1. He did have a gun at some point after taking if from a security guard he killed.

  10. China Signals It Will Continue to Weaken Its Currency as Trade War Rages

    wait…Wait…WAIT. I was assured by Boehm and other reason hack writers that China’s devalued currency was 100% random.

    Now the Chinese Communists are admitting they will continue to devalue their currency? Well, I did not see that coming.

    1. Cant wait for the boehm article claiming Trump asking the WTO to punish the manipulation os a tax on americans.

    2. I am personally not a big fan of tariffs or protectionism. However, it does seem to me that if one takes a larger view of what is going on between Trump and China, Trump is winning big. Whether or not that translates into a win for the rest of us is an open question. But, I do suspect that in this case, it will eventually pay off for the American people.

      1. If China agrees to stop stealing our tech and pay American businesses for their IP, it will be a HUGE win.

        An example of this is that music royalties can sometimes be enough for the artists to live a comfortable life off for the rest of their lives. Prince has evidently sold 49.8 million records in the USA. Imagine if Prince had sold 300 million records in China alone.

        China lowering trade barriers and would be a huge boon too.

  11. “The Court…finds, based upon the nature and volume of documents proffered, that a hearing would not aid the decision process and therefore decides the Motion without a hearing.”

    “The court ain’t got time for that when its mind is made up.”

    1. “Ain’t nobody got time for that”

      – The Honorable Sweet Brown, residing.

      1. Or is it presiding? I honestly don’t know.

      2. It’s a damn good thing she went to get a cold pop.

      3. And she said, “Oh dear Lord Jesus it’s a fire trial!”

    2. You are on your game this morning. I came to make a similar observation. The judge’s attitude brings to mind this quote:

      “When you are faced with prejudice, logic and justice are impotent. Still, we may have an obligation to argue directly into the face of the prejudice, even though there is no chance to win.”
      -Gerry Spence

    3. I took it as that’s exactly what they were saying in so many words. “I’ve made up my mind and nothing you say will change it.”

  12. NUKE BLAST PANIC Radiation leak in Russia after huge explosion at ballistic missile testing facility

    You know Putin, Trump is gonna have a real tough time being scared of your threats when the “deadly Russian missiles” keep blowing up on the ground and are only injuring Russians.

  13. Human Rights Watch endorses the decriminalization of sex work.

    I GUESS THEY SUDDENLY ARE INTO HUMAN TRAFFICKING.

  14. Wheres the article lamenting crying children when american citizen parents are arrested? It’s not reason, it’s emotion.

    1. Exactly. Is reason’s position that we should no longer enforce the law on people with small children?

      1. If the tweet about children of people arrested by ICE being left in the street is true I’d call that wrong. ICE is tasked with enforcing the law, sure, but I’d think they also have a responsibility to make sure children of those arrested have food, a place to sleep, and adults looking after them. Maybe after the bad PR about kids in cages they don’t want responsibility for the children, but they should at least coordinate with other agencies. Then again, I’d not be surprised if they in fact coordinated with whoever organized the gym shelter and media neglected to mention that.

        1. I can’t imagine they did not coordinate with CPS. Even if they didn’t, the state CPS would show up on their own. So, I would bet you about anything that the story is wrong and things are not quite as they appear. But yes, if they really did just leave small children in the street, that is a problem.

          1. Hispanic families tend to be very large.

            I would guarantee that there are family members where these illegal were staying.

            Even if not, why aren’t the Lefties taking in these kids and taking care of them? I mean it’s immigrants are this and immigrants are that. Put up or shutup and put your money where your mouth is.

          2. Shouldn’t they have arrested the children for providing comfort to their illegal parents?

        2. ICE probably made arrangements. Even so, Reason would complain like they did when ICE held unaccompanied minors at the airport until the mother came to pick them up.

    2. If American citizen parents are arrested en mass for victimless crimes, I would fully expect Reason to report on it. Wouldn’t you?

      1. If you consider illegal immigration to be a victimless crime, then you don’t believe in borders or the nation state at all. That is your right, but be honest about that and never claim you are for anything but totally open borders for anyone who wants to come here.

        1. I do believe that illegal immigration is in and of itself a victimless crime. In this specific case, whose rights are being violated by the presence of these food industry workers?

          I’ve stated before that if you make legal immigration extremely easy (and don’t arbitrarily limit the numbers, but let the jobs market decide who comes) that would allow for more border security. I’ve even said that I would be all in favor of more border security if the ICE agents weren’t simply going after all immigrants, but those who can’t pass a simple background check.

          You’re, not surprisingly, misrepresenting my position with your own strawmen.

          1. I’ve stated before that if you make legal immigration extremely easy (and don’t arbitrarily limit the numbers, but let the jobs market decide who comes) that would allow for more border security.

            But if it is a victimless crime, how can you justify any border security for any reason? You can’t have it both ways. If it is a victimless crime for one person, it is a victimless crime for every person.

            1. We often in this country preemptively restrain rights for people who have a high likelihood of inflicting harm due to their actions in the past. My position is an extension of that as a compromise.

              You’ve yet to answer my question. Who is the victim of the presence of these food industry workers?

              1. You can only restrain a right if it exist. If you think there is a right to come to this country, you don’t believe in borders or nations full stop. Do me a favor and be the first honest open borders advocate in history.

                1. Do you believe that you, John, have a right to freely associate with whomever you want? I believe that you do, and that right stems from your humanity, not your nationality. Perhaps that’s where we differ?

                  1. It isnt free association since we have these things called shared government resources. It is not just welfare but emergency rooms, roads, schools, etc. Southern arizona has lost all but one trauma 1 center mostly due to uncompensated care of migrants without insurance. So you say victimless, I’ll point to facts.

                    1. Level 1 centers are always money losers and most require taxpayer support. Ours is a county hospital. We are northerners so no immigrant issue. We had another one close and it took the city to get it replaced.

          2. And I have never once seen you support any measure of border security on here. That is just a lie on the open borders supporters’ part. Yeah, you support better border security, just not any actual measure of border security ever proposed. But someday there will be one you support, you promise.

            It is an insult the the listeners intelligence when you people says shit like that.

            1. LOL. I just did.

              1. No you didn’t. You gave a fantasy where there are these “background checks” and somehow the government magically knows just who to turn away and those people will meekly accept the god government’s verdict.

                You people are big on fantasy. Fantasy and total dishonesty seems to be your move.

              2. You said you supported border security as long as there is no reason to have security, ie let anybody and everybody in.

                Walls dont mean much with an open door in the middle of it.

              3. Leo, you didn’t.

                America had one of the most lax immigration systems in the World. We still have likely 15+ million illegals.

                You offer a solution of “legal immigration extremely easy (and don’t arbitrarily limit the numbers, but let the jobs market decide who comes)” because you know it doesnt work.

                Hundreds of millions of immigrants would come to the USA even if they didnt have a job. Life is better here. You dont really have to worry about some druglord or corrupt government agent taking everything or murdering you in the street.

                You might not know this but in many cultures, the workers in the family will happily carry the rest of the family. They will do whatever it takes. 50 people living in one house, if necessary.

                While that is very admirable, it’s not American culture. In America we have more working people than non-working people. There are about 157.3 million people working in the USA. About 95 million are not working or retired. About 6.1 million American are unemployed. There are about 74.2 million kids.

          3. ” but those who can’t pass a simple background check.”

            If they waited in line this wouldn’t have happened. I’m all for these people coming here to work but it ignore the pathway to doing so isn’t anyone’s fault but theirs. There is no such thing as economic asylum.

            1. “A simple background check” is my favorite open borders line. Leo bases his entire political philosophy around the incompetence of governments, but suddenly governments are perfect when it comes to doing a “background check”. How do they say shit like this with a straight face?

              1. I don’t think anyone argues that background checks are perfect.

                Wall supporters like to argue that even though a wall won’t stop all illegal immigrants, it would likely stop quite a few, and that is reason enough to build the wall. Well, a similar argument might apply in the case of background checks. The checks won’t stop all criminals, but they would likely stop quite a few, and that’s reason enough to give it a go.

                1. Wall supporters like to argue that even though a wall won’t stop all illegal immigrants,

                  Sure it won’t. That is why you and the rest of your ilk are so desperate to stop it.

                  Walls work in Israel, they work in Hungary. They will work here. If they didn’t, dumb asses like you wouldn’t be so panicked about the prospect.

                  1. Israel has walls and fences but those are military barriers manned by soldiers who will shoot if you get too close. We are not dealing with Hamas and Hezbolla in the US southern border. Different situation.

                2. Throughout history walls haven been built and generally worked. Florence is basically a walled city for example.

                  If humans keep doing it must have value. Otherwise we wouldn’t have wasted precious limited man power and resources building them in the past.

                3. “chemjeff radical individualist
                  August.8.2019 at 11:00 am
                  I don’t think”

                  Hey you’re honest for once.

            2. The line is the problem. Restrict the natural market for labor and you get lawlessness. Legalize labor and free association and you’ll get more law abiding immigrants that you claim to support.

              The same argument is made for drugs, guns, alcohol, gambling, prostitution… basically anything that the government arbitrarily decides to limit. Why is it rational to accept that labor is any different?

              1. The line is the problem. Restrict the natural market for labor and you get lawlessness. Legalize labor and free association and you’ll get more law abiding immigrants that you claim to support.

                Because only people who want to work would come here. Open borders libertarians are as stupid as socialists. And both of you share the Marxist view that human nature and culture is irrelevant. You just think people are all fungible units of labor. But you think they are all part of the world prolitariat mass just like Marxists do.

              2. Banning products and services is nothing like enforcing national borders.

                I know you’re not a fan of property rights, Leo, but Americans through their federal government also have property rights. Those property rights make it clear to Mexico and Canada that this land is ours. They can do what they want in their country and we can do what we want in ours.

                1. Correction. I’m a huge fan of individual property rights. Not so much your brand of collectivism.

                  1. Your posts say otherwise.

                    I do find it funny you dont know the difference between a voluntary society (Libertarisnism) and collectivism. It is telling.

                    1. I defy you to find a post when I haven’t supported individual property rights. Put up or shut up.

                      Americans through their federal government also have property rights

                      LOL. Big government libertarians is a few doors down, to the left. Or is it to the right? One can hardly tell these days.

                    2. Just scroll and read you nonsense about open borders.

                      All those private property owners who have illegals run across their land can just go fuck themselves, right?

                      Youre not fooling anyone Leo.

                      Americans gave up some of their absolute property rights to form US states and the US federal government. It was voluntary. I know this concept is very hard for you to understand. Just think of it like when you willfully ignore Congress’ power to regulate migrants as of 1808.

                    3. The private property owners are as free to expel “illegals” from their property just as they could you or me.

                      And what do you say to the ones that want the “illegals” on their property? Their property rights don’t matter?

                2. Absolute Individual property rights partially given up to a state and federal government for the Common Defense.

                  Its why I voluntarily pay taxes.

            3. I’m all for these people coming here to work but it ignore the pathway to doing so isn’t anyone’s fault but theirs.

              However the legal pathway for coming here is so intentionally limited that it isn’t a realistic option for a lot of people. Legal immigration is so restricted for many categories that it can take as many as 20-30 years just for the opportunity to legally immigrate here. And that is just for wanting to come here and have a job, not even for naturalization.

              IMO the deliberately slow pace of the legal immigration system is analogous to setting a speed limit on the interstate highway to 20 mph. Sure, the state CAN set such a low limit, and there ARE legitimate safety-based arguments for why a speed limit should be set so low, but it is nonetheless kinda stupid to set a limit so low on a highway like that. Most people would likely break the law, not because they are evil dangerous people, but because they realize that the law itself is stupid and doesn’t deserve to be obeyed.

              1. Ahahaha you’re afraid of me ahahahhaah

              2. Limited to a million people a year. For fuck sake. The horror.

                1. For naturalization, not for immigration.

                  Here is the current Visa Bulletin:

                  https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-bulletin/2019/visa-bulletin-for-august-2019.html

                  Read the Final Action Date table. For Mexico, those who applied in 1996 are just now getting their green card applications approved.

                  Do you think this is an acceptable pace?

                  1. Ahahaha you’re actually afraid of me.

                    And “Swale” says hi “smart guy”

              3. ONE MILLION PEOPLE A YEAR

                1. +1000

                  America had one of the most lax immigration systems in the World and we need to take in MORE…because reasons.

            4. True.

              But you’re nonetheless a bigoted-racist for saying so.

          4. “In this specific case, whose rights are being violated by the presence of these food industry workers”

            Um –
            US workers without a job?

            1. Let’s see how quickly Americans line up for those jobs at a meat processing plant. I’m betting it’ll be a lot like south Alabama farms, where crops were left to rot.

              1. “Let’s see how quickly Americans line up for those jobs”

                Well, that stupid attempt at a point changes nothing.

              2. Theres welfare so why work.

                Get rid of welfare and there will be aline around the building.

            2. Do you believe that Americans have a right to a job? I’ll admit, that seems problematic to me.

              1. Before an immigrant and the job is in the U.S. YES. Stop proving John’s point that you see no purpose for borders.

                1. Before an immigrant and the job is in the U.S. YES.

                  I don’t understand what you wrote exactly.

                  Are you saying that you believe in the “right to a job” to be enforced by government?

                  If so, I don’t think there will be much common ground for you and I to debate.

                2. So to you, the purpose of borders is to create a right for Americans to have jobs ahead of non-Americans. Is that correct?

                  Would you force employers to give jobs to Americans ahead of non-Americans, even if the employers would rather hire non-Americans instead?

                  1. How is a grown mad afraid of an internet poster like you admitted you are Jeff?

          5. What is the upper limit on importation for outside labor for you? Not every illegal immigrant is supplied a job, hence why gangs like ms 13 have such easy recruits. 1 million a year, that is our current cap. That doesnt include one off giveaways under various visas. How is 1 million a year not a large enough cap? Studies show that households headed by illegal immigrants use welfare programs to a larger degree. Importing people faster than job creation is completely moronic, but you seem open to it.

            1. What is the upper limit on importation for outside labor for you?

              Labor is not “imported” like cargo. Labor is supplied by human beings.

              Why should there be an upper limit at all?

              1 million a year, that is our current cap.

              That is the approximate rate of *naturalization* per year, not immigration. Immigration and naturalization are separate topics.

              Studies show that households headed by illegal immigrants use welfare programs to a larger degree.

              Last I checked, when compared to native-born households of similar socio-economic backgrounds, the rate of welfare consumption is about the same. If you have more recent info, I’d love to read it.

              Importing people faster than job creation is completely moronic, but you seem open to it.

              Well, this statement seems to imply that immigration ought to be regulated according to some perceived national economic need. Should it?

              1. “Last I checked, when compared to native-born households of similar socio-economic backgrounds, the rate of welfare consumption is about the same.”

                Cool, now do taxes

            2. These open border people will never say what the top end of immigration should be.

              100 million a year.
              500 million a year.
              1 billion.

              Americans having property rights through their government matters not. Americans created a great place to live and non-Americans are entitled to have it.

              1. These open border people will never say what the top end of immigration should be.

                How about, “there should be no set “top end” of immigration that is set by some central authority”?

                1. Its set by me and all the people that support Trump. We tell out government what to do.

        2. Who’s the victim, jackass? And don’t say you.

          1. The people who came here legally and are stuck competing with illegal immigrants for jobs. The people who see their schools and social services overwhelmed. The people in places like Lubbuck, Texas whose schools now such because they are filled with Somali refugees that require 90% of the system’s attention are victims.

            Pieces of shit like you don’t give a shit about them. Concern for those people don’t allow you to virtue signal. And that is what it is all about for jackasses like you; other people suffering for your principles. Fuck you.

            1. are stuck competing with illegal immigrants for jobs

              Are you advocating for a natural right to employment? You understand what a victim is, right?

              1. I am advocating for the people who went by the rules to be treated better than those who did not.

                And you have no response to the people in places like Lubbuck. Again, it is their job to suffer for asshole’s like your principles. If you have never suffered for your principles, and I bet you haven’t, and only expect others to suffer, they are not principles. They are rationalizations.

            2. I don’t think you understand the legal concept of victimhood. According to your logic, prostitution is not a victimless crime, because if a man goes to a prostitute, his wife is left unsatisfied.

              Do you have any friends that came here illegally? Because I do. They don’t use any social services. And I sure do give a shit about them, and don’t want them to be deported.

              1. “Chipper Morning Wood
                August.8.2019 at 11:26 am
                I don’t think”

                Honesty from Jeff AND Chipper!

                Add that to Sparky admitting he’s afraid of getting embarrassed by me and this has been a pretty good hour already.

              2. “Chipper Morning Wood
                August.8.2019 at 11:26 am
                I don’t think you understand the legal concept of victimhood.”

                AHAHAHAH JOHN THE FORMER PROSECUTOR DOESN’T UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF VICTIMHOOD!!!

                AHAHAHA GO WITH THAT ONE AHAHAHHAAHAJ

              3. You don’t have any friends whatsoever, eunuch.

          2. And let’s not forget the people who are victimized by crimes committed by illegal immigrants. But again, they don’t matter. It is their job to be the eggs cracked in your big gay tranny libertarian omelet. You are a Utopian piece of shit.

            1. LOL. You’ve become fully unhinged. And yet seem to support the claim that Reason acts on emotion while posting things like this.

              1. So people who are victimized by criminals who cross the border and wouldn’t be here if we didn’t let them in are not victims at all. I am sure you think that way. And claiming I am “unhinged” is just you admitting you have no response to this argument other than “I don’t give a shit, it is those people’s job to suffer so I can feel good or for my self interests”. That is all your position is. Be honest and own it.

                1. Of course they are victims, John. But not of immigration. They are victims of whatever crime infringed their rights to life, liberty, property.

                  Your preferred solution to immigration (criminalizing it) doesn’t seem to be working. So who is living in a fantasy land? Maybe we should try something different, not just enforcing the same laws harder, if we want to actually have an impact on security.

                2. John, these open border folks dont give two shits about property rights inside the USA and how those property rights are derived and protected from the national sovereignty of the United States of America.

                  We then ask our elected representatives to limit non-Americans based on multiple factors.

                  Trump was partly elected to enforce those immigration laws. This drives the Lefties and the Anarchists crazy.

              2. You have a weak definition of unhinged. Domt become a Jeff. That isnt good for anybody.

              3. I mean, don’t we come here for the epic John rants?

                1. Based on your previous posts, no, you come here to cry like a bitch, about me and John and basically everyone who isn’t a prog.

                  1. +100

          3. Go to an emergency room. Talk to someone not provided emergency care because of the lines formed there.

            1. ^^^^^^^This

              A real issue of illegal immigration that directly impacts Americas.

              Americans pay taxes to cover unpaid Emergency Room bills. Add in the fact that Emergency Rooms are being used for non-emergencies because the patients cannot be turned away.

              1. Americans pay taxes to cover unpaid medical bills ?

                Wow the government owes me a lot of money for all the ones I was not paid for.

            2. They are all provided emergency care. There may be a wait but nobody is denied care. Everyone is triaged on presentation by a triage nurse to more emergent cases go first.

        3. Why does no one get on the bosses’ case about this? Every time there is a big illegal alien worker raid no one seems to care that some American hired them. Illegally as well. And considering the location of the raids that American could easily be a (gasp) “conservative.”

          1. Because the bosses donate to politicians. Heavily. Who then write laws like E-Verify, that have holes in them a mile wide so said employers can avoid criminal sanction.

          2. Some illegals have forged documents.

            Employers are only required to do superficial checks for eligibility to work.

            1. Yes they do but those are the ones who end up working and paying taxes. These people likely had those. Also I don’t know how the poultry processing business works but they probably get benefits like health insurance.

              So these are the the ones you want to give a path to. They work hard, pay taxes, and unless they have a criminal record give them a path to citizenship.

            2. It has been fairly widely reported that enforcement against employers is down since 2016 whereas enforcement against workers is up.

      2. Can you define victimless crimes for the class? Tons of parents in jail for drug crimes, which reason argues is largely victimless. I’ve never seen a reason article about their kids. Can you link one?

        1. A victimless crime is one in which no tort has been committed against another person.

          1. So there are no other victims then?

            You’re sticking with that answer?

            J

          2. Chipper MW does not agree with having laws like treason either.

        2. https://reason.com/2015/11/15/obamas-war-on-drugs-destroys-immigrants/

          Legal immigrants being held on minor drug violations and the impact on their families.

          Search “drug crime kid” within Reason. There are plenty of others.

          1. So wait, you pick an immigrant article, prove his point, and then strut around like you did something?

            Ahahahaha

    3. Wheres the article lamenting crying children when american citizen parents are arrested?

      I got it into a big argument with my wife last year for saying this exact thing. In the mainstream press, state CPS agencies get a pass for enforcement based on vague suspicions while ICE gets demonized for enforcing clear violation of established law.

      At least Reason demonizes both, but the equivalency is bullshit. What happens to innocent American citizens every day is much worse.

      1. +100

    4. Was there a specific recent news story where that happened? If you know of one, perhaps you could send ENB a tip, or you could post about it here in the comments.

      1. Too local.

    5. “White Supremacy” is being the only people in the world willing to commit cultural suicide because sad foreign faces.

      1. Seriously, “cultural suicide”?

        1. Yeah, you know (whistles)

  15. Tulsi Gabbard is not only Putin’s favorite Democrat. She’s also the preferred Democrat among alt-right white nationalists. The ADL explains:

    Public officials and political candidates should never accept support from white supremacists like Andrew Anglin, founder of neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer. We call on @TulsiGabbard to denounce him and return any of these alleged donations.

    Now you’ll understand why she’s so critical of Kamala Harris. Gabbard may be a woman of color, but she’s in the race to promote white supremacy.

    #GabbardRussia
    #GabbardStormer

    1. http://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/06/poll-kamala-harris-plummets-to-1-with-black-democrats-after-tulsi-gabbard-takedown/

      If it turns out the Gabbard’s debate attacks on Harris kill Harris’ presidential campaign, Gabbard should get the Medal of Freedom or some sort of thank from a grateful nation for saving it from a Harris Presidency.

      1. Breitbart isn’t a legitimate news source.

        Kamala Harris remains my first choice (or at worst she’s tied with Warren at the top) and I’m confident Democratic voters will see through Gabbard’s outrageous misrepresentation of her record.

        #LibertariansForHarris

      2. She should resign from the Air Force and join the Navy, she has to be the best at launching torpedos we have ever had

        1. If the Democrats were to nominate her, I think she would tank among the black community. First, she is a woman and the black community is not as progressive about women as gentry whites think they are. Second, she is half white and her black half is West Indian. There is a lot of animosity between native blacks and black West Indian immigrants. Third and most importantly, she made her career throwing other black people in prison often via corrupt means.

          Running Harris would actually give Trump a shot at a significant portion of the black vote. Imagine Harris losing to Trump because Trump won say 20% of the black vote. I am not sure liberals could survive that kind of a shock.

          1. The black community is half women, dawg.

            1. Nothing you said refutes his post at all, all you did was make a banal, meaningless observation.

              1. Are you new here. The only comments Chipper MW makes here are banal, meaningless observations.

            2. I’ve dated a fair number of black women and many of them say/do shit that would make most of your bearded white liberal male friends blush and faint. The ones I’ve dated love messing with overly-sensitive white people, particularly ones that love to flash their woke creds.

              One of my more sensitive liberal friends suggested that my woman use the local police station’s designated area for their craigslist transaction, then followed up by saying “ah but you are black so you might want to be warry of the police.”

              She laughed, then shot him a bit of glare, responding: “I don’t dress like some thug n—–s out to rob someone so I won’t have any problems with the police.”

              I thought my buddy was going to die from shock. It was great.

              1. Great story. You find that bigotry everywhere sometimes subtle sometimes not.

                Reminded me of something not directly related.

                We are Jewish from a Jewish family. My aunt was over and we were talking about what my son was up to. He was high school age. I said he had a new girlfriend he was dating.

                She was an Ethiopian Jew. Her parents immigrants and very proper family. They had to check us out and meet before they were allowed all that.

                Showed her the picture of the two of them going to prom or something. She says “but she’s Black!”

                I said “look Aunt Esther. She is a straight A student planning on going into medicine or science. She is cute as can be. Unlike you she can read the Sh’ma in Hebrew and understand the words. Now you have a problem?”

                That was it.

                1. Absolutely brutal to your aunt. I hope she took the lesson to heart. Great story!

                  Honestly, I think a lot of people just don’t realize how stupid they are being or how much they are putting their foot in their own mouth.

          2. I also think that Harris would be in a bit of hot water for supporting modern day programs that are very, very similar to actual slavery… primarily of black people that happen to be in prison.

      3. Very true, but why do I get the sense that if Tulsi had a face and body like HRC she would be totally ignored by many on this blog?

        1. I don’t think anyone would get ignored for going after Harris. It doesn’t hurt that she is attractive, though a lot of people on here don’t find her attractive, but going after Harris would get support no matter what she looked like.

          1. Do you not find her attractive?

        2. If by “face like… HRC” you mean that of a warmonger, you would be correct. Her only redeeming qualities seem to be her anti-war stances and her attacks on Harris as a rogue prosecutor.

          1. She has some other good views, like legalizing marijuana (which is admittedly not radical at all anymore), but most of her domestic policies are dogshit.

            1. Isn’t that the case with the Dem field?

        3. Instead of complaining about how shallow people are (which is true) maybe we should just be grateful that HRC doesn’t look like Tulsi

        4. Nah. Her consistent anti-war thing is strong. She is attractive for politics…not for ACTUAL people.

        5. why do I get the sense that if Tulsi had a face and body like HRC she would be totally ignored by many on this blog?

          Because you’re a very shallow person and are projecting your values, attitudes and faults onto everyone else you encounter?

    2. “#GabbardStormer”
      +1

  16. Reality: Sex workers – many of them women – are arrested far more often than traffickers, which leaves them with “severe consequences for their lives.”

    Look, someone’s going to be arrested. Guess who’s easiest target and least amount of work.

    1. Along with the potential for a hummer on the way to the station.

  17. Donald Trump and first lady Melania quickly left Dayton for El Paso on Wednesday after visiting privately for two hours with hospitalized shootings victims and first responders

    You mean actual video of people wanting to be around Trump and smiling as if they appreciate him visiting shooting victims, is different than the Propaganda coming from the MSM?

    This does not bode well for Democrats in Election 2020. “Hitler” still has Americans that like him. They might actually vote for “Hitler” over Democrats.

    1. Twitter will soon take down the republican propaganda like they did mitch.

      1. Twitter will soon lose their Section 230 protection.

        1. Yep.
          How many accounts that used the ‘#massecremoscowmitch’ tag are still operating? So much for deleting accounts based on violence.
          I would have expected Twitter to have used the timestamp and geo data to identify all those in the rioting mob and delete THEIR accounts.

          1. My favorite were Bernie supporters chanting that.

            Dude, your candidate HONEYMOONED there, FFS.

            1. +100

    2. “This does not bode well for Democrats in Election 2020.”

      I 100% guarantee a Democrat will win the 2020 Presidential election. And unlike you, Captain “Red Wave,” my predictions have been accurate so far.

      1. Oh? You predicted Trump’s election in 2016? I think not.

        1. I didn’t predict anything in 2016. I only started posting here in late 2017.

  18. Because enforcing our thoroughly constitutional immigration laws, as they’re written by our duly elected Congress, leaves children crying in the streets might be a good reason to change the laws, but it isn’t a good reason to ignore them. If you look at recent elections in France, Germany, Italy, the UK, and the United States, you’ll see what happens when the voters lose faith in the government to reflect their will on immigration policy. What you get in that case is progressives, journalists, and everyone who hates populists crying in the streets.

    1. So Ken you were saying yesterday it was totally understandable that 8Chan would be deplatformed because it attracts mass shooters to put up their manifestos.

      It turns out that the El Paso shooter didn’t put his manifesto on 8chan. He put it on Instagram and someone else loaded it onto 8Chan.

      http://www.weaselzippers.us/428359-8chan-owner-says-el-paso-shooter-didnt-post-manifesto/

      So I guess Instagram should be deplatformed now. Right?

      1. Well, probably. But mainly because it sucks.

        1. Since they banned boobs, yes.

          1. For heaven’s sake, won’t someone please think of the boobs?

      2. “So Ken you were saying yesterday it was totally understandable that 8Chan would be deplatformed because it attracts mass shooters to put up their manifestos.

        What I said is that it is unnecessary for the government to force companies to deplatform 8chan–when companies like Cloudflare and Voxility are perfectly capable of exercising their freedom of association and were already doing so without the government’s help.

        https://reason.com/2019/08/07/free-speech-on-the-internet-continues-to-confuse-everyone/#comment-7883982

        Regardless, I don’t think it matters to Cloudflare, et. al. how the manifestos made it to 8chan so much as that they did, and I don’t think it should matter how I feel about 8chan so much as it should matter how the companies providing services to 8chan feel about 8chan.

        Like a fundamentalist baker who refuses to write messages on a gay wedding cake, Cloudflare, Voxility, and any other company involved with 8chan should feel free to associate or not with whomever they please–for their own reasons. That’s what freedom of association is all about.

        1. Regardless, I don’t think it matters to Cloudflare, et. al. how the manifestos made it to 8chan so much as that they did, and I don’t think it should matter how I feel about 8chan so much as it should matter how the companies providing services to 8chan feel about 8chan.

          So why can’t you say the same thing about Instagram? The point is that these decisions are biased and completely emotional and unreasonable. As usual you find it impossible to find fault in any non government action. 8chan is being deplatformed because of a lie. Instagram will never be deplatformed no matter how many manifestos get put on it because it is big and woke and 8chan is neither.

          1. “The point is that these decisions are biased and completely emotional and unreasonable. As usual you find it impossible to find fault in any non government action.”

            That isn’t true at all.

            I despise racists, and yet I think the First Amendment protects their right to say all the stupid things they want–so long as they don’t use their speech to violate someone’s rights.

            I think Scientology is harmful. They’re a religion and they have a right to practice their harmful religion–whether I like their religion or not.

            My understanding is that if you try to buy any guns–or gun accessories–with your PayPal account, they’ll ban you from the service forever. They deplatform people because they bought a grip, a gun safe, or a child-proof trigger lock? That isn’t just stupid. It’s awful.

            I’ve criticized YouTube for deplatforming all kinds of people–even the conspiracy theorists I don’t give a damn about otherwise. I’ve criticized Facebook and Google so much around here, people are sick of seeing me write about it. Incidentally, if you want me to recommend an alternative to Facebook for the hundredth time, I recommend using Slack or MeWe.

            https://mewe.com/

            Point is, because I’m more than willing to criticize the choices that various private parties make, that doesn’t mean I won’t defend their right to make those choices for themselves. After all, I want to be free to make choices for myself regardless of other people’s criticism, and just like them, I should be free to make whatever choices I like so long as they don’t violate anyone else’s right to make choices for themselves.

            1. I’ve criticized Facebook and Google so much around here, people are sick of seeing me write about it.

              I don’t think that’s what people are sick of. I think more people are sick of the whole if you don’t like it, feel free to use these totally obscure services that will be bought by google, facebook or twitter in a couple years. or the classic why don’t you go ahead and build your own complex internet platform once you’ve been locked out of payment systems, advertising systems, domain access systems, etc?

              I think that’s why you were seeing your long-winded posts get less replies. At least, that’s why I started skipping them.

              1. I think more people are sick of the whole if you don’t like it, feel free to use these totally obscure services that will be bought by google, facebook or twitter in a couple years. or the classic why don’t you go ahead and build your own complex internet platform once you’ve been locked out of payment systems, advertising systems, domain access systems, etc?

                Would you prefer to see more posts along the lines of “if you don’t like it, then petition the government to coerce social media companies to behave according to the will of the state” on a libertarian forum?

                1. I wasn’t aware that was the only other choice. Tell me more about how you know everything.

              2. “if you don’t like it, feel free to use these totally obscure services that will be bought by google, facebook or twitter in a couple years.”

                If and when other people exercise their freedom of choice, you’ll still have your own choices to make.

                The purpose of government sure as hell isn’t to ensure your favorite status quo. Not only is that stupid, it’s an impossible task.

                1. You are arguing for government to enforce your favorite status quo – section 230.

                  If and when other people exercise their freedom of choice, you’ll still have your own choices to make.

                  This doesn’t convince anyone because its not a solution.

      3. According to the CNET article cited in the Weasel Zippers article, Jim Watkins (8chan owner) claimed that the shooter first posted the manifesto to Instagram. However, Instagram claimed that the shooter’s account hadn’t been active for over a year. So it’s not clear who posted what where.

        1. it is almost like he could have posted it anywhere and holding 8chan or Instagram responsible for it is completely stupid.

          And lets not forget that the same people who think 8chan should be held accountable for what its users post think repealing 230 and applying that standard to all tech is the worst thing ever.

          1. “And lets not forget that the same people who think 8chan should be held accountable”
            and to add to your comment I guarantee that if the shooter had given his manifesto to any of the major “approved” news networks they would have considered it their duty to post it and talk about it down to the last comma. its all about the source and nothing more

            1. The Washington Post published the unibomber’s manifesto. You are absolutely correct Ron.

              1. The WaPo are snivelling weasels and cowards.

                1. It’s hard to find a respectable news source these days. I can’t think of any.

                  1. That’s no surprise, you’re an idiot.

                2. Yeah, I don’t see why Cloudflare’s choices should be circumscribed by what the Washington Post chose to do.

                  Different people should be free to make different choices–and each for their own reasons.

      4. I’m not pointing the finger at you, personally, John, but just as a general statement . . .

        It used to be that pretending that principles or the law only meant whatever we liked it to mean was the natural province of progressives. For whatever reason, that thinking seems to have escaped the funny farm and become contagious on the right. I’m not perfect, but I don’t look to see whether I like the winners or losers when I make these calls.

        Serial killers have the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, the right to trial by jury, and the right to confront their accusers in court–even if I don’t like the serial killer in question. Even after they’re convicted, they have property rights, free speech rights, freedom of religion, and, to a certain extent, they have freedom of association. You can’t force them to join religions against their will.

        I suspect your hatred of Zuckerberg and Google has them somewhere south of serial killers, but they still have property rights and association rights (within the confines of their contractual obligations), whether I like those people or not.

        Like I said, I’m not perfect. Back when U.S. special forces killed Osama bin Laden, Jacob Sullum put a couple pieces up that made an excellent argument that what the U.S. did in killing Osama bin Laden was illegal and unconstitutional. My reaction at the time was, “So what?”.

        As awful as the AUMF is, that seems to be the one good thing it actually authorized. Regardless, even if killing Osama bin Laden had been entirely unconstitutional, if the government had a legitimate opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden and didn’t take it because of this or that principle, I’d have been furious. If they put the guy that killed him on trial for murder, there’s no way I’d vote to convict him if I were on the jury.

        I am not completely irrational when it comes to terrorism. I opposed torturing terrorists, or instance, on constitutional grounds. When it comes to killing Osama bin Laden, however, I can hardly notice the principles involved. And I can understand if that’s where you are with Zuckerberg and Google. I’m not in that place with them. I can still see clearly that the solutions you’re offering are worse than the problems you’re trying to solve. Killing Osama bin Laden probably won’t have any impact on of our great American principles of capitalism and freedom in the future. The things you want to do will undermine everything from property rights and freedom of association to free speech and freedom of the press, and that’s different.

        1. I don’t see how making them comply with the anti trust laws and stripping away any special immunity from lawsuits they have is unreasonable. We have really come to a point where the position of you and many others is that the tech companies should be completely above the law because of principles or something. It is a great piece of newspeak that somehow the people like me who want the laws enforced are the ones calling for lawlessness and the people like you who think there should be a special class of companies who are above the law are not.

          1. There isn’t anything special about that immunity.

            You’ve always had to go after the person who defamed you if you wanted to file a defamation suit.

            1. If there is nothing special about it, why are you vigorously defending it. And your statement is a lie. 230 grounds was used to dismiss Meagan Murphy’s contract aims against Twitter.

              1. I’m defending it for a number of reasons. For one, it’s necessary for free speech online. For another, I’m always opposed to injustice. And subjecting people to defend themselves against a deluge of frivolous lawsuits–for things they didn’t do–is fundamentally unjust.

                Yeah, I’ve got a thing for liberty and justice, and I’m not sorry.

                1. For one, it’s necessary for free speech online.

                  Nope.

                  I’m always opposed to injustice.

                  Well obviously not. You are for perpetuating it.

                  And subjecting people to defend themselves against a deluge of frivolous lawsuits–for things they didn’t do–is fundamentally unjust.

                  We can protect platforms for being sued for libel posted by users without also protecting them from contract law.

                  Yeah, I’ve got a thing for liberty and justice, and I’m not sorry.

                  No, you have a thing for cronyism and special favors bestowed by government.

            2. What about changing the ToS after the fact and then banning people for conduct they did before the ToS were changed, and then the courts finding that Section 230 essentially blocked that individual from suing the company for a breach of contract?

              Strange how Section 230 gets to be stretched to protect these companies from all recourse from the little people, not just legitimate reasons like the one you posted about above.

              1. “What about changing the ToS after the fact and then banning people for conduct they did before the ToS were changed”

                What does that have to do with Section 230.

                I hate Osama bin Laden because he initiated a terrorist attack on Americans.

                I do not support throwing him in jail for drunk driving–unless he’s guilty of drunk driving.

                If you don’t care about liberty and justice and principles, then go be a progressive. They apparently agree with you on some real fundamental principles–like that every thing we know about principles, justice, and the rule of law goes out the window when we’re talking about someone you hate.

                Throwing facts and logic out the window because you hate Facebook and Google sure as hell doesn’t make you principled. Being impervious to facts, logic and persuasion doesn’t make you principled either. The first one makes you unprincipled. The second makes you stupid.

                1. What does that have to do with Section 230.

                  Look up Meagan Murphy. It is funny you said the above right before launching into a tirade about… Osama bin Laden?

                  If you don’t care about liberty and justice and principles, then go be a progressive. They apparently agree with you on some real fundamental principles–like that every thing we know about principles, justice, and the rule of law goes out the window when we’re talking about someone you hate.

                  Lame and lazy attack that avoids the issue because your solution, as always, boils down to “lets do nothing” despite overwhelming evidence that these systems control the narrative. Shit, just look at the Do So! campaign.

                  I think its funny you think that just because I think the law should change for everyone, you think that “principles, justice, and the rule of law goes out the window when we’re talking about someone you hate.” I also want drug laws changed? Does that mean my principles, justice and rule of law goes out the window because I hate cops? No – it just shows that you are not nearly as smart as you think you are.

                  Throwing facts and logic out the window because you hate Facebook and Google sure as hell doesn’t make you principled.

                  Rich considering you won’t even take the argument head on. It boils down to you shouting “you’re a progressive!” and then acting like that is persuasive to anyone other than libertarian radicals like you.

        2. It used to be that pretending that principles or the law only meant whatever we liked it to mean was the natural province of progressives. For whatever reason, that thinking seems to have escaped the funny farm and become contagious on the right.

          “For whatever reason” is pretty simple; because the principled right’s been getting its ass kicked by the unprincipled Left. If you’re playing a game with cheaters, you either have to make them stop cheating or you start cheating, too. Trump’s a world-class liar and cheater and whiny crybaby, the Left hates him so badly because he’s one of them and yet he’s a traitor playing for the wrong team.

          1. “For whatever reason” is pretty simple; because the principled right’s been getting its ass kicked by the unprincipled Left.”

            And yet, despite the entirety of the news media leaning in against him, Donald Trump is sitting in the White House, making fun of how Nancy Pelosi can’t stop the Four Retards of the Derpocalypse from calling her a racist.

            What fantastic gains has the left made on gun control, the Green New Deal, or Medicare for All?

            I’m supposed to believe that the right is getting their asses kicked by the left, but the only evidence I see of that is Rachel Madow saying so.

            1. What fantastic gains has the left made on gun control, the Green New Deal, or Medicare for All?

              You’re joking, right? Everything up to this point has been a fantastic gain towards these three policies, right up to the point where these things are actually being seriously considered right now. The fact that these items are coming down the pipeline in a very serious way shows that Americans have made massive steps toward them, so much so that around 50% of the nation is very close to being not just being okay with all 3 of these proposals, but actually being enthusiastically supportive of them.

    2. Because enforcing our thoroughly constitutional immigration laws…

      Ken, your link to the section of the Constitution that allows for Congress to regulate immigration (not naturalization) seems to have fallen off.

      1. That is the dumbest most dishonest argument. The Constitution gives the power of naturalization and the power of customs and border patrol specifically to the federal government. It also gives the feds exclusive power over foreign affairs. You can’t have all of that without control over the borders.

        It is a completely stupid argument that no one at the time of the founding ever made and no court has ever bought.

        1. Judge Napolitano is an authority on the Constitution that I trust. He supports the position that I espouse. Immigration is not naturalization, and while naturalization is an enumerated right, control of the movement of people (immigration) is not.

          1. And he is wrong. No one agrees with him. No court has ever agreed with him. I have never read a single piece of evidence that the founders thought that way.

            That is a complete misreading of the understanding of sovereignty in the 18th Century. Movement was not a right. You couldn’t leave the country without the permission of the King. That is where passports come from. No country in the history of the world has said that everyone has a right to move there. Yet, you and Napolatano expect me to believe that the US was that country despite no one saying so, it not being in the constitution, and it being contrary to the practice of every nation on earth.

            It is you inventing a right that doesn’t exist and then pretending it is in the constitution. It is no better than the progressive living constitution.

            1. Can you point to a single piece of evidence by any of the founders arguing for restricting immigration?

                1. (He’s going to pretend that he’s shutting the fuck up like a good little clown because he’s afraid of me, and not because he knows I totally eviscerated his attempt at an argument)

                2. POW!

                3. Burn cream is in aisle 4

                4. There are borders between the states. Are they allowed to restrict intrastate immigration?

                  1. And those states entered into a contract unifying them.
                    But if you’d like to consider Mexico or Bulgaria as the same legally as Wisconsin or Virginia, you go right ahead.
                    Enjoy making that argument

          2. “Judge Napolitano is an authority on the Constitution that I trust. He supports the position that I espouse.”

            And he’s wrong a lot. A LOT.

          3. Leo already knows about Article I, Section 9 and its authority for Congress to regulate migrants as of 1808.

        2. The Constitution gives… the power of customs and border patrol specifically to the federal government.

          I searched for the words “custom”, “border”, and “patrol” and they don’t show up anywhere in the Constitution. From where in the Constitution do you derive these powers?

          1. ARticle 1 section 8

            The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

            That is the power to impost duties on imports and exports. They have to be uniform. They can’t be uniform is the Federal government doesn’t control imports and exports and not the states. If the states had any say, they wouldn’t be uniform.

            To regulate commerce with foreign nations

            Congress has the exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That necessarily means they and not the states control the border.

            Then there is the migration clause. Congress was precluded from banning the importation of slaves until 1808. If what you were saying is true, then Congress would not have the power to ban importation of slaves at all and such a clause would be unnecessary. The existence of the clause necessarily implies that Congress controls who does and does not enter the country.

            1. I think we can safely ignore anything the Constitution says about slaves.

              1. Like we do with everything you post about science?

              2. Damn dude take the L and stop pivotting

                1. No fucking way he does that. He has exactly zero self awareness and WILL NOT accept that he has the worst side of an argument.

              3. You mean the 13th Amendment that still allows slavery as punishment for a duly convicted crime?

            2. I think you just proved Leo right. John, accept it. You have no argument here.

              1. Shorter Chipper “NU UHHHHHHHH JOHN!!!”

              2. You have to actually refute an argument to claim victory, Chipper…

            3. No one at the time seemed to think Congress lacked the power to ban immigration when the various Exclusion Acts were enacted. Per the wiki, the first one of those was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. And while the Act could be found not to apply to someone of Chinese descent born in this country, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark , as I understand it, nobody at the time considered that Congress didn’t have the power to make that law.

              1. Article I, Section 9 restricted the power of Congress to regulate migrants until 1808 and the states did it until that year.

                The slave states knew that Congress might regulate slavery out of existence by seriously limiting or ending importation of slaves.

                1. The power was to restrict Naturalization. Not mere entry, AFAIK.

                  I don’t think Congress got into the banning immigrants business until the Chinese stuff. Not that it was especially easy to come to the US back then versus today, and the frontier needed people to settle it.

                  But leaving all that aside, I haven’t read that a contemporaneous legal attack on the Exclusion Acts was that Congress didn’t have the power to make such a law.

          2. “Setting the rules of naturalization” covers the rules for the entire process of becoming a citizen–from coming here to establishing residency and getting the right to vote.

            Besides that, if the Constitution allows Congress to set the distinction between who is and who isn’t a citizen, then it must also be allowing for differences in treatment based on those distinctions and whether people break the law. (As an aside, do you assume illegal aliens would prefer to spend years in prison rather than be deported or that imprisoning illegal aliens for ten years at a time for breaking the law is authorized by the enumerated powers of the Constitution but deportation isn’t?)

            Behind everything else, the principle of democracy’s proper purview is much bigger than the text of the Constitution. The ultimate reason why Congress has no business interfering in free speech or prohibiting the free exercise of religion isn’t because of the text of the First Amendment. It’s because of the negative consequences of those rights being subject to a popularity contest. Meanwhile, when we ignore democracy within its proper purview, as you want us to do on immigration, the negative consequences are such that they’re far worse than whatever good you think you’re accomplishing by ignoring the will of the people on that issue.

            Again, I keep seeing people identifying goals and looking for the justifications later–and it’s not just limited to progressives anymore. “Asking for forgiveness rather than permission” just isn’t a valid principle by which to establish and maintain liberty and justice. Like God makes the rain fall on the good and the evil alike, that’s how liberty and justice should work.

            If you don’t want to be deported because you violated the democratic and constitutional laws of the United States, then don’t violate those laws. If you don’t want people deported on that basis, persuade your fellow Americans to change the law. If you try to persuade your fellow Americans that their opinion on the rules of naturalization shouldn’t matter–despite what it says in the Constitution–not only are you likely to fail to persuade them to change the laws, you’re likely to persuade them to vote for populists–which is exactly what’s happened in France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the USA.

            1. ““Asking for forgiveness rather than permission” just isn’t a valid principle by which to establish and maintain liberty and justice.”

              This will be Googles method to swing an election, and Reason will support it because they approve the globalist welfare state narrative

            2. “Setting the rules of naturalization” covers the rules for the entire process of becoming a citizen–from coming here to establishing residency and getting the right to vote.

              I don’t understand why this is an over-arching clause. I wouldn’t expect you to agree that the commerce clause should cover the entire process of interstate commerce, from investment, manufacturing, consumer income, etc.

              Behind everything else, the principle of democracy’s proper purview is much bigger than the text of the Constitution.

              I disagree with this statement. Democracy only works if there are limitations on the power of the majority. Infringing on natural rights is one of these limitations. The Constitution specifically limits democracy to only those things it enumerates power to democracy.

              If you try to persuade your fellow Americans that their opinion on the rules of naturalization shouldn’t matter–despite what it says in the Constitution–not only are you likely to fail to persuade them to change the laws, you’re likely to persuade them to vote for populists

              Obviously libertarianism isn’t the most practical ideology at accomplishing its goals, but that shouldn’t mean that we should just accept the heavy hand of government without trying to peal it back.

              1. Poor Leo can’t change the constitutional power of Congress to regulate immigrants.

                1. Or commerce (at all levels), speech, guns, etc. All declared constitutional by the courts and not by the plain language of the Constitution itself. But statists don’t care how they derive their powers, so long as they get the powers they believe in most.

                  1. I dont know what your talking about. I trade with whomever I want, I say whatever I want, and I have whatever Armament that I want.

                    Obamacare is unconstitutional no matter how wrong the SCOTUS is.

      2. Poor Leo

        You have already been shown and you don’t like the Constitution anyway.
        US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 1:
        The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

    3. thoroughly constitutional immigration laws

      Nah.

      1. We may not like things just because they’re unconstitutional, but just because we don’t like something doesn’t make it unconstitutional.

        1. +10

          Yup. Congress’ regulation power of immigrants taken from the states as of 1808, is listed in Article I, Section 9, Clause 1. Its perfectly constitutional to control access to the USA and regulate naturalization.

          1. The power is listed in the section on restrictions of power. It’s the only one listed there, but it fits the narrative. Gotcha.

            1. Poor Leo. He thinks Article I, Section 9 says limitations of powers in the subheading.

              Shame that the Founders mixed permanent restrictions, temporary restrictions, and powers into Section 9. Got it that reading is above your pay grade.

    4. “Rule of law is a social construct of the white supremacist cisheteropatriarchy used to oppress marginalized peoples”

  19. A new show on Fox will feature the former cast of Beverly Hills, 90210 reuniting to play themselves reuniting for a fake version of the show.

    That’s what that’s going to be? Are 90210 audiences sophisticated enough now for that kind of meta?

    1. No.

    2. So…. it is just The Hills with different awful people?

  20. “Climate change could trigger a global food crisis, new U.N. report says”
    […]
    “If average global temperatures rise by 2 degrees Celsius, the risk of food supply instabilities “are projected to be very high,” according to the report.”
    https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/news/climate-change-could-trigger-global-food-crisis-new-u-n-ncna1040236

    “Instabilites”. Like maybe too much?
    Pretty sure these folks are offering a good deal on a bridge, if you act quickly.

    1. This is my favorite anti science trope from the alarmist camp…

      Food yields are way up. Global greening is real. Plants require less water due to increased carbon… but they scream about food supplies.

      1. But there will be too much food and some will be wasted.

      2. If the climate warms, the ice caps melt to some degree putting more water into the climate and thus making the world wet. Yet, somehow a warmer, wetter world is going to make it impossible to grow things, because greenhouses are cold and dry or something.

        1. Actually things being too wet is causing a lot of issues for U.S. crops in the Midwest this year. Planting was super late because of how wet things have been. I work exclusively in rural areas so I talk with a lot of these farmers.. wetness can cause havoc. That being said, at lot of these farmers will tell you “farmers will always find something to complain about, if they’re not complaining that its too dry, than its too wet. If its its not about it being too cloudy, than there’s too much sun.”

          Whether or not the extra wetness was caused by climate change.. eh, I really have no idea. But crop yields have been up and there has been a “greenification” of the earth due to increased carbon.

    2. food supplies are only at risk if people don’t move their farm from new flood zones to new fertile land opened up by climate change.

    3. This is the very same UN that said the planet would be under water by 2000.
      The very same one we still give a bazillion dollars a year to.

      1. To be fair to the IPCC, the report authors consistently couch their findings in terms of confidence. But the press releases don’t include that nuance, and journalists generally can’t be bothered to read the original reports.

        So a report that reads “planet will be underwater by 2000 (low confidence)”, turns into a press release that says “planet may be underwater by 2000”, which turns into a USAToday article headline of “WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!”

        Say what you will about the AWG science, but the way science is reported in general certainly doesn’t help.

        1. “To be fair to the IPCC, the report authors consistently couch their findings in terms of confidence. But the press releases don’t include that nuance, and journalists generally can’t be bothered to read the original reports”

          You’d think they’d do something about that since it allows them to be misrepresented, and yet…

        2. This is very much true.
          Scientific journalism is very crappy.
          You can tell it’s often populated by people who got C’s in their science classes.

          1. You’re assuming these hacks had science classes.

        3. I am just wondering how long do we have to learn to live underwater and does Elon Musk know about it.

          1. Dude, Elon’s developing gill implants. Bank on it.

    4. Climate change could trigger the Old Gods to rise from the mantle of the Earth and destroy us all.

      It *could*.

  21. “In Forrest, Mississippi, the “children of those who were arrested are left alone in the streets crying for help,” tweeted WJTV 12 News staffer Alex Love. “Strangers and neighbors are taking them to a local gym to be put up for the night.””

    Bet the kids of citizens who are also criminals have similar stories.

    They don’t tend to get discussed here.

    Should having a child absolve you of criminal punishment?

    1. Only if you should not be here at all

    2. Bet the kids of citizens who are also criminals have similar stories.

      Is that normally how it works? Kids are left to fend for themselves, crying in the street?

    3. So, you just came up with a purely speculative reason to be dismissive about how these children were treated. Even if there were similar stories for other people arrested for other reasons, how would that excuse what was done in the case that was actually reported?

      1. Because the reporting is bullshit. Given that they did WORKPLACE raids…not, you know, HOME raids…kids should have been irrelevant to all of this. They should have had plans in place for their kids while at work. Now they have to extend them out. C’est la vie.

  22. Five Libertarian Party state affiliates have at least 1 percent of the active registered voters in their respective states.

    The LP should reject them for being joiners.

  23. “Five Libertarian Party state affiliates have at least 1 percent of the active registered voters in their respective states.”

    My God how pathetic is the Libertarian Party? That they tweet this as a positive is the lamest thing I can recall.

    1. It’s a trend. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and the LP has almost made that first step.

      1. Only took how many decades?

        It’s like the Socialist Party. That they weren’t even competitive in 1932 was evidence that the party had no hope of success. That the LP got slapped around in 2016 should show the same lesson.

    2. How pathetic? More pathetic than you can possibly imagine.

  24. http://freebeacon.com/politics/msnbc-analyst-trump-flying-flags-at-half-mast-until-8-8-is-a-nod-to-neo-nazis/

    MSNBC annalist says Trump chose to fly flags at half mast until August 8th because August 8th is 8-8 and H is the 8th letter in the alphabet meaning 8-8 is Trump sending a code for “Heil Hitler”

    What is terrifying is not that this clown was on MSNBC; everyone on that network is a kook. What is terrifying is that this guy is a former assistant director of the FBI. Top men indeed.

    1. How can anybody take the media seriously at this point? They have decided to take what little credibility they had in 2015 and rape it for 4 years now.

    2. Up next: playing all of Trumps speeches backwards to find hidden satanic messages.

      1. If you play his inaugural speech backwards it says “I will run because I live with Satan and Putin”.

        1. I think I read somewhere that if you look at a picture of his cabinet, there’s proof that Mike Pence is dead.

      2. I played his inaugural backwards and actually heard that he’s in favor of buying a stairway to heaven. So much for cutting spending!

        1. A gold plated stairway.

        2. Cause you that sometimes words have two meanings.

          1. *know

            How did I fuck that up

            1. You’re a moron. I’ve been telling you this, and now you have proof.

    3. they all hear dog whistles that no one is even blowing. Didn’t an article just yesterday on Reason say there was no fake news. I would say creating and not even questioning the verasity of such stories by the news tellers makes them worse than Alex Jones and such stories should be laughed off the air but anything for the TDS’ers of teh world.

    4. I didn’t realize that Alex Jones and David Icke are now MSNBC news editors.

  25. “Roman Maroni deported to Sweden, claims ‘he’s not from there'”

    1. “You fargin’ iceholes!”

    2. And then he died of diabetes.

  26. The US’s unprecedented gun violence epidemic has caught the attention of Amnesty International.

    Amnesty International today issued a travel warning calling for travelers and visitors to the United States to exercise extreme caution due to rampant gun violence, which has become so prevalent in the US that it amounts to a human rights crisis.

    Of course conservatives will pounce on this with dumb replies like “If the US is so dangerous, then maybe we should discourage people from immigrating here!” But that’s exactly the wrong response. We should still enact open borders, we just need common sense gun safety to go with it.

    #BanAssaultWeapons
    #UnbanMichaelHihn

  27. So according to reason “white supremacy” is incompatible with Libertarianism and classical liberalism. That is true as far as it goes. But, isn’t white supremacy incompatible with Libertarianism because it is a form of racial supremacy and all forms of racial supremacy are incompatible?

    So, why not use the more general term. Does reason think other forms of racial supremacy are compatible with Libertarianism? If not, why do they single out just one form of it?

    1. Because Orange Man/ I mean White Man/ I mean non- BIPOC Man bad

    2. I think you are reading too much into it.

      In case you hadn’t heard, white nationalism is kinda in the news now. Black nationalism, not so much.

      1. White South Africans called, they’d like you to make a retraction

      2. In case you haven’t heard, there are college courses all over the country on the “problem of whiteness”. The last President attended a church for decades that espoused the theory of “Black Liberation Theology” which declares the black race to be supreme. The list goes on and on.

        It is not in the news because dishonest pieces of shit like you would rather virtue signal than tell the truth.

        1. John, there was a recent mass shooting in El Paso by a man who may be fairly described as a white nationalist. You may have heard about it.

          If there is a mass shooting by a person who may be fairly described as a black nationalist, writing a manifesto decrying the “White Invasion”, then I’m thinking that articles and think pieces about the problems of black nationalism will be appearing in the media, including at Reason.

          1. So one nut in El Paso is more important than a former President and pretty much the entire higher education establishment? Really?

            And there have been many shootings by black nationalists.
            On July 7, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson ambushed Dallas police officers during a peaceful protest against police brutality, killing five officers and wounding nine others. Ten days later, Gavin Eugene Long shot six officers, killing three, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Both Johnson and Long were reportedly motivated by their strong dislike of law enforcement, grievances against perceived white dominance, and the recent fatal police shootings of unarmed black men under questionable circumstances, specifically the shooting deaths of Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge and Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minnesota. Although many Americans were understandably upset and angry over the deaths of Sterling and Castile, killing others as retribution is certainly not justified. Authorities would later learn that Johnson and Long had ties to black hate groups.

            That same month, six Christian churches in St. Louis, Missouri, were either burned or vandalized. Graffiti left at the crime scenes made reference to “Negroes Are the Israelites,” “Wake Up!,” “The Real Israelites Are Rising.” These statements are indicative of Black Hebrew Israelite ideology, which portrays Christianity as “evil” and may point to motivation for the property destruction. As details developed about the Dallas, Baton Rouge and St. Louis attacks, it was apparent that a domestic terrorist threat had re-emerged — a threat not seen since the 1970s. This cluster of attacks would later signify the return of the violent Black Nationalist.
            http://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2017/return-violent-black-nationalist

            Reason never said a single word about black nationalism or its threat.

            Why don’t you go lie to someone who is dumb enough to believe you. Or how about why don’t you make an honest argument for once in your life?

            1. So one nut in El Paso is more important than a former President and pretty much the entire higher education establishment?

              In terms of current events? Yup, kinda like how the acts of 19 nuts on 9/11 were, at that time, also more important than pretty much everything and everybody else at the time.

              Reason never said a single word about black nationalism or its threat.

              You are right, they don’t seem to have said very much about the Black Hebrew Israelites.

              1. You are right, they don’t seem to have said very much about the Black Hebrew Israelites

                They burned down six churches and ambused and murdered several cops. That is just as big of a deal as El Paso.

                So, you lose the argument. Reason never says shit about black nationalism and doesn’t care about it even when black nationalists are murdering cops and burning down churches.

                Thanks for playing dickhead.

              2. What about the persecution of white south africans?

                1. Jeff doesn’t care. It’s extremely clear he hates white people.

                2. What about them?

                  1. Thanks for proving my point. God damn that’s sweet.

              3. “In terms of current events? Yup,”

                Then you should have no problem providing an article from Reason about Micah Johnson and your denunciation of him from 2016.

          2. He may also be accurately described an eco-freak.
            All greens are hereby banned form everything as violent bigots.
            He is also a proven anti-capitalist. Ban all socialists.
            To make it simple, ban everyone but me. In six years I can straighten out the whole mess. It could be faster, but I need the transition time to reduce the economic shocks.

            1. He is also a proven anti-capitalist. Ban all socialists.

              All of the radical right are anti capitalism and pro socialism. Yet, somehow classical liberals own them.

          3. Shorter Chemleff – “I assign motives to crazy shooters in order to forward my political agenda.”

      3. Shorter Jeff,

        Any lie the media tells is reality. God you are despicable.

      4. Shoreter Chemleff – “if it’s not on my news feed it doesn’t exist.”

    3. I am still waiting on the Reason article condemning the Black Caucus for their racist agenda.

      1. Ron Paul’s name appearing on some newsletters 20 years ago that had a few racist things in them is the biggest deal ever. Obama attending a black supremacist church for years is something only an evil white supremacist would find offensive or important.

      2. Or condemning Julian Castro for his work with La Raza. Hell, his mom helped found it. https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/everything-julian-castro-knows-he-learned-from-his-mother/

        Racial preference is only bad when one side does it.

      3. “Racial in group preference is only racist when Whitey does it”

    4. You are basically making the same argument as if you were saying that a business reporter writing a story about Coca Cola should only use the term “cola” or “soft drinks”.

    5. “Racial supremacy is only bad when Whitey does it”

  28. http://freebeacon.com/politics/dem-house-candidate-calling-dems-clowns-is-white-supremacist-slur/

    Democratic House Candidate says calling Democrats clowns is a white supremacist slur. White supremacy for everyone!!

    1. #clownworld. 4chan is exposing a lot of idiots. They openly admit they are seeding these hoaxes.

      1. You would think they would have learned after the “okay” sign debacle. They are so easy to troll and manipulate.

        1. I bet you’re drinking milk right now!

    2. Clowns… white face make-up… sure, that makes total sense, to a Juggalo, maybe.

  29. “Google searches for “lesbian” will get less pornographic.”

    When will this tyranny end?

    1. We need to break up Google

    2. The good news is Google just became significantly less useful for the vast majority of internet users. They really have seem to have forgotten the eternal truth that the internet is about cat videos and porn.

    3. And searches about “Trump” will get a little bit more negative. Searches about “libertarians” will get a bit more racist. Searches about “conservatives” will get a bit more leftist.

      But we swear, the search results driving your news feed are simply decided by what users have determined are the most relevant results!

      …..

      1. You I wanna fuck bad Trip. Real bad. I’d even give you a reach around for beating me to that point.

        1. Thanks, but I do a lot better than you.

    4. And yet, they claim the algorithms are responsible for search results…

    5. Oh well, back to searching on Lycos then…

  30. Someone explain to me something because I don’t proghard.

    So the two shooters are basically left-wing nut jobs. But the media is ignoring this and going for the ‘Trump’s fault white supremacist kill’ angle.

    This is predictable. But if the two murderers voted/identified with the left, and the media is calling them white supremacists, doesn’t it make them left-wing white supremacists and therefore not right-wing Trumpian racists?

    I’s confoosed wit de narrrrrrateeve!

    1. The narrative is to tell lies with such persistence and volume that it overwhelms the truth. That is what they did with Trump’s statements on Charlottesville. That is what they will do here.

      1. The C’ville thing is another inexcusable example. The full transcript is on Politifact and when read in proper context I defy anyone to tell me it’s an example of Trump’s ‘racism’.

        I also find it interesting Politifact decline to investigate it like they did to such comically cynical heights with the AOC at the border shenanigan of bull shit.

        1. Hell, they cut the video off the FUCKING SENTENCE before he specifically condemns white nationalists and then say “Trump never condemned them. SEE?”

      2. +100

    2. So the two shooters are basically left-wing nut jobs.

      The El Paso shooter started his manifesto with a concern about a “Hispanic invasion” and fretted that mass Hispanic immigration would turn Texas blue, which he regarded as a *bad* thing. That hardly sounds like the mark of a “left wing nut job”.

      Here is his manifesto so you can read it for yourself, if you don’t believe me.

      https://drudgereport.com/flashtx.htm

      The Dayton shooter had left-wing politics, yes, but didn’t leave behind any sort of manifesto explaining his motivations. He *may* have been motivated by left-wing radicalism, but a more plausible explanation (IMO) is that he was simply ill, as he had a history of some psychopathic behavior in highschool like constructing “rape lists” and “kill lists” of fellow classmates.

      1. Right.
        So a killer who espouses white supremacist, as well as radical environment ideas MUST be doing it due to right-wing extremism.
        A killer who actually has a history of left-wing activism doesn’t do it because they are a leftist. They are simply ill. Because after all, no true leftist would do this.
        That is a lovely Scotsman you have there.

        1. All Jeff knows how to do is lie. He has his talking points and he will keep lying no matter how many times his lies are pointed out.

        2. So a killer who espouses white supremacist, as well as radical environment ideas MUST be doing it due to right-wing extremism.

          I did not use the phrase “right-wing extremism”, you did. I did not claim one way or another whether he is a “right-winger” or a “left-winger”. I stated the plain FACTS, from his own manifesto, which I linked for all to read: he was very obviously concerned about the so-called “Hispanic Invasion” and he regarded Texas going blue to be a BAD THING, which is hardly the mark of a “left-wing nut job”.

          The Dayton shooter is different, because he did not leave behind any manifesto, no explanation for his actions, and only a very scant social media trail. He did, however, exhibit the psychopathic tendencies that I mentioned earlier.

          https://www.apnews.com/83e222c2be834d1fb3b472f9f77aabb2

          Because after all, no true leftist would do this.

          Again, not what I said. There have been plenty of instances of left-wing violence. This case, however, does not appear to be (at least as far as I can see) a case that was motivated primarily by left-wing ideology. Now maybe it was, and we will learn more in the future, but that doesn’t seem to be the case now.

          1. “I did not use the phrase “right-wing extremism”, you did”

            You’ll notice Jeff doesn’t deny that it is his argument, only that he didn’t say it, and he’s salty because Bear correctly addressed it.

      2. I read his manifesto. And to be honest, it could have been written just as easily by a Bernie Sanders supporter as a Trump supporter.

        1. He goes on and on about America’s sinful consumerist lifestyle and how since they won’t give it up, the only solution is fewer people. Yet, somehow Jeff is sure that this had nothing to do with his objection to immigration.

        2. I read his manifesto. And to be honest, it could have been written just as easily by a Bernie Sanders supporter as a Trump supporter.

          Seriously?

          “In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and
          his manifesto. This attack is a response to the
          Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigator
          s, not me. I am simply defending my country from
          cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an in
          vasion.”

          1. The shooter is using racism to hid his true intentions to protect his fellow Enviro NAZIs

            1. No no Ron, only Jeff is allowed to decide the motives.

            2. Lefties have to lie to distance themselves from the fact that THEY are racist.

              Lefties don’t want to be the only racists around.

      3. the environmental movement is against all movement even to the point of not wanting people to travel in their own country why do you think they want to tax air travel and make every one ride trains that don’t go where you need to go, so that you won’t go. this is why they want electric cars so you can’t travel further than 100 miles without taking a month to go anywhere. Its my conspiracy theory that is backed by the fact that they have even stated so in the more radical parts of the movement. the El Paso shooter was an enviro NAZI

        1. How else are you going to keep the serfs on the manor, Ron?

          That is exactly the impetus behind the Green New Deal: make carbon, and the energy that utilizes it, so expensive that people can’t move, organize, or do anything to threaten the livelihood of the ruling class.

          I mean, we can’t expect Al Gore to live in a smaller house, or for Hollywood stars to give up their NetJets card, can we?

    3. John Tanton is a pretty good example of a right-wing environmentalist, I think. His recent death got enough press to start conversations in Left Greenie-land about how to differentiate themselves from Right Greens.

      I’d say the narrative is confused because it relies on an over-simplified understanding of the country’s political spectrum.

      1. I’d say the narrative is confused because it relies on an over-simplified understanding of the country’s political spectrum.

        Yes. The radical right in the traditional sense is always anti capitalism. When you realize that fascism is a rejection of capitalism and individual freedom, it makes perfect sense that some fascists would be drawn to radical environmentalism.

        The spectrum is as you say not nearly as simple as people think it is.

        1. Careful John, Chipper is the resident expert of being on the spectrum, he’s been living it his entire life.

        2. Yup, John. Right-Wing are Monarchies and Theocracies which have control over the state. Capitalism is Centrist where the most freedom is and the least government control. Left-Wing is of course Communism and Socialism, which are also anti-Capitalism.

  31. Mural of Michelle in Korean attire.

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-michelle-obama-korean-mural-20190806-6enqbchlozbm3flkuvxfyyzttq-story.html

    Waiting for the howls of cultural appropriation from blacks who babble about it on this one.

    /looks at watch.

    Still waiting.

    1. “I didn’t know much about her but after all I would say I painted her because she’s everybody,” [said the artist.]

      Waiting for the howls of bullshit.

      1. Artists can be such presumptuous fools sometimes.

      1. Speaking of Dear Leader paintings!

        Jesus Christ, that could be some female leader of a totalitarian country for all we know. Obama’s are so desperate to remain relevant.

  32. “One 11-year-old girl cried: “Government, please show some heart. Let my parent be free.””

    Does not pass the sniff-test. Somebody is once again using a kid as a political prop.

    1. You mean all of those reporters really don’t have five year old children asking them why Trump is so evil?

      1. And wondering why the world gummint isn’t mobilizing to prevent global warming!
        And pestering their teachers to increase the minimum wage!
        Darn kids these days…

      2. Those are just the ones you hear about. My two year old asked me why Trump is so evil and I told him our walk-in gun safe wasn’t going to clean itself. Then we had a good laugh over a beer.

  33. Google searches for “lesbian” will get less pornographic.

    However, as a compromise, searches for “Trump” will get more pornographic.

    1. I would think a specialized porn search engine would be a very good business model. There are tons of porn sites that would pay to go to the top of searches conducted on such an engine and porn is still by far the most searched for material.

      1. Hmm. And a specialized white supremacist search engine?

        1. All you would get are bad teeth and small dick pics.

          1. And FBI informants. Mostly FBI informants.

            1. …and they mostly come at night. Mostly.

  34. > A 41-year-old man who spoke no Arabic, was born in Greece, and had been living in the U.S. since he was a baby was deported to Iraq (where he had never lived) in June. His family reports that he has died there from complications trying to obtain his diabetes medication.

    Well if he didn’t want to die in Iraq he should never have come here as a baby!!! Damned foreigners. Probably voted Democrat too.

    1. Maybe she should have done something about her immigration status at some point. If she was born in Greece, she likely could have claimed EU citizenship. Why didn’t she do that?

      1. What would be the consequence to him of applying and not being approved?

    2. Notice how ENB conveniently fails to mention the guy is a convicted burglar? Wait, I thought Illegal immigrants didn’t commit crimes?

    3. ” A 41-year-old man”

      That’s some baby.

  35. “One 11-year-old girl cried: “Government, please show some heart. Let my parent be free.””

    Yeah, right.
    And men can become women, and global climate warming change will cause the seas will flood NY & DC by the year 2000, and non-recyclable paper straws are better for everyone than recyclable plastic ones.
    And Hillary really won, and Emperor Hussein was not a racist.

    1. What is the relevance of those other things?

  36. While I feel bad for the kids, the parents are ultimately to blame. This is akin to someone getting arrested for a DUI while their kid is in the car- that person is going to go jail and their kid is going to go to child protective services if another relative can’t pick them up.

    These people are breaking federal law and the fact that they got their kids involved just proves they are bad parents. This is similar to people who attempt to cross the border while dragging their kids along.

    1. How dare they involve their kids when trying to find better living conditions. Horrible parenting.

      1. You take chances, sometimes they backfire.

        You don’t want to lose? Then don’t play.

        1. True, those kids shouldn’t have taken the chance of having those parents if they weren’t prepared for it to backfire.

          1. Used to be libertarians hanging out in the Reason commentariat. Apparently, we’ve been taken over by a conservative, anti-immigration crowd who come here to complain about ENB’s choice of daily news articles.

  37. “One irony I see in this is that conservatives up till recently have tended to favor promoting parental-control modes in social media, or even making them the default”

    The PARENTS want to control it. Not hipster doofuses.

  38. In Forrest, Mississippi, the “children of those who were arrested are left alone in the streets crying for help,” tweeted WJTV 12 News staffer Alex Love. “Strangers and neighbors are taking them to a local gym to be put up for the night.”

    Would it be any better if those parents were arrested for violating “common sense”, sensible” gun legislation?

    1. They weren’t arrested for violating any such laws. They were arrested for not having the State’s travel papers, an even less meaningful “crime” than possessing scary guns.

  39. Guys, be careful where you step because the Trumpistas white supremacists left their cum on the floor from so much of their fapping over the suffering of those children of “Illegulz Immigruntz”. Someone should bring a mop or something.

    1. Eat my ass with maple syrup SQRLSY.

    2. You obviously have little experience in these matters.
      A wet vac is a far superior tool in this case than a mop could ever hope to be.

  40. Bill de Blasio is in a very stupid Twitter spat with Rudy Giuliani

    It’s a shame that political correctness has forced us to use the term “Twitter spat” rather than the more evocative “cripple fight”. (And the term “stupid Twitter spat” contains a rather obvious redundancy.)

  41. >>>spoke no Arabic, was born in Greece, and had been living in the U.S. since he was a baby was deported to Iraq

    Roman Moroni Deported to Sweden: Claims He’s Not From There

  42. “…bragged to the AP that this was biggest workplace sting operation conducted in more than a decade and likely the largest ever conducted in one state.”

    Yeah, that’s the ticket. Let’s target illegal aliens who are actually working and trying to better themselves. Yeah. That makes just SO much sense.

    1. I’d bet money that these government employees refer to illegal immigrants as “bodies.”

      1. No, they are “numbers.” Not entirely removed from the “notches” carved into the grips of the revolvers used by Old West gunfighters.

    2. Yup. Get them and deport their asses.

      Lefties want to play games and hide illegals and swamp the ICE system when ICE announces raids. Fine. No more announced raids.

      1. Seeing as how resources are not unlimited, wouldn’t it make more sense to first go after those actually doing direct harm? Gangs love to “import” new members, for instance.

        1. Grab any illegal you find.

    3. Their stealing loveconstition1789’s hypothetical claim on a job at an abattoir.

      1. If you can believe that some people want the law enforced even if they dont directly benefit from it.

  43. In Forrest, Mississippi, the “children of those who were arrested are left alone in the streets crying for help,”

    I don’t believe it.

    1. I’m really curious to know what the children were doing wandering the streets outside their parents’ workplace.

      1. Michael Moynihan was arrested and they didn’t leave his daughter ‘wandering about the street’. I know lots of people who’ve been arrested. They always arrange for some kind of care for young people. This would have been either a massive oversight on the part of law enforcement (entirely possible) or this is something someone saw, provided the minimal information possible to convey a narrative. And we’ve seen too much of this narrative shit in the media lately. So I don’t believe it.

        That doesn’t mean I support the raids, or the law, or the process, but I just don’t believe that statement is factual.

  44. These are people who were ordered by the court to be deported. They likely exhausted all appeal options or failed to show up for court appointments. The stage for this raid was set long before the recent mass shootings.

    Most undocumented aliens will never be ordered by the courts to leave, unless they go out of their way to do something to get noticed by the system. ICE doesn’t generally nab people who they suspect to be illegals, they act on court orders. The Latinos detained in this raid was most likely cited for something – perhaps for something minor like working without proper documentation, or maybe something a bit more serious. We don’t know.

    Not to minimize the emotional pain of the children, crying children isn’t reason enough to stop enforcing immigration laws. We can fix immigration process, but that’s a separate issue. If the democrats gave Trump 4 billion for his wall (arguably a waste of money) some dreamers would have celebrated Christmas with no fear of being deported.

  45. Kids: better streets than cages
    Narcs dragging away: now it’s us seeing them drag away our kids, rather than us being dragged while our parents wonder about bail money
    Solution: I vote libertarian

  46. #MAGA

    Deport as many as you can.

  47. If a bank robbers children cry when he is arrested should we let him go?
    If a murders children cry when he is arrested should we let him go?
    These people broke the law, that their children are crying is their fault and no one else’s fault. Keep that in mind.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.