Reason Roundup

Last Week's ICE Raids Were a Tremendously Expensive Political Show That Didn't Make Anyone Safer

Plus: The trade war still isn't good or easy to win, trans activists are upset about a new romantic comedy, and more....


Last week's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Mississippi that led to more than 600 people being detained came with a hefty price tag. That's on top of the more obvious—but less quantifiable—cost of ripping parents away from their children and locking them up for doing nothing more dangerous than trying to earn a living to support their families.

Days later, there is still no indication that any of the workers arrested by ICE during raids of seven food processing plants were dangerous criminals or represented much of a threat to the public. But arresting 680 people who are peacefully working still requires a massive logistical operation. "Something like this has been planned for over a year," acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan told NBC's Chuck Todd in an interview on Sunday. The raids involved more than 600 law enforcement personnel from a variety of federal, state, and local offices. No matter how you look at it, that's a huge investment of time and resources that could have been spent tracking down bigger threats or stopping other, more serious crimes.

After the raid, taxpayers got hit with another bill. According to ICE's own numbers, it costs $213 per day to keep someone locked up in an immigration detention facility. That translates to a public cost of over $144,000 per day to keep the 680 immigrants arrested last week behind bars. Even though 300 of the arrestees were released a day after the raid—yet another indication that the raid was not targeting dangerous criminals—keeping the remaining 380 behind bars for the past six days would cost more than $485,000. If detained for the whole month, this effort would cost taxpayers more than $2 million.

That total also doesn't include the "unseen" costs of the raid, like the damage done to the local economy in the towns where those food processing plants operate. The plants have been partially shut down since the raids, likely costing millions of dollars in lost productivity. A bakery in one of the towns may have to shut down because a large portion of its current workforce is afraid to show up for work, the owner told the Clarion-Ledger. And the loss of 600 people—who were not only workers at the food processing plants but also customers at other establishments in the area—represents a significant economic drain in a part of the country where businesses are already struggling to get by.

Were last week's raids worth all that? The Trump administration continues to boast that they were the biggest immigration enforcement operations in over a decade. But in a world where the government's resources are limited, the cost of the raid seems difficult to justify, even without adding the odious moral costs of tearing apart families. Last week's raids appear to be little more than a costly political show, meant to thrill the president's anti-immigrant base—human lives and fiscal responsibility be damned.


Can the transgender community laugh at itself? A new romantic comedy that adapts a novel about a cisgender guy who deceives a lesbian into thinking he is a trans man so she will date him is getting panned by some in the trans community for being "inherently transphobic," the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

The film, "Adam," is set for release later this week. Director Rhys Ernst defends the project as a "subversive" attempt as "flipping the trans-deception trope" as well as creating an opening for mainstream audiences to appreciate the difficulties of the trans lifestyle.


Hurt by Trump's trade war, some North Dakota farmers are wondering why they even bother, CNBC reports:

"It's really, really getting bad out here," said Bob Kuylen, who's farmed for 35 years in North Dakota. "Trump is ruining our markets. No one is buying our product no more, and we have no markets no more."

Kuylen, who farms roughly 1,500 acres of wheat and sunflowers, lost $70 per acre this year, despite growing good crops. Current government subsidies only cover about $15 per acre, he said. "There's no incentive to keep farming, except that I've invested everything I have in farming, and it's hard to walk away," he said. "When four to five generations ahead of you have succeeded, and you come along and fail, you don't see it as not your fault. You snap."


Bill Weld visits the Iowa State Fair to eat a turkey leg and make a pitch for NeverTrumpism. Buzzfeed's Rosie Gray was on the scene during Weld's "short, rainy, and little-noticed trip to Iowa" last weekend:

John Paul Strong, 78, was curious to hear what Weld had to say about veterans' issues but figured he would likely vote for Trump again, based on the assumption that because Weld is from Massachusetts, he "might be a lefty." Weld's contention that Trump is racist also ruffled at least one set of feathers. "Trump's not racist," a man called out to Weld as he passed by. (The same man dropped by Weld's gaggle to say the same thing later on.) Weld is clear on this point and is as willing to call Trump a racist as any Democrat. Trump is an "extreme racist," Weld told reporters after his speech. "If the Republican Party in Washington doesn't expressly disavow his racist tirades, they are going to go down with a massive defeat in 2020."

Meanwhile, another possible Trump primary challenger is still testing the waters. Former Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina is heading to New Hampshire on Tuesday to meet voters and decide whether he wants to tilt at a windmill. Sanford tells The Post and Courier newspaper that the prospect of a primary challenge against Trump is "even more daunting than it seemed four weeks ago."

But Sanford also says he wants to use his campaign—if he decides to launch one—to push a national debate about America's debt and government spending. That's something that's sorely missing right now.

Presidential candidate Julian Castro is apparently trying to get Trump to tweet about him:


NEXT: In Win for Due Process, American Bar Association Voted Against Affirmative Consent

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The black hole at the center of our galaxy is doing some weird shit.

    Space Draino.

    1. Hello.

      Is Eric telling us we need to pitch in and buy him a Timex for Christmas?

  2. Last week’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Mississippi that led to more than 600 people being detained came with a hefty price tag.


    1. They lose out on the tens of thousands of remittances. So partly. And then add whomever it discourages. Win win.

      1. In other words, no.

        1. Were you under the impression policy is only good if its 100% paid for by mexico? You’re stupid enough to believe that. So guessing you say yes.

          1. just like the laws of supply and demand do not apply to the labor market, deterrence doesn’t apply to immigration. Nope, you have to arrest and deport every single illegal alien to have any effect at all.

            1. +10

            2. I question whether this is really effective deterrence. I can imagine living in America under the threat of occasional ICE detention beats living in squalor in your home country.

              1. It does because it deters the employers. They have something to lose.

                1. Ah, yeah I wasn’t really thinking about that. Good point.

              2. “”I question whether this is really effective deterrence. I can imagine living in America under the threat of occasional ICE detention beats living in squalor in your home country.””

                Who knows if it really is. But that doesn’t matter when government wants to enforce law. Will any of the democrat proposed gun laws be an effective deterrence to mass shootings? The government won’t care when enforcing them.

                1. I agree with your point. I wasn’t really discussing this from that angle but, yeah, what you say is true.

          2. Were you under the impression policy is only good if its 100% paid for by mexico?

            I’m under the impression that Trump is a moron and saying that Mexico is going to pay for anything was a moronic thing to do.

            1. Oh noes. Rhetoric. A politician who promised things that didnt happen. How will you ever survive sparky? The horror.

              1. What’s funny is that you’re the one who’s butthurt about it. Most people don’t have any expectations that politicians will keep their word to the point that they’ll often make jokes about it.

                1. You have an inability to read people, most likely due to your defense of your sophomoric analysis of the situation. I’m not butthurt at all. I applaud the actions. You’re the one trying to attack the actions with childish diatribes.

                  1. It’s not surprising that you lost where you were in the conversation.

                    1. Did you get confused on the “shorter sparky” he was mocking you and people who know how to read understand that sparky.

            2. I’m under the impression that Trump is a moron and saying that Mexico is going to pay for anything was a moronic thing to do.

              I am sure you are under a lot of impressions. You should work on that.

              1. Let me know when you start and we can do it together.

                1. Sadly, your low IQ and propensity for anger makes you untrainable at least by me. You should try and find someone trained in special ed and psychiatry to help you. I don’t have the specialized skills necessary.

    2. Some believe money is all that matters.

      1. Some believe that government should act as if they have limited resources instead of endless piggy banks just waiting to be broken open by a hammer.

        1. Yes, the excessive love of money is an evil thing, when such love is felt by private people and businesses.

          When Government Almighty loves OUR money excessively, though… And uses it to punish innocent people, for example… THEN its all OK, even GREAT, in the eyes of Government Almighty-worshipping authoritarians of both major political parties!

          As Hihn (Our Hero!) says, left – right = zero!

        2. That total also doesn’t include the “unseen” costs of the raid”

          How about the unseen benefits of fewer people willing to risk the long trek to the USA?


      I have been assured by reason staff that Mexican nationals inside the USA illegally pay more in US taxes than they use, so MEXICANS ARE PAYING.

      Gracias Mexicanos!

  3. “Can the transgender community laugh at itself?”

    They are offended that you would even ask such a question

    1. It is transphobic to even ask such a question.

      1. I’m waiting to see how Reason’s thoughts on this movie vs it thoughts on “The Hunt” movie.

      2. It is transphobic to even ask such a question.

        Yep, you and I both know that is what the woke twitter crowd would say.

        I feel bad for all the trans people that this bullshit affects. The two trans people I know absolutely hate the fucks that make them look soft and demand special treatment on behalf of every trans person. They’re making things worse for trans people.

        1. “”The two trans people I know absolutely hate the fucks that make them look soft and demand special treatment on behalf of every trans person. They’re making things worse for trans people.””


    2. Anyone who’s read Tumblr or Reddit already understands that the answer is “no.” The DSA convention a couple weeks ago just confirmed it.

  4. These sexy links leave me feeling unsatisfied, Buhm.

  5. Justice officials say the MCC has suffered a breakdown in protocols for a period that goes back years.

    Annual audits are your friend.

    1. Funny how the break down in protocols only seem to get prisoners who are embarrassing to important people killed.

      1. Maybe that’s why he was housed at MCC.

        1. He was housed at MCC because he was indicted by the SDNY. But perhaps that is why he was indicted in New York and not Florida.

          1. The stated reason he was moved is that the state system was not safe.
            Safe for whom is the question. Trump? Clintons? All the others? Surely not poor old Epstein.
            Procedures were NOT followed; Anyone starting a pool on how many people are officially reprimanded for this? Of all the people sweating the revelations, who has the most federal buddies?

            1. Anyone starting a pool on how many people are officially reprimanded for this?

              Exactly one mid-level management staffer.

              1. Politicians will get blamed for the lack of funding knowing they will not get punished by the voters.

                I still don’t know anyone who admitted voting for DeBlazio.

              2. Anyone starting a pool on how many people are officially reprimanded for this?
                Put me down for Julian Assange and/or Ghislaine Maxwell.

          2. But perhaps that is why he was indicted in New York and not Florida.

            He was indicted in New York because he’s already been tried in Florida – that’s where he plead guilty to the one misdemeanor and was granted immunity for everything else.

      2. Selective “incompetence.” Funny how that happens.

      3. We need common sense Clinton control laws.

      4. “Funny how the break down in protocols only seem to get prisoners who are embarrassing to important people killed.”

        It gets plenty of other prisoners killed, but nobody gives a shit because they aren’t embarrassing to important people so we never hear about it.

        And he was indicted in NY and not Florida because he had a non-prosecution agreement with the Feds in Florida dating back to the deal he got in the aughts.

        1. Not in federal prison. Federal prisoner deaths are very rare. Federal Prisons are generally much better run and safer than state ones.

    2. Justice officials say – of course they would, they’re obviously part of the conspiracy. How blind do you have to be not to see this?


    Blood-soaked man ‘shouting Allahu Akbar’ in Sydney’s CBD attempts to stab multiple people – with one woman rushed to hospital and another found dead with her throat slit in a nearby building

    That woman is just another egg in the big, gay, Libertarian, open borders omelette.

    Diversity is our strength.

      1. If he’s illegal then it’s our fault!

        1. Well, it’s Trump’s fault either way!

      2. He must be, Muslims don’t come from Australia.

    1. +100

    2. why didn’t anyone shoot him?

      1. Because they are hiding their guns from the government due to not being compliant with gun laws.

  7. There may be many prominent people breathing sighs of relief now that Jeffrey Epstein is dead.


    1. His diaries and little black book are still out there.

      1. The FBI finally got around to raiding his island two days after he died. They didn’t wait that long to allow time for evidence against important people to be destroyed or anything. Nope. You can trust the FBI.

        1. Right. They probably have procedures on taking the cheap flights that were booked up for a couple of days.
          Or maybe it was due to the Hong Kong airport shutdown?

          1. All the Tyranny Airlines flights were booked.

    2. I know a guy who has a friend who knows a guy that said he saw Bill Clinton sneaking into the prison through a storm drain the night before Epstein was found “mysteriously” dead…

      1. We joke but it’s not a stretch to think that guy was offed.

        1. Not a stretch? Everyone across the political spectrum expected him to be suicided at some point, about 5 minutes after he was arrested.

          1. Why would a man who has so much black mail info about so many need to commit suicide?

            1. Not to mention which, why would a guy who’s gotten away with so much for so long be at all concerned that he might not get away this time, so much so that he commits suicide?

      2. Well we know that’s not true. The Clintons don’t do their own dirty work. The head of mafia family has people to do the work for them.

  8. Cody Wilson, the 3D-printed gun activist and former director of Defense Distributed, pleaded guilty to felony charges and will have to register as a sex offender.

    He should have 3D printed a girl.

    1. With a draw string that when pulled says either, “I am of legal age” and “I consent”.

    2. That’s illegal too.

      Sex trafficking via fleshjet.

      BTW: “Flesh Jet” was my name in High School and college.

  9. Bill Weld visits the Iowa State Fair to eat a turkey leg and make a pitch for NeverTrumpism.

    A dead, beaten horse would have been a more apt meal.

    1. In reality, he’s just meeting all the Dem candidates there so he can figure out who to endorse days before the election.


    Three Men Attacked On Their Way to Synagogue, As Renewed Spate of Assaults Targets Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn

    I guess Jews just can’t live in MAGA country like Brooklyn with that God damned Trump in the White House.

  11. Is this a show of force, or is China seriously considering rolling tanks into Hong Kong?

    Probably US military surplus MRAP’s.

    1. A Communist Country using tanks against civilian protesters? That is just white supremacy talk there, straight up.

      1. Wait, what?
        Chicoms as white supremacists?

        1. More like a Light Yellow Supremacist.

  12. Roundup under boehm is the worst form of woke bullshit to come out. He hit literally every bullshit woke talking point he utters.

    1. Why does the 3D gun guy being a pervert matter?

      1. Because reasons. Same as the google employee being a Spenser supporter even though he must wanted to pay a bounty on Spencer’s assaulted. It is Boehms woke bullshit.

        1. Assaulter.

          1. Assailant.

      2. It seems to matter a lot around here. SPB and Jeff are inundated with personal attacks all the time.

        1. SPB is a pervert who was kicked off the site for posting instructions on how to access child porn on the dark web. That is why he is no longer “Palin’s…” and is now “Sarah Palin’s…” So that is not a personal attack. It is the truth.

          I am unaware of anyone calling Jeff a deviant. People just call him dishonest and stupid, which also is true.

          1. Tulpa and another call him pedo jeff after he said he didnt care if illegal immigrants that were pedophiles crossed illegally. They are mocking his idiotic stance.

          2. So if it’s true that the 3D gun guy is guilty, then it does matter?

            1. If he comes and posts on here, sure it does. Otherwise, not so much.

            2. Do you know the difference between pedophilia and statutory rape?

        2. SPB posted child porn. He admits and laughs about it. Not sure why you defend him.

          1. I’m not defending him. I rarely ever even agree with him.

            Just trying to understand why it does matter for SPB, to the point that every argument he makes is countered with ad hominem, vs the question from John as to why it matters for Cody Wilson.

            1. SPB generally has no actual argument to respond to, but is in itself generally a strawman or ad hominem. So he gets attacked for who he is, a pedophile. And yes, you’re defending him.

              Likewise the assault case is a statutory offense if I remember right, which many question in and of itself especially on the disparate treatment based on the gender of the victim.

              1. Leo is getting lonely defending his ridiculous positions and depends on socks and trolls to swoop in to back him up. The fact that trolls and socks do that is suspicious enough.

                1. You’ve pegged me. We all long for the echo chamber that you conservatarians enjoy here at Reason. I’ve often considered donning a MAGA hat just to fit in.

                  1. I cannot speak for “conservatarians” but as a Libertarian, you never fit in because what you say is not Libertarian.

                    Trolls dont fit in either.

                    Tony does not fit in because he’s a Lefty.

              2. Victim: girl signed up for a dating site and lied about her age.

                I don’t know all the details of the story, but if the above is how it went down I really question how much of a victim this 16-year-old is.

                1. Its super scary to put your life int he hands of a jury but with these sex crimes, you really have to because what man on a jury is not going to sympathize with a guy who followed all the rules about age but likes 18-22 year old women.

                  Then a girl lies and nothing happens to her. Mens rea means nothing? Bullshit.

                  I would never convict a defendant with a story like that.

            2. What’s there to understand? SPB responds to the trolls. You feed the trolls, you get more trolls.

            3. Because neither buttplug or jeff ever argue in good faith.
              Even then, they often get more respect than they deserve

    2. Citing a tweet from a Blue Checkmark containing a clip from MSNBC was the best part.

      Does anyone from MSNBC know any actual conservatives that they wouldn’t immediately harangue as racists?

  13. This clip of a conservative mother and daughter explaining why they can’t vote for Trump in Iowa should have Republicans scared.

    The Christian Right had its day.

    1. Oh yeah, I am totally sure that woman is who she says she is. It is just like how every “long time gun owner and NRA member who just can’t vote Republican anymore because this time they and the NRA have gone to far” is totally legitimate.

      Gas lighting for the win.

    2. She says she cant vote for Donald Trump because he isnt a conservative… is reason worried shed vote for a democrat? Why should republicans be scared?

      1. One of the funniest aspects of the 2016 election was movement conservatives yelling about Trump not being a “conservative” without having any clue they were helping his cause. They actually had no idea how badly the Bushes and the movement conservative grafters had destroyed the brand.

      2. She said she liked Kamala Harris. Did you miss that part?

        1. If she thinks trump is not a conservative so is voting for Kamala Harris, she isnt worth listening to now is she. Harris isnt even close to a conservative. So again, why should I care about her views?

          1. Kamala loves her some cops!

      3. What if she votes for Amash because he is a conservative?

        1. That is funny. But then when you realize the word has been raped beyond all meaning, maybe it is not so funny.

        2. Lulz. Good one. Amash being a conservative. Not many of those believe in political prosecutions based on process crimes absent an underlying crime based on a expansive reading of obstruction that would make pleading not guilty a crime.

          1. Is that your only beef with Amash? You’d be willing to throw him out of the club over that?

            Meanwhile, Trump runs up the deficit, increases taxes (tariffs), bans bump stocks, pushes the bounds of separation of powers constantly, has the personal moral qualities most similar to Bill Clinton, etc. These are all antithetical to traditional conservative positions. Yet you defend him no matter what?

            Amash is probably 10x more conservative than Trump and you know it. Your TDS is blinding you. Trump was a Democrat not that long ago.

            1. s that your only beef with Amash? You’d be willing to throw him out of the club over that?

              I think bowing to the mob, throwing away any commitment to the truth and respecting of a legal election is kind of a big deal. I also think Amash being totally unconcerned and in fact supportive of the abuse of the FBI and IC to try and frame a lawfully elected President with being an agent of Russia kind of cuts into his libertarian street creed.

              I understand LEO. Orange man bad and it is just the worst thing ever that his white trash, low class white supremacist evil Olive Garden eating, monster truck show watching supporters were given any kind of a voice in their own government. But maybe there are larger issues at play here. Just saying.

              1. Leo is just mad trump has actually taken a step towards liberty with the tax cuts, decreased regulatory state, and judges seeking to limit federal power. Compared to Amashs accomplishments of….

                1. If virtue signaling isn’t an accomplishment..

                2. No, I’m actually happy that Trump has done some good things. I applaud the tax cuts and rollback of regulation. Neil Gorsuch might, at the end of his career, be the best SC justice… ever. Getting us out of wars, if he follows through with his promises, might be legacy-defining for Trump.

                  But I can also avoid defending his very anti-liberty accolades as well. I’ve even said in other threads that I don’t think Trump should be impeached over the obstruction thing. I certainly don’t agree with Amash on everything, including this impeachment thing (which is almost certainly a political ploy on his part.)

                  1. You’re obviously a dirty Hillary Clinton supporter if you aren’t going to praise Trump’s reasonable, common sense gun control laws as all sensible Republicans do.

                    1. Trump seems to be right about one thing for certain:

                      “”I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s, like, incredible.”

                    2. Trump has definitely clouded a lot of minds. If you question anything, or even ask for clarification on a policy position around here, there’s a lot of people on this board that go full on frothing-at-the-mouth mode.

                      There are a few people that frequent this board that strike me as the potential mass shooter type.

                    3. @TripK2, hyperbole like this isn’t helpful.

                      I wouldn’t say that I see mouth frothing, so much as the instinctive response of calling everything TDS (or “Orange Man Bad”).

                      It’s similar to calling everything racism from the left. It’s indicative that you can’t argue the points being made, you have to dismiss it entirely as a result of bias.

                    4. I’m not being hyperbolic in the slightest.

                      I see the people calling everyone that disagrees with them TDS-sufferers, etc. I’m not talking about those ones.

                      But there are legitimate mouth frothing types here that seem like they just need a slight push in the wrong direction and they’ll do something horrible. There are some people here that buy the idea that everyone that disagrees with them are not just bad people, but pure evil.

              2. “Orange man bad and it is just …”

                Orange Man bad?!? He BAD, all right! He SOOO BAD, He be GOOD! He be GREAT! He Make America Great Again!

                We KNOW He can Make America Great Again, because, as a bad-ass businessman, He Made Himself and His Family Great Again! He Pussy Grabber in Chief!

                “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet”
                He pussy-grab His creditors in 7 bankruptcies, His illegal sub-human workers ripped off of pay on His building projects, and His “students” in His fake Get-Rich-like-Me reality schools, and so on. So, He has a GREAT record of ripping others off! So SURELY He can rip off other nations, other ethnic groups, etc., in trade wars and border wars, for the benefit of ALL of us!!!
                All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!

                Most of all, HAIL the Chief, for having revoked karma! What comes around, will no longer go around!!! The Donald has figured out that all of the un-Americans are SOOO stupid, that we can pussy-grab them all day, every day, and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back!

            2. No. I think worse of ash as I’ve made clear. Hes a show vote narcissist. He doesnt actually work to advance libertarian causes because he also acts as a purist. I’d rather have one step towards liberty through compromise than a narcissist not yielding a step because he wants a mile. His literal accomplishments in 10 years was to name a post office. He wasted 10 years of possible influence because of his ego. Not even ted cruz is that rigid. Neither is tand paul. Sometimes a compromise has to be made.

              Amash is the perfect reason why libertarians do so poorly. He relies on a concept of governance that requires everyone to agree with him exactly to work. Hes no better than a communist idealist in this regard.

              1. Amash is NOT a Libertarian.

                Amash has a decent voting record in Congress but he is riding the Never Trump train to Irrelevancy Town.

            3. Trump isn’t a conservative. He’s not a Republican. He’s not a liberal–though there might still be a touch of Democrat to him.

              But he’s not really a politician at all.

              He’s a real estate developer from Queens. He’s flashy, bombastic, and crude. He doesn’t take anyone’s shit. He’ll get in your face.

              And he’ll say anything. He’ll say shit just to piss you off. He’ll say shit to get you going. He’ll say shit to get you so made you can’t see.

              And then he’ll quietly–while everyone’s foaming at the mouth over what he said–pass some of the most libertarianesque stuff we’ve ever seen.

              He’s far from perfect.

              But he’s getting shit done. And the good shit far outweighs the bad shit.

              1. +10000

                1. -10^12

                  I win

              2. If Trump lets gun control pass, especially if he encourages it in any way, he’ll lose the 2020 election.

        3. She’s in Iowa, Leo. She can’t vote for Justin.

      4. If she is team red, she will hold her nose and vote for team red.

        I know some team blue people that hated Hillary but voter for her because she was the team blue candidate.

        The two party system in America tends to have people holding their nose and voting party line.

      5. Most people who voted for Trump didn’t give a shit if he was conservative or not.

        Why would they? It’s not like the party and it’s donors were pimping any actual conservatives anyway, at least not ones who wouldn’t show their bellies to the left.

    3. Everyone who says they dislike Trump is a filthy Democrat plant.

      1. You seem angry today. Do you need a hug?

        1. Are you offering?

          1. Sure. Sadly, it won’t make you any smarter, but less angry and incoherent perhaps. And that is a start.

            1. Finally the sex links are back!

            2. Let me know where I can meet you. I could really use a hug.

            3. So you’re just gonna leave me hanging? I should have known you’re nothing but a tease.

            4. I guess you’re so scared that your big Internet mouth got you into something that you’re just going to rely on fake Tulpa to provide flak now.


    Chris Cuomo gets angry at being called “Fredo”.

    This got me to thinking that maybe Fredo was the smart one. Fredo could not have cocked things up worse than Micheal and Sonny did. Fredo likely does the right thing and makes a deal after Solatzo tried and failed to kill the old man rather than starting a war and wasting there biggest asset in Michael killing Solatzo. Fredo is likely smart enough not to charge out trying to kill Carlo only to be ambushed on the causeway.

    I have often thought there is a good paper to be written on the tactical and strategic lessons of the Godfather. Both Sonny and Michael are perfect examples of the folly of winning tactical victories to no strategic end. I had never thought it before now, but maybe Fredo was the smartest one of the three.

    1. His reaction just proves what a Fredo he really is.

      1. It only hurt because it was true.

      2. He can handle things, he’s smart! Not like everyone says…

        1. He is not dumb. He is smart. He wants respect.

          1. He’s Pakled-smart.

      3. +1000

    2. Stop using the F word. – Boehm

    3. a href=””>Trump mocks CNN’s Chris Cuomo over viral video: ‘I thought Chris was Fredo also’

      “I thought Chris was Fredo also. The truth hurts,” Trump tweeted. “Totally lost it! Low ratings @CNN.”

  15. Hurt by Trump’s trade war, some North Dakota farmers are wondering why they even bother…

    You are the eggs for the omelette America has yet to taste.

    1. They are hurting because food prices are lower. I thought lower consumer prices were the only legitimate goal of economic policy. Reason has assured me of this.

      1. They are taxing consumers! Wait, they are taxing farmers! Dont look at the non inflationary signal, Boehm once took an econ 101 course!!!

        1. Sadly that econ 101 course was taught by the hate studies department at Boehm’s college.

          1. Most economists will admit that economics is the study of explaining why you were wrong the day before. Boehm just keeps repeating himself until a negative turn happens then declares victory. He is literally who OBL mocks in his Krugman was right posts.

            1. Sad but true.

            2. Sorry, most economists won’t admit the sun rises in the east.
              Best comment on economists is this one;
              “All the economists in the world, laid end to end, still will not reach a conclusion.”

            3. +100

  16. This clip of a conservative mother and daughter explaining why they can’t vote for Trump in Iowa should have Republicans scared.

    I think not. This is typical. As soon as the “other guy” is filled in with a real live breathing socialist she will vote for Trump again.

    1. A hundred bucks says she was a plant and is about as “conservative” as Tony.

      1. She’s value signaling and will vote for trump if she votes. She states her reason is that hes not a real conservative. If she believes that she isnt voting for one of the democrats. It’s a silly video.

        1. She will vote as her husband tell her to vote.

    2. “Will you vote for Trump after all the racist things he’s said?”

      “Oh no, of course not!”

      1. “And we’re happy to hear you’re no longer beating your husband!”

  17. CNN’s Chris Cuomo threatens to throw guy down stairs for calling him “Fredo”
    A man in NY yesterday approached CNN’s Chris Cuomo and called him “Fredo”

    Cuomo: “You’re going to have a problem”
    Man: “What are you going to do about it?”
    Cuomo: “I’ll fuckin ruin your shit. I’ll fucking throw you down these stairs”

    Google’s YouTube has already pulled the video “for violating ToS” Let the Lefty circling of the wagons continue.

    1. It’s just insane how these rules are invoked. But we must protect 230 despite the unequal treatment of the contractual terms of service because Reason now supports excess legal protections for favored corporations.

      1. I am starting to lean that Google (YouTube), FriendFace (Instagram), Twitter… are simply political wings of the Democrat Party. The MainStream media have been Propagandists for the Lefties for decades.

    2. Twitter will soon ban the word “Fredo” and retroactively apply the new rule to moderately popular conservative accounts.

      1. Al Fredo hit hardest.

  18. Seems Trump is proposing bounties on that Darter fish and Bald Eagles:

    “U.S. Significantly Weakens Endangered Species Act”
    “And, for the first time, regulators would be allowed to conduct economic assessments — for instance, estimating lost revenue from a prohibition on logging in a critical habitat — when deciding whether a species warrants protection.
    Critically, the changes would also make it more difficult for regulators to factor in the effects of climate change on wildlife when making those decisions because those threats tend to be decades away, not immediate….”

    Pretty sure this is on the positive side of Trump’s actions.

    1. No one will report the straight truth that the entire EPA is a science denying fraud.
      According to Darwin, species are SUPPOSED to go extinct.
      So any action against extinction is a science-denying religious act, and violates the Jefferson letter that was incorporated into the constitution.

      1. Yes.
        No one has offered one reason for ‘preserving’ species which is not couched in religious terms.
        Anyone speaking of ‘mother earth’ is not dealing with facts.

  19. “Can the transgender community laugh at itself? A new romantic comedy that adapts a novel about a cisgender guy who deceives a lesbian into thinking he is a trans man so she will date him is getting panned by some in the trans community for being “inherently transphobic,” the San Francisco Chronicle reports.”

    So are “Some Like it Hot” and “Victor/Victoria” on the boycott list as well?

    1. A community composed entirely of people suffering from mental illness has a hard time understanding humor and satire. Who could have predicted that?

      1. But enough about Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus….

        1. Shut up shreek. Get a better sock puppet you sick fuck.

        2. Jews don’t understand humor and satire???

          Jesus Christ.

          1. +1 Jewish comedian.

          2. +100

          3. ay gevalt!

          4. What is comedy.

            Here is one. Don Rickles, Frank Sinatra and Carson.


            Now that is funny.

  20. Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that out of the 680 individuals arrested during raids on food processing plants throughout Mississippi last week, 200 of them had a criminal record.

    1. I am sure their records were for things like theft and drunk driving. You know, things that reason considers “victimless crimes”.

    2. Must be fake news. That is roughly 30%, a rate higher than the general population. And “everyone” know that illegals are law abiding citizens with no criminal tendencies at all, other than the 100% that have broken the immigration laws.

      1. +100

        1. We have finally identified a context in which bigoted right-wing malcontents are prepared to accept government information as authoritative and reliable.

          1. See, you are winning the culture war.

          2. Not at all: I’m sure they missed some criminal convictions in their record searches. After all, identifying all the crimes and convictions of identity thieves is quite difficult.

  21. In regards to the Cody Wilson story, Texas’ laws on this subject may need to be reviewed and changed.

    God knows jailbait (Jb) is the most dangerous element on the periodic table, and every young man should be expected to protect himself. That being said, when it comes to criminal law . . .

    “Wilson’s lawyers had been insisting Wilson did not know the girl was underage. SugarDaddyMeet requires users to check a box stating they are 18, but Texas law puts it on the adult to verify the age of consent (which is 17 in the state).”

    Looks to me as though Texas law, on this subject,does away with mens rea. Say whatever else you want about Wilson–but if he had no reason to suspect she wasn’t at least 17, then he had no mens rea. If he had good reason to believe she was at least 18, then that also speaks to the question of mens rea–only more so.

    If the website said she was 18, the girl said she was 18, and she looked 18, then where’s your evidence of Wilson’s mens rea? I’m not saying what he did was right. I’m saying that they should need mens rea to convict him for this. I understand Wilson was potentially looking at a 20 year sentence. That being said, If Texas wanted to make the law say you can’t have sex with a girl under the age of 24 unless she shows you a valid ID, they should have said so, and if the law as written is making people plead guilty who shouldn’t, then they need to fix that law.

    P.S. If and when you become a public figure, the government will come after you.

    1. Meeting her on a website that required everyone on it to certify they were 18 is, absent her being 10 or so young it was obvious that she couldn’t be 18, prima facia evidence the guy had no intent. What a bullshit case.

      1. He should have gone to trial. I would have never convicted him and held out. How is someone supposed to be guilty of Scarlet Letter crimes when they do Due Diligence about being 18 or older and the girl is lying her ass off. Honey Pot 101.

        The government has him now. He has to unconstitutionally register as a sex offender after his sentence is complete and this opens him up to violating reporting requirements.

        1. The kind of pussies who have to pay for underage female companionship generally don’t have the stones for a trial.

          1. So you took a plea deal and now regret it. Life is hard and especially hard when you are stupid.

      2. >>>Meeting her on a website

        was mistake numero uno.

        1. Maybe, but millions of Americans have used dating websites.

    2. Sounds like a BS case, but mens rea isn’t generally a part of these types of cases. Like drunk driving, it’s strict liability all the way down.

  22. Is this a show of force, or is China seriously considering rolling tanks into Hong Kong?


  23. Hands up! Don’t shoot us Hilary! We’re just commenters on a once proud libertarian magazine!

    1. +10

  24. The market is rallying right now on news that the Trump administration is delaying the new tariffs he was promising for September 1st. The interesting part, from the market’s perspective, is that Chinese trade negotiators are scheduled to come to Washington for talks in September, meaning that the new tariffs wouldn’t take effect until after the meeting rather than before. In the past, Trump has tariffs ahead of meetings to give himself more leverage, which has turned off the Chinese tremendously. This rally isn’t about avoiding the tariffs, so much, as it’s hoping that all the old tariffs will be negotiated away. Trump is signaling that he’s willing to play ball–whether he wants to signal that or not.

    Incidentally, it’s been a few weeks since Trump was supposed to decide whether to insist that the Mexican senate hold a vote on a safe third country agreement–depending on whether he thought Mexico’s efforts to stem the tide of asylum seekers since their June 7 meeting have been sufficient. Again, the read on that is that Trump is being dovish about imposing tariffs on Mexico. If he insisted on them holding a vote on a Safe Third Country agreement, he would almost certainly need to threaten or actually impose tariffs on Mexico in order to get enough leverage to make them pass it. And if it wasn’t enough leverage, he’d need to leave those tariffs in place and maybe expand on them.

    In other words, the reason Trump hasn’t required Mexico to vote on an agreement appears to be because he doesn’t want to impose tariffs on Mexico at this point. That might be because between the Safe Third Country agreement with Guatemala, Mexico’s efforts having cut the asylum seeker deluge by a third, and the Supreme Court scheduled to hear the case of his overturning Obama’s unconstitutional DACA EO, Trump doesn’t need to impose sanctions to make serious headway against illegal immigration and a flood of phony asylum seekers. Even if that’s the case, the fact is that Trump isn’t imposing tariffs on Mexico–because Trump doesn’t want to impose tariffs on Mexico.

    Who’s the most pro-trade among the following candidates for president?

    Joe Biden
    Kamala Harris
    Bernie Sanders
    Donald Trump
    Liz Warren

    1. Who’s the most pro-trade among the following candidates for president?

      The one that I’m voting for. None of the above.

    2. Um…none of the above?

      1. Not really.

        Because none of them are perfect doesn’t mean some of them aren’t better than others.

        If some of them, Sanders and Warren for instance, wouldn’t get rid of the tariffs with or without China’s capitulation on forced technology transfers, then they are substantively less pro-trade than another candidate who would get rid of the tariffs with China’s capitulation on forced technology transfers.

    3. Ken, yesterday you made some good points on separation of powers. It matters as much how you go about promoting change as the change itself.

      Curious where you stand on Trump’s trade policy with respect to this. I don’t know that Trump is acting extra-legally here, because the statute allowing him leverage for national security, AFAIK, allows him to define what is necessary for national security. It’s more than just a stretch to claim that these action are STILL related to national security, at least in my mind. Am I off base here?

      1. Congress already gave the Executive Branch the powers being used.

        Congress can pass a veto-proof repeal of the powers with a 2/3 majority.

        1. I specifically said that he, as far as I know, has been given the power to declare whatever he wants a national security concern in order to pass tariffs.

          You didn’t address the basic question: Do you think think that Trump’s actions here are still related to national security?

          1. Yup.

            “National Security” is too broad of a term and that was as designed by Congress.

            You want to blame Trump for wanting to help America using the broad powers given to his office from Congress. Not me on this issue.

            Congress needs to scale back most general powers given to the Executive and repeal most laws. Start with Patriot Act, Controlled Substances Act, and all unconstitutional gun control laws.

      2. I’ve opposed all of Trump’s tariffs from the very beginning, and I fully hope I’m wrong about that–and everything he’s done on trade. I hope he wins this trade war–and that winning is all about breaking down China’s trade barriers in the form of forced technology transfers. I hope he kills forced technology transfers and that he drops all the tariffs afterwards. If he accomplishes that through this means, then all this may prove to be worth it. However, I think that China won’t capitulate and we’ll just be struck with these tariffs forever.

        In terms of whether Trump’s tariffs are constitutional, I believe they are within the framework of GATT, which was constitutionally ratified by the Senate. In short, just because I don’t like something the president is doing doesn’t mean 1) I can’t be wrong or 2) that I’m required to pretend it’s unconstitutional. There are a million things out there that I oppose and are perfectly constitutional.

        I’ll oppose something just for being unconstitutional, but nothing is unconstitutional just because I oppose it.

        Beware Jane Fonda Syndrome. If we can’t oppose the Vietnam War without pretending that the North Vietnamese didn’t torture American POWs, then we’d do the anti-war effort a solid by just keeping our mouths shut. Beware Flag Waver Syndrome. If we can’t support the Vietnam War without pretending that atrocities never happened, then we’d do the pro-war effort a solid by just keeping our mouths shut. We don’t pick a side first and then subject the facts to our preferences. If we can’t argue for the war despite actual atrocities, then we’re not much of a war supporter, and if we can’t oppose the war despite the torture of American POWs, then, when it comes to being anti-Vietnam War, we’re not very persuasive.

        It also works that way with the Constitution. If we want to be able to invoke it to oppose things we don’t like that are unconstitutional, we need to invoke it when people want to do things we like in an unconstitutional way, too. (See my hatred of Facebook and Google but my support for freedom of association as an example). Meanwhile, no one will take our arguments seriously–that something should be opposed just because it’s unconstitutional–if they know we also pretend things are unconstitutional just because we don’t like them.

        Non-socialists respected socialists like Hitchens and Orwell because they were perfectly willing to savage the left when it was well deserved. That’s pretty much the only way to win credibility with people who disagree with us–and persuading people who disagree with us may be the only long term means to change. If the credibility of Dalmia and others around here is FUBAR, that’s probably why. Intellectual honesty, like rain, should fall on the good and the evil alike, or so said the most effective author of social change in the history of the world. That’s a big part of what this bit was about:

        Be intellectually honest with those that curse you, advocate liberty and justice–even for those that hate you. That kind of intellectual honesty is the stuff that credibility is made of. You probably can’t have credibility without it.

        1. That’s a lot of words to avoid answering the question I asked (perhaps indirectly).

          Do you think think that Trump’s actions (executive order implementation of tariffs) are still related to national security, as required by the Trade Expansion Act of 1962?

          Perhaps you could argue that the aluminum and steel tariffs were somewhat related to national security, and Trump did. But as far as I can tell, he no longer even uses that excuse. Imposing taxes on importing iPhones, as an example, seems to be not even remotely related to national security. It seems to me that Trump is abusing this clause in the Trade Expansion Act for bypassing Congress to implement his agenda. If the intent of Congress is to represent the will of the people, then isn’t Trump in effect bypassing the will of the people?

          1. One could make the argument that we are so dependent on trade with China that it in and of itself is a national security risk. Therefore any action on trade with China is national security related.

            “”If the intent of Congress is to represent the will of the people, then isn’t Trump in effect bypassing the will of the people?””

            If Congress represents the will of the people, and Congress give the executive the authority, then actions by the executive are given by the will of the people.

            1. btw, this is why Congress kicking its authority to the executive should be considered a bad thing.

            2. Sure, maybe that’s what’s being done. I was hoping to get the Ken Schultz opinion, not a theoretical. I guess that’s not going to happen.

          2. I don’t know anything about the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

            I don’t see where Trump is violating the law. Seeing a president claim there’s an emergency when there really isn’t one doesn’t make it unconstitutional. If you give a president emergency powers, as well as the judgement call to decide whether it’s an emergency, he will use them whenever he thinks it benefits him to do so. That may be wrong, immoral, awful, and stupid, but the president exercising emergency powers when he’s authorized to do so by his own judgement isn’t unconstitutional.

            If Congress doesn’t want the president exercising emergency powers using his own arbitrary discretion, there’s a way to prevent that. For instance, they could refuse to grant him emergency powers and the discretion to invoke them. The AUMF is an excellent example. It gives the president the authorization to use the military to go after anybody he wants anywhere in the world forever–so long as *he determines* that the target was somehow, at some point, associated with Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

            Killing third party jihadis in Yemen may be awful and wrong and stupid and terrible, but it probably isn’t unconstitutional by an honest assessment. If Congress wants to take that power away from the president, they need to repeal, sunset, or alter the AUMF. Sitting around screaming “unconstitutional” isn’t doing anybody any good–especially if the charge is inaccurate.

            If there’s some law in trade policy that gives the president the discretion to declare emergencies using his own arbitrary discretion, then using that discretion isn’t unconstitutional. Incidentally, calling that unconstitutional isn’t about to encourage anybody in Congress to take that discretion away from the president. If it’s unconstitutional, then the problem isn’t with the law; it’s the way the president is using it, right? Honesty really is the best policy. If the problem is that the president was given this discretion in a bad law, then stop with the red herring unconstitutional argument already and start advocating for getting rid of that law.

    4. Trump is signaling that he’s willing to play ball–whether he wants to signal that or not.

      He’s also signaling that all his threats are empty.

      But I have to admit that his faux outrage over the Chinese not keeping their word when he himself has said that not keeping your word when you don’t have to is just good business is quite entertaining.

      1. That last part is Plato and Machiavelli.

        Who thinks the president should do something against the interests of the American people–because he made a bad promise?

        The Chinese did try to retrade him on forced technology transfers. You say you’re going to do something in negotiations, but then when closing day comes, one party wants to fundamentally change the terms because they think you’re under a lot of pressure to get the deal done. Happens all the time in commercial real estate. I once had a city council ask us–in a public meeting–for a five figure donation to their parks and recreation department before they took a final vote on approving our plans.

        They knew we couldn’t get back on the docket for another six months, and that the donation they asked for was less than six months of interest on our land loan–not to mention that our splits were based on a time sensitive basis, IRR. People create all the leverage they can and use it at critical points to get what they want. If the city council can get a new ball park for the kids on the poor side of town out of that situation, . . . I don’t even live in that city. Should they worry about my interests in that situation. They represent the people who voted for them.

        It’s a good thing our project was in the bests interests of the people who live there and that we plan on getting squeezed like that at the end. If Trump is telling the truth about that kind of thing when it comes to the Chinese trying to retrade him and squeeze us at the end in order to get the tariffs down, I don’t blame him for that. Make sure you can handle the truth.

      2. “”He’s also signaling that all his threats are empty. “”

        Well that should stop the left from shitting their pants every time he tweets.

  25. Is this a show of force, or is China seriously considering rolling tanks into Hong Kong?

    Well, that is a really tough question. Let’s see – – –
    Communist country – military force against civilians protesting:
    (the remaining is left as an exercise for the reader)

  26. Regarding the headline:

    Immigration laws, like many others, have purposes other than safety. Reason might just as well have complained that the immigration raids didn’t do anything about polluted drinking water.

  27. Shrieking heard from Jeffrey Epstein’s jail cell the morning he died

    I knew Shreek had something to do with this.

    1. I imagine something akin to the final scene from Murder by Decree.

  28. somebody tell Weld NeverTrumpism is four years dead now.

  29. Unless and until the owners and managers of the raided businesses are held to account, this spectacle is as serious as a ‘rasslin match. Goober Theater.

    We should expect 18 more months of this nonsense, followed by a welcome backlash.

    1. Yeah I doubt the Democrats will hold the House either.

    2. But some people think accountable means jail time. It likely means fines.

    3. Unless and until the owners and managers of the raided businesses are held to account, this spectacle is as serious as a ‘rasslin match. Goober Theater.

      I am glad we agree: anybody who employs or harbors illegal workers should be held accountable.

  30. San Jose mayor proposes first-in-nation insurance requirement for guns following mass shootings

    I am sure just like the promises with ObamaCare, “You like your gun, you can keep your gun”.

    1. Obama’s promise was made BEFORE Republicans refused the original bipartisan package … which would would have killed single-payer forever. Even Daily Kos endorsed HMO Co-Op PROVIDERS as an acceptable private alternative to a public option,

      Despite the crazies who yell COMMUNISM, most liberals are fine with a member-owned nonprofit, since it’s the profits they hate. I was a 15-year member at the model, Seattle’d Group Health Co-Op, GHC. Doctors are salaried employed of their patients. They run their own hospitals. I picked up your prescriptions in their own pharmacy, on my way out of the clinic — with refills at my closest neighborhood pharmacy..

      EVERYTHING is prepaid — FIXED costs per patient. . With ZERO reimbursements (except some script refull), so cheaper than ANY public plan on earth, AND they have a local competitor. The modern equivalent of non-profit ethnic and fraternal lodges who provided our health care until Roosevelt’s employer-paid system FORCED the creation of for-profit health insurance, because literally nobody was set up ti insure employer’based groups (only ethnic and fraternal.). (GHC was formed after WWII to restore non-profit care to employer groups

      I mentioned crazies. Senator Hatch called GHC “socialized medicine.” Do far-right dipwads believe Kiwanis is socialism?
      Rotary? (lol) So Republicans FAILED to kill single-payer forever. Then their FAILED repeal under Trump, made Obamacare popular!!

      Republicans rejected lowest possible costs, patient control, and competition. Also a threat to their insurance donors

      lc1789 WHINES about broken a broken promise, rolling the memorized party line as always, tricked into denying a REPUBLICAN failure!

      Compare that with Trump’s broken promise on federal debt!

      He campaigned on paying off the entire federal debt in 8 years. Instead he added more new debt, in 2 years, than Obama did AFTER 8 years! (CBI 2024 forecast) And roughly 1/4 of Obama’s debt was created by DUBYA’s GOP (TARP plus Medicare Prescriptions which are “paid for” by looting the income tax!)

      lc 1789 is firing blanks from a tribal pistol, again, and still.

      1. Hihn is obviously off his meds again.

        1. Here’s PROOF of what he said, a private alternative to a public option … WHY it would have killed single-payer forever … Obama would have needed ZERO votes from his far left (like Kennedy’s tax cut) …. that it was a deal to get GOP votes, which they STUPIDLY rejected.

          You need to GET some meds. Perhaps therapy

      2. Leftist whiner blames Republicans because none of them would vote for the Democrats’ clusterfuck. Well, maybe if the Democrats hadn’t been trying to shove a clusterfuck through Congress on Christmas fucking Eve, we wouldn’t have had the Obamacare clusterfuck as part of law.

        Fuck off, leftist.

  31. Weld’s contention that Trump is racist also ruffled at least one set of feathers. “Trump’s not racist,” a man called out to Weld as he passed by.

    >True. He’s not a racist. But he’s even worse, per an interview I just watched on YouTube, with … gasp … Anthony Scaramucci, who is far more thoughtful than I thought possible.

    He’s the first public persons I’ve seen, who knows how Trump got elected. It was all those promises, targeting Rust Belt blue-collar voters, who have indeed been long ignored by both parties, and perhaps worse by the libertarian establishment. But all those promises have failed to deliver. (Mooch described himself as coming from a “working class family,” still living within three blocks of his parents.

    On racism, the mooch knocked it out of the park. Trump’s no racist, he says. When Trump looks at people, he never sees their color, and not even a person. All Trump sees is a transaction. KAPOW

    Trump repeated use of “racist tropes,” is a transaction. He’s appealing to his many racist supporters. Rewarding his base. BINGO.

    The entire interview was a revelation. His views on unifying America among the best I’d heard.

  32. “Last Week’s ICE Raids Were a Tremendously Expensive Political Show That Didn’t Make Anyone Safer” Even if it did, Reason would still oppose it. Nothing would make Reason happier than creating United States In Name Only.

    1. What PISSES you off so much, about …. liberty … and America’s founding principles.

      When you get to high school, you’ll learn U.S. history … from history textbooks, instead of being manipulated by partisan puppetmasters .

      1. When you get to high school, you’ll learn U.S. history … from history textbooks, instead of being manipulated by partisan puppetmasters .

        Are you really so dumb and ignorant that you believe that most high school teachers are anything other than “partisan puppet masters”?

        1. Why are they GENIUSES compared with you?
          BOOKS are not TEACHERS!!!

          Calling you out. You defended this:

          That Didn’t Make Anyone Safer” Even if it did, Reason would still oppose it. Nothing would make Reason happier than creating United States In Name Only.

          So now you own it. Defend it. Or be WORSE than the teachers you shat upon.

          Personal irresponsibility is worse than shuffling paper.
          Are you a man?

          1. Go die in a fire, idiot leftist whiner.

            1. Libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for 50 years

              This explodes the brains of many on the authoritarian right., They cannot imagine how anyone can not be both. All conservative or all liberal.

              And so many of them are in constant rage

  33. of course idiot Eric does not tells us how they didn’t make us safer

    1. Find a 12-year-old to read an explain it
      BEFORE you look like an idiot in public.

      The, on your own. please explain how and why anyone is safer … at even 1/4 the cost.

  34. Last Week’s ICE Raids Were a Tremendously Expensive Political Show That Didn’t Make Anyone Safer

    So… the only laws the US government should enforce are those that demonstrably “make people safer”? Property rights, individual liberties, will of the people, rule of law, none of that matters?


      The entire purpose of the raid was to protect us. Which is TRUMP”S purpose. Did you forget his shameful B.S., “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

      SOME are good.

      His crazy “invasion”?
      Hint: If you say there WAS an invasion, then you shoot yourself in the foot!,

      1. Shut the fuck up, whiner leftist.

        1. Crazy misfuck BELEEBS only libruls disagree with him.

          Wait for it …

          Link to the web archive of my published political writing.
          Check the topics: Taxes, Health Care, Governing, Education, Federal Deficit/Budget

          Then wipe off the egg you splattered all over your face,

          (How many more assaults for him to feel manly)

  35. Obviously written by someone with NO blood in the soil relationship to this Nation. I agree with the taxpayer money spent and also thoroughly believe the those Corporations such as Foster Farms, who hired the illegal, should be handed down business ending fines that should more than cover the expense.
    What, other than that Congress being Corporation Elite bought, would E-Verify along with business ending fines and long prison sentences for those that break the law not as yet have been signed into Law? With the proper laws in effect and enforced the illegal wouldn’t come here!
    It would seem this articles writer has no idea that the illegal have cost those Americans who actually pay taxes $170 ,000,000,000 so far this year.

  36. Hands up! Don’t shoot us Hilary! We’re just commenters on a once proud libertarian magazine! milf tumblr

  37. Hands up! Don’t shoot us Hilary! We’re just commenters on a once proud libertarian magazine!milf tumblr

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.