Reason Roundup

Children, Refugees, and Anyone Booked by ICE Will Have DNA Added to Criminal Database

Plus: Parents sue Illinois child services, Pennsylvania mulls liquor-store weed sales, Giuliani consorts with Manafort, and more...

|

The Trump administration says it will start collecting DNA samples from anyone booked into federal immigration custody. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents will seize immigrants' DNA and then enter it into an FBI database, where it will be stored indefinitely and will be accessible by local, state, and federal law enforcement agents.

Obviously, the privacy violations and potential for abuse here are astoundingly high.

"The US government has a long history of wrongfully targeting people based on genetic composition, from forced sterilizations to marriage prohibition," tweeted the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "The Trump administration's latest move to expand DNA collection should trouble us all."

The plan was first reported by The New York Times yesterday. The Justice Department, the paper said, is "developing a federal regulation that would give immigration officers the authority to collect DNA in detention facilities across the country that are currently holding more than 40,000 people."

"That kind of mass collection alters the purpose of DNA collection from one of criminal investigation basically to population surveillance, which is basically contrary to our basic notions of a free, trusting, autonomous society," ACLU lawyer Vera Eidelman told the Times.

Law enforcement already has rather questionable methods of obtaining and storing genetic data. But it does face some limits, in that it can store DNA only from people arrested, charged, or convicted for certain crimes. Now the population affected will be expanded to include hundreds of thousands more people, including children, refugees who present themselves legally seeking asylum, and people who are at most guilty of civil infractions or misdemeanors.

According to the Times, immigrant DNA samples would be entered into the FBI Combined DNA Index System, which the FBI advertises as a "tool for linking violent crimes."


FREE MINDS

Parents are suing the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services and several hospitals. After refusing non-mandatory medical procedures for their newborn babies, they say, the authorities either took their children away or threatened to do so. "The babies in the lawsuit were all born healthy and not at risk," writes Megan Fox:

All of their pediatricians agreed that vitamin K and eye ointment could be refused under the law. But the pediatricians were overruled by overzealous hospital staff who called DCFS, resulting in investigations, home invasions without warrants, and extreme stress for the parents.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois. You can read the parents' full complaint here.


FREE MARKETS

A Pennsylvania lawmaker wants to legalize marijuana and sell it out of (already state-run) liquor stores. That's a start, and (relatively) good news for folks in the state who want to enjoy legal marijuana. But it won't end the state's war on the drug, and all the attendant problems that it creates. Newsweek reports:

The bill would not decriminalize personal marijuana cultivation or sale in the state. Rather, it forbids "criminal actors"—those who do not work in "legitimate, State-operated stores"—from selling it. In Pennsylvania, both growing marijuana plants and selling more than 30 grams of marijuana are currently felonies punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $15,000, according to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Those penalties won't change under the proposal. Same old drug war, only now the cops would be protecting the state's monopoly on sales.


FOLLOWUP 

Trump denies that he wants a snake-filled border moat:

Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani has been discussing the president's legal strategy with an imprisoned Paul Manafort. "The relationship, which Giuliani acknowledged in an interview this week with The Washington Post, stems from a shared interest in a narrative that undermines the rationale for the special counsel investigation," says the paper. "That inquiry led to Manafort's imprisonment on tax and financial fraud allegations related to his work in Kiev for the political party of former president Viktor Yanukovych."


ELECTION 2020 

Bernie Sanders hospitalized with heart trouble. The Vermont senator's presidential campaign announced yesterday that he had been hospitalized with chest pain and wound up having two stents put in to deal with arterial blockage. No word on how much time he'll be taking off his presidential bid.

Meanwhile…

  • The bad signs continue for Sen. Kamala Harris, who once was leading the pack in her home state of California but now is in fourth place among likely voters there. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) now leads among California Democrats, with nearly a quarter (23 percent) supporting her. Warren is closely trailed by Joe Biden (22 percent) and Sanders (21 percent), while Harris was the favorite of just 8 percent (down from 19 percent in July).
  • Beto O'Rourke accuses Pete Buttigieg of representing "a kind of politics that is focused on poll testing":

  • And Andrew Yang has dumb ideas about data:


QUICK HITS

  • A former South Carolina congressman is suing the state over its decision to cancel Republican primary elections.
  • Georgia's fetal heartbeat law has been temporarily blocked.
  • "To broadly condemn vaping for these illnesses may be akin to blaming injections instead of heroin, or coffee cups instead of arsenic-laden coffee," writes James Hamblin in The Atlantic.
  • Seattle police admit they arrest suspected victims of sexual exploitation:

  • Protecting and serving:

  • Amber Guyger, the Texas woman and former cop who shot a man in his own home, was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
  • "TikToks are premeditated, storyboarded and vastly different than the haphazard Stories on Insta"—and that's dangerous for Mark Zuckerberg.
  • Department of Be Careful What You Wish For:

  • Robots are coming for banking jobs.
  • Prosecutors in Florida are appealing a judge's ruling that video evidence from massage-parlor stings involving Robert Kraft and others cannot be used in court.
  • Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman are at it again, this time with some wild claims about Elizabeth Warren:

Advertisement

NEXT: The Congressional Research Service Has Shifted Its Position on Whether the Foreign Emoluments Clause Applies to the President

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. The Trump administration says it will start collecting DNA samples from anyone booked into federal immigration custody.

    Gosh the government loves its databases.

    1. What’s the worry. From what I’ve read here over several years, DNA evidence is a great way to exonerate the wrongly accused.

      1. DNA evidence can be used to exonerate the wrongly accused. DNA databases tend to lead to more wrongful convictions because they trip prosecutors into the Prosecutor’s Fallacy.

    2. The government loves its databases and they want you to love them too. The DNA sample collection is just to prove that you love them all the way to completion.

    3. I am making $95 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now.I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is what I do……> http://earny.xyz/Ij0L12NO

  2. A Pennsylvania lawmaker wants to legalize marijuana and sell it out of (already state-run) liquor stores.

    The commonwealth simply will not give up its state stores.

    1. Drug dealing is a plague on society that must be stopped, unless it is the government doing the dealing. Then selling drugs is absolutely necessary for the children.

      1. And will be protected by the police.

        1. You will ruthlessly enforce the monopoly. Buying pot from some guy down the street will lead to the ruin of all society. Buying pot from the government however is a public service.

          1. Im from pa…You forgot “buying pot from the government via our unionized state liquor store employees whose jobs can never be challenged, eliminated, or less compensated”

            That’s really what this is about, and everything is always about in Pennsylvania. How can our states government pole jock one of our unions to insulate and protect them even more from competition and open markets.

            1. The drug warriors have managed to annoy me even more when they agree with me about legalization than when they disagreed. If you think pot is some kind of a plague on society, fine. Then the government shouldn’t be selling it either. If you don’t and think it should be legal, then anyone should be able to sell it. They are just a bunch of hypocrites looking for cash. Assholes.

      2. Nah. It’s just about the money. Can’t have people making money from selling drugs. That money belongs to the government.

        1. Yes. I was being sarcastic. Money for the government is like Lordes is for cripples; if the government can make money on something, all sins are forgiven and all ills are cured.

          1. Not only that, but if the government can make money off something, anyone else doing the same thing must be executed on the spot.

            1. And if the government loses money doing something, anyone else making money doing the same thing must be executed.

      3. That’s what they did with the numbers racket.

    2. I was driving to DC in the summer of 1996 and didn’t know the rules and stopped in Pennsylvania for a night’s sleep. Couldn’t find one fucking State store open. When I went back in 2001 I made sure to have a bottle of whiskey on me when I pulled over at a hotel outside Pittsburgh for the night. Pennsylvania sucks.

    3. The commonwealth simply will not give up its state stores.

      Correction: The nomenclatura in the State House want to maintain the value of the beer-distributorship licenses they own.

    4. You can rest assured that PA State Stores will be the only pot dealers in the world that actually lose money due to the high cost of their union employees.

  3. The Trump administration says it will start collecting DNA samples from anyone booked into federal immigration custody.

    To check and see if they are related to Pancho Villa?

    1. All the Federales say they could have had him any day (if they had only had him in a DNA database).

      1. Out of kindness, I suppose – – – –

  4. All of their pediatricians agreed that vitamin K and eye ointment could be refused under the law. But the pediatricians were overruled by overzealous hospital staff who called DCFS, resulting in investigations, home invasions without warrants, and extreme stress for the parents.

    Yeah, get those anti-vaxxers.

    1. Those are both iffy recommendations even in pediatrics.

      The doctors are grounded in the concepts of informed consent and autonomy. It gets pounded into you from the first year of medical school. The staff may not have the same ideas.

      Obviously it was wrong to call the authorities. We are not talking lifesaving treatment here.

      These are not vaccinations which carry a potential public health risk. That is a more complicated matter still the basic principles apply.

  5. No word on how much time he’ll be taking some time off his presidential bid.

    Hope he recovers and also that he understands this effectively ends his presidential bid.

  6. The bad signs continue for Sen. Kamala Harris, who once was leading the pack in her home state of California but now is in fourth place among likely voters there.

    All those people she put away have since gotten out and are eligible to vote.

    1. Or at least answer polls.

    2. and Newsom is releasing more. did you hear he now wants to release criminals who’ve used guns in crimes. I’m sure he is doing that so they will commit more gun crimes so he can create more anti-gun laws, Newsom learned so well from hitler.

  7. Amber Guyger, the Texas woman and former cop who shot a man in his own home, was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

    I love how right before she was sentenced they released how she’s a fucking racist and wouldn’t mind murdering people. Those 10 years are going to be fun.

    1. The victim’s brother forgiving her on the stand was pretty powerful. Hating her isn’t going to bring his brother back. That guy is a better man than me because I doubt I could forgive that the way he did.

      1. That was something. I don’t know that I would want to hug her like he did, but I like to think I would be forgiving like Brandt Jean.

        1. I would too. That guy is a hell of a human being.

          1. Or his brother owed him 50 bucks and he thought justice served. /s

            1. Maybe she killed the brother for him, thus the hug.

              1. My theory was that he had carefully coated himself in anthrax before he hugged her.

      2. Maybe he’s putting on a show as he patiently waits to find which prison she will be in, before setting up a hit on her. At least that’s what I would do.

        1. On the last day of her sentence.

      3. The brother has no more standing in the case than I do. The case is called “The People vs….” for a reason. Criminal Justice serves Society. The only person with a right to forgive is the victim.

        1. People who care about a murdered person are also victims of the crime. Are you saying that no one can ever forgive a murderer (since the immediate victim is dead)?

          Though I do agree that the feelings of such victims shouldn’t be relevant in sentencing. But the brother is certainly in a position to forgive (or not).

        2. What Zeb said. The family of the victim are victims of the crime too and have absolute moral standing in this case.

          1. Also, the forgiveness, legitimately, is more for him than it is for her. Holding on to hatred and rage would only kill him too. He did the smart — albeit very difficult — thing to permit him to live his life from here on.

          2. But not legal standing. That’s the “victim’s rights” shit that Paul Cassell next door keeps pushing that leads to sympathetic victims getting treated differently than unsympathetic victims and “equality before the law” getting shoved straight down the toilet. As Tom pointed out, there’s a reason the case is styled “The People vs……” – you’re not being prosecuted for the specific instance of the crime but for the general principle of breaking the law against such a thing. Whether you killed a homeless bum or Mother Theresa shouldn’t matter and making it matter means each case gets decided on a case-by-case basis and that in itself is an injustice of another sort.

            1. Sure. But part of why we have trials and a criminal justice system is to give people justice so they don’t seek it on their own. So, the family of the victim has to have standing to be heard in a murder case. Saying otherwise defeats one of the main functions of having a criminal justice system and not just relying on vigilantism.

        3. Yours… Is a massively retarded post.

          1. What if the last thing in the world the victim would have wanted was for the killer to be forgiven or ever walk free again? Is the victim retarded too coz his brother says it’s cool?

  8. •Seattle police admit they arrest suspected victims of sexual exploitation

    Well, they have to do something with their time, considering they and their brothers in Portland are Antifa’s bitch.

    1. I imagine it is the same logic as fighting in public schools. If some future cop goes and beats the shit out of someone half his size, they both get suspended.

  9. The ultimate desire for bureaucrats is to identify, track, and find anyone that they want to.

    1. Turning the state drivers license into a National ID.
    2. Allowing DNA to be taken from all criminals (non sex offenders) to propagate the National DNA database.
    3. Allowing witnesses and victim’s DNA to propagate the National DNA database without removal rights.

    Some of us saw this coming.

    1. It is worse than that. All passports are now biometric meaning they have your fingerprints. That goes into a big Department of State database, which is then shared with every other federal database on the database of databases IDENT. Also, anyone who tries to get a relative into the country, adopt a kid from overseas or marry a foreign national has to give their biometrics to USCIS. And that database is part of IDENT.

      The ship you are talking about sailed about six years ago.

      1. I don’t recall fingerprints necessary to acquiring a passport.

        Facial recognition is also biometrics so that photo…

        1. Now that you say that, I don’t either. That was however the plan. Perhaps they have not gotten around to that.

          1. IIRC, I saw an article where some states get fingerprints or a thumb print for a drivers license.

            I specifically asked Georgia about the drivers license photo restrictions, so my disguise would comply. They don’t want you wearing glasses or hats.

            Nothing Halloween makeup, colored contacts, fat suit, hair die, and not smiling can’t fix.

            1. Fun fact: Georgia issues veteran drivers licenses with expiration dates that are 30 years out.

              I also avoided the military collecting DNA on every new member.

              People don’t realize that once the government has some info or biometric profile on you, they never get rid of it.

              If you’re old enough, the FBI pushed that fingerprint your kid scheme. We all knew that was a scam back then too.

              1. “”People don’t realize that once the government has some info or biometric profile on you, they never get rid of it.””

                I have a friend that keeps telling me to get on a dating website. He does really well so he likes it. I told him once you give that much personal information to a website, you can’t ever recall it. They have it for a long, long time. They do not delete it, if the company is sold, someone else gets it.

                Also, once that get their foot in the door, they try to kick the door wide open. Be careful about what you allow the government to do.

              2. That 30 year old ID by the state wont be allowed in airports starting next year. Your state probably has an optional card that conforms to the national ID requirements.

            2. California requires a finger print for a drivers license

          2. I think they are looking for ways that they can collect in a manner that you are not aware. Photos are no big deal. People get their photo taken all the time. We are ok with surveillance cameras as a society. Stick with the photo and suspicion of nefarious government activity is low. Make people get fingerprinted then they get suspicious.

            But, I think the society is going the direction of approving of widespread government surveillance. Look at privacy. I would say government won the war, but there was no war. The citizenry has done very little to fight back.

            1. I would demand a privacy Amendment to the US Constitution when the GOP gets one more state to call an Article V Constitutional Convention.

              Make it a felony for any bureaucrat to use your info for non-official purposes.

              Right to find out which government agency has what about you and have it purged if you have not violated any law.

              Make all storing of surveillance more than 15 days, illegal.

              Make domestic spying without a warrant punishable as a felony.

        2. Just renewed my passport. Still just the photo.

          1. Getting the passport does not require fingerprinting, but many countries fingerprint you upon arrival, thus your fingerprints are now linked to your passport.

        3. I just renewed mine this year and there was no collection of fingerprints or other biometric information. Unless you could height, weight, sex and hair color.

          1. Not to mention a photo.

          2. “Unless you could height, weight, sex and hair color.”
            All of which are subject to change

      2. I didnt give fingerprints for my passport.

        I wore a disguise for my passport photo and have disabled the chip.

        I never have any problem traveling internationally. They simply try to scan the chip and when that fails, they enter my number manually.

        1. “”They simply try to scan the chip and when that fails, they enter my number manually.””

          So other then making the do a little more work. What good was disabling the chip? Not that I’m opposed to making them work really hard for so little.

          1. In my opinion, the chip allows people/governments to skim your passport info from a short distance or brushing up against you. Otherwise, people have to manually view your passport to get your basic info.

            That was my biggest concern.

            Another concern is that it makes it impossible to “cancel” my passport electronically with a non-working chip. If you have a valid date on your passport, you can get around most places because they wont find out your passport has been electronically cancelled. Ports of entry can pull up the info but you avoid those checkpoints.

            1. “”allows people/governments to skim your passport info from a short distance “”

              Understood.

              “”Another concern is that it makes it impossible to “cancel” my passport electronically with a non-working chip””

              If they cancel you passport, the cancelation will be in the system and when they type the number in they will see it as such. I don’t believe that concern is really addressed by that tactic.

    2. Most people are freely giving the police their dna with the genetic testing companies who let police peruse their databases.

      1. Yeah this^^^^

        How are people not suing the shit out of those companies? Maybe they have ToS that allow government disclosure.

        The fact that courts have not shut this tactic down, is more evidence that our courts are corrupt bastions of bureaucrats too.

        Get a warrant based upon probable cause! Not get a warrant to parallel evidence an investigation. Its not hard to understand.

        1. It’s the public information doctrine. See phone records. Its maddening, but that is the current doctrine.

          1. Phone records are easy. Just start a company and buy your cell phones and vehicles under that business name. Poof! Those tracking devices are not tied to your personally.

  10. Paris knife attacker kills 4 people at police headquarters

    I wonder if governments will now track MASS STABBINGS?

    We need common sense knife control, after all.

    1. What the hell? Paris police don’t carry some sort of frenchy gun on them or anything? Or did they get attacked by a ninja?

      1. For all of the many bad things you can say about US police departments, no one is stabbing four people at any police headquarters. Can you imagine how many bullets would riddle the body of anyone dumb or crazy enough to pull a knife at a police station?

      2. To be fair, they are French. Surrender is in their blood now.

      3. Baggets for faggets.

    2. Britain is considering such controls as we write this. Can’t make up good sarcastic stuff anymore.

    3. Britbongs already do it. Oi mate, bin that knife wudya?

    4. lc, you know the UK is actually doing that, right?

    1. The EPA is not just “lefty regulation”. President Nixon created the EPA.

    1. According to the Washington Post, the State Department has contacted approximately 130 officials whose emails which went through Clinton’s special server have been retroactively classified and may now pose potential security violations – an investigation which began under President Obama.

      Those were obviously just some of the invitees to Chelsea’s wedding.

      1. It’s a big yoga crowd

      2. The Hillary case is so easy. “She” was told more than once she couldn’t do what she did and did it anyway. The impermissibility of what she did is covered in “Security Measures 101, 102, 103, 104, etc.” both when she was a Senator and again at the State Department. There must be many other red flags lying around from people who saw what she was doing and questioned it. Hundreds of people were aware she was out of line and outside the security SOPs including all the security overseers at State and Intelligence, up to and including POTUS O’bummer.

        1. Hillary should have gone to jail for that server. Other than spy cases, it was the worst national security breach I have ever seen. That she wasn’t indicted much less convicted of anything was a new low point for the rule of law in this country. Fuck every Democratic shill that defends her.

        2. It’s only wrong if Trump does it.

          The original FBI report would have indicted her, but Strzok changed the wording to prevent Hillary from being indicted. He actually said that was the reason it was done in testimony to Congress. He was denying he did it, but the FBI IG office said the changes were made on his computer, under his login. I believe he admitted to doing it later in the hearing.

    2. Well she was beaten by a tornado. no?

  11. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $58.9 billion

    I knew when it briefly went above $60 billion, it wouldn’t stay there for long. Drumpf’s tariffs and immigration restrictions are preventing Koch / Reason libertarianism from accomplishing its primary objective — making the 10 richest people on the planet even richer.

    #DrumpfRecession
    #VoteDemocratToHelpCharlesKoch

  12. Someone would actually admit to boinking Warren? Yeah, that’s believable. Heh, anybody who really hit that would be walking around with a bag on his head saying “I was drunk! I swear it!”

    1. The guy’s a Marine. They will fuck anything.

      1. I would like to tell you she is below Marine standards but I can’t.

      2. LOL, that’s true. Reminds me of a joke I heard when I was in the Navy. A soldier, a sailor, and a marine left the base and were heading into town. On the way they came upon a sheep that had gotten stuck in the fence, with its ass sticking up.

        The soldier said, “I wish that was Jenifer Anniston!”
        The sailor said, “I wish that was Heidi Klum!”
        The marine said, “I wish it was dark!”

        1. Good one.

    2. Even when she was young, there was something about her that would give you a soft-on.

    3. Now that Warren cant claim to be a native american victim, shes telling a false story of her being fired for being a pregnant woman.

      https://www.dailywire.com/news/warren-said-she-was-once-fired-for-being-pregnant-thats-not-what-she-said-before?%3Futm_source=twitter

    4. I think it’s the taboo of fucking a Native American that makes it exciting.

      1. How.

  13. Good. They need to be booked so we can evaluate repeat offenders.

  14. A former South Carolina congressman is suing the state over its decision to cancel Republican primary elections

    Closed party primary elections should not be run or funded by the state anyway.

    1. I agree. And a political party is a private organization. It has the right to choose its nominee anyway they like. If you don’t like how they do that, you are free to not vote for them.

  15. http://www.bostonherald.com/2019/10/02/harvards-asian-student-quota-a-lesson-in-liberal-bias/

    How can you tell if you’re a good Boston-Globe liberal?

    If you think keeping over-achieving Asian kids out of Harvard because they’re the wrong color isn’t problematic, but a photo of Chinese food is — you get an A+!

    Brutal

    1. LOL – great article. What a bunch of proud racist fucks.

    2. “You’ve reached your article limit”?!

      Fuck the Boston Herald.

      1. Private browsing mode…

    3. Funny too.

    1. A quick peek behind the curtain of DC is enough to make a sane person sick.

  16. N.Korea says successfully tested new submarine-launched ballistic missile -KCNA

    North Korea will learn what American SSNs are for if they try to start some shit with those kinds of subs. North Korea would find it cheaper and more effective to hide nukes in mountains.

    1. A bit if naval history for NK.
      There are two things in the ocean; United States attack submarines, and targets.

      1. Yes however other submariners have the same doctrine.

        NK keeps pushing technology. I am sure the USN is aware.

        It bothers me that the CNC thinks the charm offensive is working. It is not. North Koreans are delaying with bullshit.

  17. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/464117-hillary-and-chelsea-clinton-propel-colberts-late-show-to-record-high-monday

    Oh shit! Hillary Clinton running for President with Chelsea Clinton as VP? Tony and other Lefties just blew a load in their pants.

    1. If 2020 turns out to be a rerun of Trump Clinton, I shutter to think how low the voter turnout would be. Everyone in the middle would just tune it out. It would come down to which side has the most devoted followers. Trump might win 49 states in that scenario.

  18. I heard from a woman in a wine bar on Virginia Ave that her room mate told her that her boyfriend who worked out at a gym with a guy who works in the White House that he had dirt on President Trump. Seems Trump started the Space Force so that he could use it to drop a bolide on the Vatican to kill the Pope, who has dirt on Trump.
    Is this good enough to print? I have second hand quotes to go with this.
    Journalistic standards for Trump stories present a very low bar to get over, so we are probably good to go to print.

  19. “The bad signs continue for Sen. Kamala Harris”

    She can still turn this around. I’m confident Democratic voters will do their own research and come to the conclusion that Russian stooge Tulsi Gabbard was grossly misrepresenting her record.

    Maybe Harris should put more emphasis on her support for forced busing for racial integration? That’s a popular position among all but the most racist Americans (who were never going to vote Democrat anyway).

    #LibertariansForHarris
    #LibertariansForBusing

  20. Robots are coming for banking jobs.

    Skynet started wearing green shades, you know.

    1. Thanks. I will never get that image out of my head.

  21. We all know they’ll be taking DNA from all newborn’s within the next 20 years. For the childrenz. Because nothing is more important than giving law enforcement every tool they need to solve crimes. Why do you hate our heroes so much?

    1. They will demand DNA as a condition of getting a social security card, which everyone has to have from birth or else their parents can’t take them as a tax deduction.

    2. I think I’ll get a head start and just get my own tattoo of a beast on my forehead.

  22. State IG feels a new concern is urgent after sitting on material for 4 months. That material turns out to be an interview with Shokin, Ukraine, that’s says he was pressured by the US diplomat to go easy on Hunter Biden. He also states he had warrants out to Bursima that were never acted upon. On his firing he was told he was fired due to pressure from Biden over 1 billion dollars. Somehow democrats think this hurts Trump.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/former-ukraine-prosecutor-told-to-back-off-investigation-of-hunter-bidens-company/

    1. The talking point seems to be that Shokin was a Russian agent and was part of the corruption problem in Ukraine. The problem with that is that it doesn’t preclude the things Shokin is saying about Hunter Biden from being true. Shokin could very well be a Russian agent and also investigating legitimate corruption on Biden’s part. Indeed, wouldn’t taking down the son of the American VP and perhaps the VP with him in a corruption scandal be something a Russian agent would want to do?

      1. Most liberal talking points claim shokin was the single point of corruption in the Ukraine.

        1. Which if you know anything about the Ukraine is about as valid as calling someone the “single point of corruption” in Chicago. Beyond that, even if it were true, that doesn’t preclude Hunter Biden also being guilty. Even corrupt prosecutors bring legitimate cases sometimes. And, if Shokin is a Russian agent, a case against the American VP’s son is exactly the sort of legitimate case he would bring if he could.

          1. corrupt or an agent bringing valid cases forward is often necessary to prove your not corrupt or an agent

    2. What, exactly, is HUNTER accused of doing wrong? i get that him being offered the job may not be overly ethical, but that’s not the same as actually illegal or corrupt. Maybe Burisma was simply trying to butter up the VP, but never actually asked for anything in return? Now… if Shokin was about to investigate Burisma for their own corruption sans Hunter, that would still hurt Hunter’s financial situation. As such, Joe B. could still be held accountable for possibly attempting to disrupt that investigation via the $1B holdout… so I can see where Joe B. may have stepped out of line.

      But still haven’t heard any claims to actual things Hunter is said to have done that were corrupt. Seems like people just don’t like the idea he got a cushy job w/o experience only because of his pa’s name.

      1. Hunter would be guilty of being part of a conspiracy to bribe the VP. They didn’t give him all of that money to butter up the VP. They gave him that money to get something in return. And the person who could give something was Joe Biden. They just gave it to Hunter Biden because giving it to Joe Biden would have been too obvious and criminal.

        Biden would clearly be guilty of selling his services as VP in return for his son getting rich. I would think the son would be guilty of being part of that conspiracy.

        Even if you can’t prove bribery or a crime, the fact that Biden was in charge of US foreign policy over China and Ukraine at a time that his son was making millions in those nations, is an incredible conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety. So, it makes Biden unfit for high office and an unethical bastard even if he isn’t guilty of a crime.

      2. Hunter isn’t presently accused of doing anything wrong. The investigation into “his” company was dropped. If it had proceeded, who knows? The allegation of wrongdoing is primarily against Papa Joe. That he was “paid”/bribed (via cush positions for his son) to buy his power/influence as VP of USA, who knows what forms that took over the years? The 2nd allegation is that he used his power/influence to stop an investigation that might reach and hurt his son. He allegedly did this by holding $1Billion hostage in return for a single act: The removal of a single prosecutor who happened to be the one involved in the criminal investigation mentioned at the top.

  23. “”The US government has a long history of wrongfully targeting people based on genetic composition, from forced sterilizations to marriage prohibition,” tweeted the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).’

    Weird they didnt mention these eugenic policies were by Democrats.

    1. Not the least bit weird.

    2. Not just Democrats, Progressive Democrats specifically.

  24. Jeep Dealer’s $50,000 Sticker Shock Captures Auto Sales Stress

    Haha. $50k for a piece of shit Jeep. These auto manufacturers are crazy.

    As I have said before, vehicles are largely over priced with many “features” that customers dont want to pay for but were required under safety rules.

    Backup cameras
    Airbags everywhere
    Accident avoidance systems
    Lane change systems
    Expensive and crappy vehicle GPS/radio systems
    Brake assist
    Pedestrian detection
    Automatic emergency braking
    Lane keeping assist
    Parking assist
    Telematics
    Start/Stop
    LATCH

    All this bullshit adds tens of thousands to vehicle prices. People complaining about making ends meet but want an $800 per month car payment.

    1. My experience with cars over the years is that maintenance and nuisance problems are mostly due to bullshit electrical stuff.

    2. I bought a new Honda Civic in 1997 (base model) for $17,000. I put nearly 300,000 miles on it and then bought another new Honda Civic three years ago (base model) for $18,500. I can’t afford $50,000 – $80,000 for transportation – if I could, I’d get a pimped out F-150. But it’s still possible to find value out there.

    3. One of the doofus left-wingers that comments on Volokh actually claimed a few months ago that cars today were lighter than in the 70s because they were smaller than the land yachts of that decade and had started using aluminum, and that’s why gas mileage was better. Not only was he hilariously wrong, it took all of 15 seconds to find a link that proved it.

      Gas mileage has gotten better overall, despite the addition of so much safety equipment and electronic doodads that has increased vehicle weight, because the engines are far more efficient, including on the power-band side. A V-6 Toyota Camry from 2012 had more horsepower than Magnum PI’s Ferrari, and got far better gas mileage to boot.

      1. Cars are so much bigger today. I was talking to a guy who had this old late 70s Volvo coupe that he had turned into a little rally car. It was actually pretty cool for a Volvo. Sitting next to it was a Volkswagen sedan of some sort. Even though the VW had four doors, it was the same class of care as the Volvo, family four seater. The VW looked enormous sitting next to the Volvo. And its not like Volvos are known as small cars. They are for their time always blocky and big. But compared to a similar car made today, it looked downright petite.

        1. “”Cars are so much bigger today. “”

          The Delta 88 I use to drive would argue with you.

          1. My Crown Vic humbly agrees.

        2. The one main change i would make is not design trucks to be so fucking tall. Unless you’re 6’5″ tall, it’s a pain in the ass to pull things out of the bed. If they took a few inches of lift off the trucks, they might not even need those stupid air dams to improve the mileage.

          And yeah, it’s hilarious to see a Honda Civic from the mid-80s compared to one today. The former looks like a damn microcar now.

          1. I liked the original Subaru Outback. It was like a small cool looking station wagon. Now it’s like a larger SUV.

    4. My sister bought a new Subaru Forester. It has an assist(?!?!?!?) that shuts off the engine when you stop and idle. It can be turned off temporarily but not permanently.
      I’d hate to be stuck in traffic if it fails to turn the engine back on.

      1. My wife’s car does that. I hate it. I always turn it off. I don’t want my engine shutting down and turning back on all the time. It is just annoying.

        1. Those things are ridiculous. If there’s any mileage improvement to be had there, it’s probably 1 mpg, max, and I doubt it’s that good.

          They make sense for a true hybrid. On an F-150 or Silverado that’s not even getting 20 mpgs, it’s pointless.

      2. don’t get me started on the automatic door locks if you are unloading gorceries and it raining they automatically lock when close the door you have to unlock for everything plus all the fing alarm bells

        1. if you don’t signal a lane change the steering wheel goes epileptic in my girl’s new CR-V wtf … also it tells me to BRAKE! like 30 feet early where’s the fun in that?

          1. It would be awesome if it was marketed as a
            CR-V-wtf

          2. if you don’t signal a lane change the steering wheel goes epileptic

            Are you sure that wasn’t me yelling from the car behind her for not using her signal? I have been known to to that.

    5. your forgetting
      child/baby carrier restraints
      child monitors so that you don’t leave your kid in the even if you don’t have kids
      Tire monitors

      I’m sure there is more heck jeeps used to be a good simple economical 4×4 now they are a high price toy you can’t get wet

  25. “Bernie Sanders hospitalized with heart trouble.”

    Although he has never been in my top tier of candidates, I wish him a full recovery.

    Still, I cannot totally forgive him for his bizarre assertion that “Open borders is a Koch Brothers plot to depress wages.” I mean, where is he getting this stuff? It’s just utter nonsense.

    1. Well, this is at least arguable proof he actually has a heart.

      Now, who will do the research to find out what kind of health insurance he has?
      Medicare (as in ‘for all’)?
      Obamacare?
      Or some evil plan from a profit hungry, corporation that feeds on babies at its board meetings?
      How long was his wait compared to the VA average?

    2. “Bernie Sanders hospitalized with heart trouble.”

      Bleeding Heart Syndrome.

  26. “U.S. to Impose Tariffs on EU Goods After WTO’s Airbus Ruling”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-can-levy-tariffs-on-eu-exports-over-airbus-wto-says-11570025040?

    —-WSJ

    Airbus was created as a consortium of European government financed aerospace companies that unified to compete with Boeing–who was kicking their asses at the time. This consortium seems to have been especially effective because many of their customers are government owned airlines in Europe. A government subsidized company sells planes to a government owned entity and the purchases are financed by the government. It’s the European dream!

    Unfortunately for the bureaucrats that run the EU, those subsidies to Airbus also violate the basic rules of the WTO. Oh, and, unfortunately for the people of the EU, this kind of economic system is precisely why the entire region is slipping into recession. So there are at least two lessons to learn from this:

    1) You can’t sustain economic growth without creative destruction.

    2) Membership in the WTO doesn’t mean tariffs are never appropriate.

    I mean, you might argue that Trump shouldn’t impose tariffs–in these or any other circumstances–even if it’s okay by WTO rules, but it should be noted that a free trade agreement without penalties and enforcement for misbehavior is like having a capitalist system without laws against theft and the means to enforce them.

    1. This lawsuit has been working its way through for 10 years. It wont stop the Boehm everything economic is bad because of Trump angle though.

      1. They seem to be extremely reluctant to reference the fact that Trump has been targeting China’s forced technology transfer program as if it were a trade barrier since day one, too.

        It’s not enough for them to argue against the trade war in clear and honest terms. Personally, I don’t think winning that battle on forced technology transfers is worth losing the war for freer trade by imposing self-defeating sanctions–but framing the trade war with China (that I oppose) in bogus terms isn’t about to persuade anyone to support more free trade than they did before.

        I want to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they just know so much less than we do, but that’s hard to do when they completely ignore the central issues–month after month and year after year. How many times has Boehm even mentioned forced technology transfers over the last year?

        1. They are idealist who operate on purist theory instead of reality. This was the form of economics from the 1800s before game theory developed to help explain irrational actors. Boehm and other purists are incapable of applying even simple concepts of game theory to their beliefs. this is most likely due to intellectual laziness as you cant have simple ideas unless you make enough assumptions to have a simple baseline. Once you add chaos and game theory the simple rules go put the window.

          This is Boehms and others problem. The most fundamental point of game theory is tit for tat is a legitimate strategy to reduce harmful actions. Boehm refuses to recognize this point. He straight ignores Chinas bad actions because he then wont be able to yell tariffs are always bad. It is a very sophomoric approach Boehm takes.

        2. Does anyone seriously think that China’s leaps and bounds in military technology isn’t related to their trade with the U.S. and other high-technology states?

  27. TikTok isn’t about you or what you’re doing. It’s about entertaining your audience. It’s not spontaneous chronicling of your real life. It’s about inventing characters, dressing up as someone else and acting out jokes. It’s not about privacy and friends, but strutting on the world stage.

    So, when are we going to have you-know-who’s latest TikTok blasted out on the mainstream news?

    1. Never heard of TikTok.

      1. That’s because you have a real life, D!

      2. I’m guessing you don’t have teenage daughters, but I could be wrong.

      3. Watch the tiki tok clips reviewed by tom segura and his wife on Your Moms House. They make tik tok hilarious.


  28. Planned Parenthood has been building a secret abortion “mega-clinic” in Illinois

    Until they have the drive thru customer service for abortions that Chick-Fil-A has for chicken, GTFO.

    1. And they admitted under oath that they do in fact sell the body parts for profit. Planned Parenthood is a hideously evil organization. Future historians will see its existence as one of the major blots on US history.

      1. And they admitted under oath that they do in fact sell the body parts for profit.

        That abortion doctor who had all the fetal body parts in his freezer was some Jeffrey Dahmer-level shit.

        1. It was. And the media sent it down the memory hole as fast as they could. I understand supporting legal abortion. What I don’t understand is how someone could support it so fanatically that they are willing to overlook that kind of shit. It just baffles me.

      2. They also admitted in court they intentionally attempted to have live births to get better parts.

        1. That’s like a horror movie. How do those people sleep at night?

      3. So what? If people want to pay for things that are going to help them and those things are going to the incinerator anyway who are you, moral scold, to tell them they can’t? Fuck off, slaver.

      4. “”And they admitted under oath that they do in fact sell the body parts for profit.”‘

        To what end? If it’s legit medical research, then that’s a good reason.

        1. Killing people and selling their body parts for profit is ghastly no matter the end.

    2. takes like 45 minutes to get thru Chik-fil-A drive thru I bet PP is faster

  29. Drunk drivers more likely to commit violent gun crimes in California, study finds

    I’m sure they counted all the old DUI convictions where the average Americans never committed a violent crime.

    Lefties and their garbage studies to advance the bureaucracy and taking of Constitutional rights.

    1. Let’s break those statistics down and see which groups with DUIs are more likely to commit a violent crime. No one wants to turn over that rock for some reason.

    2. Researchers found that 3 percent of purchasers with a prior DUI conviction engaged in violent crime with a firearm, according to the findings published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. By comparison, only 0.5 percent of people with no prior arrests or convictions committed a violent crime with a firearm.

      LOL, this is the kind of peer-reviewed bullshit that Proggies love to point to as ‘SCIENCE!’

      Without even reading it, I can tell you that the study is complete bullshit as their conclusions were based on DUI convictions. That would exclude anyone who got the charges dropped, negotiated a lesser sentence, talked their way out of it on the side of the road, or drive well enough legally drunk to not get pulled over (I admit to committing the latter 2 offenses in my youth).

      It is just as reasonable to conclude violent crime correlates with low intelligence and/or being too poor to afford a decent attorney.

    3. But the latest work relies on a larger sample of nearly 80,000 records on legal handgun buyers.

      So CA keeps a database of handgun purchases with enough information to definitively identify someone when compared to a crime database?

      I am sure it is for research purposes only.

    1. Can’t be real gold. No way would those flimsy Chinese shelves hold that weight without bending.

    2. 30 Billion Limey pounds cash! I find that hard to believe. That’s nearly $38Billion US.

      My quick research says the largest note is the 100 Yuan worth about $15.

      Therefore, that is over 2.5 billion bank notes.

      Notes usually come is stacks of 100 notes from the bank which are about 1 inch tall.

      2.5 billion notes would be 25 million of these 100-note stacks, or 25 million inches of notes if stacked.

      If the notes are 2 inches x 4inches, an inch high stack of 100 notes would take up a volume of 8 cubic inches.

      A cubic foot = 1728 cubic inches (12x12x12).

      The 25 million stacks would take up a total volume of 200 million cubic inches (25 million x 8).

      Therefore, the volume of all the money (in cubic feet) is:
      200 million / 1728 = 115,740 cubic feet.

      A cubic foot is 7.5 gallons.

      Therefore, 115,740 cubic feet of money would be the same volume as roughly 870,000 gallons.

      A swimming pool 25 yards (75 feet) x 15 yards (45 feet) and all the depth of 5 feet holds about 125,000 gallons.

      That is a typical size of a high school or college competition swimming pool.

      Therefore, the cash takes up about 7 of these swimming pools!

      I guess it’s possible, maybe, but no wonder he got caught.

      After writing all this, I checked and the notes are 6×3 inches, not 4×2, so the size of each note is 18 sq inches not 8 sq inches, at least double my first estimate.

      So, figure on 15 swimming pools, not 7.

      My work is done here.

      1. Check the source. About as reliable as the National Enquirer.

  30. When users stop getting news from Facebook, they don’t necessarily start getting it somewhere else

    We’re habitual creatures–most people who are on social media have a platform that they prefer to use, and getting off Facebook doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll switch to Twitter or Instagram.

    1. And sadly… no news may actually be better than incorrect news. Not that all news via facebook is incorrect… but let’s face it, we can’t even trust Reason writers to be critical and nuanced in their analysis anymore.

  31. Apple apparently bans app that allowed Hong Kong protesters to track police movements

    But will Apple ban apps that the Commie police use to track Hong Kongers?

    1. Apple or Google?

  32. Silicon Valley billionaires’ strange new respect for Elizabeth Warren: Tech donors are slowly embracing her. She absolutely refuses to reciprocate.

    I know Vox. Sometimes you need to see how the crazy Left thinks.

    Who predicted this shift yesterday after Bernie Sander’s heart attack?

    1. They figure they can buy her off. They are almost certainly right.

      1. Just because of her career as a lobbyist…

      2. Yeah she is such a fraud. Not Hillary level as I think there is a little less shamelessness. Which is amazing to say considering she lied about being an indian but it’s true,

    2. What’s even funnier is that it’s not a “strange new respect”–they’re just trying to butter her up so she doesn’t sic her mob of wine moms on them.

    3. Perhaps Vox felt they need to put out an article to counter Zuckerberg.

  33. ISM/manufacturing numbers in and they suck. So much for 4% (or even 3%) growth for the Con Man.

    I recall hearing the Peanut Gallery yelling in near unison IF WE ONLY GET A GOP PRESIDENTE WE IS GONNA GROW AT 5% FOREVER!

    Looks like Obama was right about the “new normal” Trump fails again – just like the shitty wall Mexico was going to pay for.

    1. So is child porn manufacture counted in that index? Just wondering and figured I would ask someone who knew.

    2. I can cite your child porn habits, can you cite your strawman? You preferred 2.5% growth?

      1. Why have all the mindless conformists adopted child porn as the bat-shit craziest new assault?

        Scary how they think and talk alike. Like the equivalent libruls.
        Infantile.

        1. Because, Dumbfuck Hihnsano, if you hadn’t been gone during one of your rare periods of non-manic behavior, you’d know that PB had his handle banned a few months ago for linking kiddie porn in the comments.

          1. ANOTHER COWARDLY DIVERSION.:)
            AND ANOTHER PSYCHO LIE …
            1) Such bans are permanent
            2) You’d have no way of knowing that anyone had been banned,

            Actually, all three of you goobers launched MORE personal assaults, attacking the person, not the message,

            Pathetic, as always

    3. You would think the threat of impeachment would boost the economy. Oh well.

    4. Pick them cherries, turd. It’s all you got.

    5. Everyone here isn’t a libertarian, but there is one thing everyone can agree on: SPB’s a piece of shit. Gives me a warm feeling.

    6. “”IF WE ONLY GET A GOP PRESIDENTE WE IS GONNA GROW AT 5% FOREVER!”””

      Isn’t part of Bernie’s plan to grow at 5%.

      1. guffaw That was Trump’s plan, ANOTHER failure. His average is no better than Obama’s recovery. And his new 88-year debt is WORSE than Obama … even though Obama handed him the longest recovery EVER for an incoming President, after he (Obama) had inherited the second worst economy in nearly 80 years.

  34. A former South Carolina congressman is suing the state over its decision to cancel Republican primary elections.

    And that’s why you’re former.

  35. To broadly condemn vaping for these illnesses may be akin to blaming injections instead of heroin, or coffee cups instead of arsenic-laden coffee…

    The moral panic cares not for your logic.

    1. The vaping ship will be righted as soon as the taxes match those of tobacco.

  36. 1) “Children, Refugees, and Anyone Booked by ICE Will Have DNA Added to Criminal Database”

    2) “The Trump administration says it will start collecting DNA samples from anyone booked into federal immigration custody.”

    My understanding is that this is authorized by the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005.

    https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/508541

    What they’re talking about is writing rules that do what the law says–rather than ignoring the law.

    While throwing a tantrum about Trump and referencing eugenics might make you feel good for a moment or two, the solution is to repeal the law–which appears to have been enacted 13 years ago.

    1. That’s unpossible . It would implicate Obama in some sort of unsavory activity.

    2. I think the New York Times article ENB linked to above said something about a court order that blocks some provisions of the DNA Fingerprint Act, but now Times paywall just kicked in so I can’t go back and re-read it.

      1. Clear your cache, Mike, or use an incognito window. For either, you must also close and relaunch your browser.

        1. Thanks for the tip. Here’s what it said in the article:

          “Congress passed a law authorizing a broad collection of DNA data in 2005, but at the time an exemption was put in place to protect immigrants.

          “A homeland security official said in a call with reporters on Wednesday that the exemption was outdated, and that it was time to eliminate it.”

          An “exemption was put in place” is not terribly explanatory.

          1. Yep, that smells. Immigrants had greater protection for privacy, and against unreasonable search and seizure than CITIZENS?

            For liberty principles, the sin was the general collection. Illegals may have then been exempted to protect them from self-incrimination. Trump’s raging immigrant hatred (laced with racism) is fairly new, but traces to the Rust Belt I grew up in. To the uneducated, the loss of our best-paid manufacturing jobs was caused by cheap imports and immigrants willing to work for less.

            Fiscal conservatives, including libertarians, are MUCH crazier. AUTOMATION! Like the Luddites in the early 1800s, that free marketers have ridiculed for over 50 years!

            It’s in the tax code, about which the libertarian establishment is totally clueless. (The current establishment)

  37. ICYMI the Seattle Police Department just announced that it has a practice of arresting rape victims in order to protect them from getting raped again.

    All problems are like nails…

    1. Coz we know cops don’t rape vulnerable females.

    2. So they are going to put them in cages to save them?

  38. …ruling that the “proposed operation is to reduce drug use, not facilitate it” DOES NOT violate federal drug laws, as Justice Department argues.

    Can this be applied to pain management in general?

  39. Only 19% of independent voters are “optimistic” about the economy (CNBC).

    DOOM FOR THE DOTARD in 2020!

    1. But 100% of deviants are optimistic about the child porn supply.

    2. Child porn users hardest hit.

    3. Is life unfair, turd? Do you keep making bad decisions and then have to live with the results?
      Well, get used to it. As a fucking lefty ‘tard, it’s gonna be that way for the rest of your miserable existence.
      And I’m laughing about it, loser.

    4. Please document any kind of relationship between independent voters and CNBC. Thank you.

      1. Please explain such shocking ignorance of polling. s.
        Does FOX poll only their own viewers?
        Is it crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide?
        You’re welcome.

  40. You can not compare forced sterilization that occurred under democrats to collecting DNA

    1. (yawn) Lame

  41. I didn’t know grousing about Mexicans and recalling the old days in the army (I’m a libertarian so I hate the army) was equivalent to talking about limited government. These discussions above are what the retired geezers at the donut shop talk about. What kind of libertarian board is this?

    1. A bunch of Trump apologists (or at least “any enemy of liberals is a friend of mine”) have taken up residence in the comments section.

      1. Yep.

      2. “any enemy of liberals is a friend of mine”

        IMHO, there used to be an element of mutual understanding post WW2 between those driven primarily by social liberalism (free minds) and those who driven by primarily by fiscal conservatism (free markets) and they were willing to compromise on the other’s positions if allowed to advance their own. People became freer, markets became freer and libertarians grew happier while the fringes (socialists and social conservatives) grew surlier.

        Unfortunately, the one-sided promotion of socialism within the educational institutions has lead the rising generations to a belief that more government control of markets and more control over ‘bad’ people and ‘bad’ ideas is the answer to the inequality that they perceive remains. Less freedom and less free markets, in exchange for more social ‘equality’. Those driven by social liberalism are willing to compromise with the socialists by giving up free markets for the promise of equality (i,e., Obamacare, energy subsidies, government sponsored environmentalism, etc.), even if they don’t want to compromise on the freedom of people.

        However, moderate fiscal conservatives have nothing to gain by compromising with socialists. Socialists can give the appearance of compromising on free markets, but must take more and more as taxes to pay for their social programs, a net loss of freedom, and the high taxes constrain markets anyway.

        Those driven by fiscal conservatism can compromise with moderate social liberals and moderate social conservatives. There is no compromise to be had with socialists. To that end, when I have to choose a person to lead, I will choose the one that will obstruct the socialist agenda every time regardless if they fail to meet my bar for being socially liberal.

        1. You did so well … until sinking into conspiracy nonsense.

          Stop calling it compromise. Nobody mans the barricades to … compromise. What works is win-win. Both sides WIN … and pay a price that is less (to them) than what they gain.

          Same principle as free markets.

    2. Go fuck yourself loser. Seriously, no one fucking cares what the lefty sock puppet de jour thinks about anything. Go troll somewhere else.

      1. I’m not sure where you get from LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian describing himself as, “I’m a libertarian”, and pointing out all the grousing here about immigrants to calling him a lefty sock puppet.

        This is the website for a libertarian foundation. That foundation, and many libertarians, support open or fairly open immigration. Supporting freedom of immigration is solidly in the libertarian tradition, and not just some “lefty” viewpoint.

        1. He is a lefty sock puppet concern trolling.

          1. And you’re trolling for Team GOP, suckup.

        2. Mike Laursen, you may be new. Libertarians, from our roots in the late 70s, always have warned of the “bipolar mentality”

          What that means, and John is one of the very best examples …
          To ANYONE on the authoritarian right, disagreeing … on anything .. makes you a proggie/socialist/lefty/progressive … pick any one or two. ONLY two choices possible to their “minds.” , Neither choice is liberty.

          It’s BECAUSE today’s left and right have sunk to what Eric Hoffer described in 1951, with his seminal book on zealots and fanatics, The True Believers

          “Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Because hatred unites the True Believers.”

          Loyalists to both parties, combined, are now a shrinking minority, hatred is all they have. You’ve heard it,
          “Anyone but ….. (satanic evil)”
          “He/She sucks, but is better than …(satanic evil)”

          They seek to govern by stoking fear and hysteria. That’s always been true, but a serious threat to liberty for only a quarter-century or so.

          They are fueled by … slogans and soundbites … evolved after 70 years of tribal legends. Have you read Orwell’s 1984. He predicted a totalitarian state, using “Newspeak” as a form of mind control, to get people believing the opposite of reality.

          “War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom. Ignorance is Strength.”

          He got the mind control right, but it does not require a totalitarian state. Two totalitarian PARTIES can have the same results, COMPETING to run a totalitarian state, one of TWO alternate realities.

          Their sole remaining loyalists are very low information puppets, WISHING for somebody else to do their thinking. Someone to program their writing and speaking for what they WANT to believe.. .

          They’re now a shrinking majority, But can they disappear fast enough? Hard to say.

          The majority of Americans reject both savage tribes … but have yet to see any leader(s) arise. The silent majority is now The Voiceless Majority. The future, still uncertain.

          What libertarians rallied to in the late 70s, but now even worse.:
          Democrats want government out of your bedroom, but into your wallet. Republicans want government out of your wallet, but into your bedroom. Each one half of absolute tyranny, competing for absolute power. Both deadly threats to individual liberty.

          1. I am not new here. I’ve been a follower of Reason blog since Hit & Run was started, subscribed to the magazine since the 1980s, and have contributed to Reason Foundation.

          2. I also reject both savage tribes. I am a (small-L) libertarian independent (former Libertarian Party member).

            1. It’s Hihn, Mike. I recommend not engaging.

              1. HE won’t get his ass KICKED like you have … all down this page, stalker.

                1. Hahaha,

                  You’re the kind of guy that would lose a race and give yourself a trophy.

            2. Me too, but lately, the libertarian label is one I cannot use.
              You’ve been around long enough to recall, “never be anti-government, always pro-liberty”

              Anti-gummint goobers now dominate, which is why Johnson/Weld had ZERO policy solutions to run on … when they were the only qualified candidates, and voters were (and are) open to even radical change (an opportunity which occurs only once or twice per century).

              (I meant “you must be new here” in the colloquial sense! Your clarity is quickly obvious, the lack of raging hatred )

              1. It SHOULD have been:

                Never be anti-government; always be pro-liberty people.

      2. John, notice *you* are the troll here. This isn’t http://www.gopsuckups.com— it’s reason.com, which is a site for people that don’t want the government telling them what to do or, worse, shooting at them.

        1. That is because you are a troll. It is the same franchise that has always been here. You just post the leftist talking points dejour and only show up on partisan threads. You are never seen on like police shooting or pop culture threads or any threads that don’t provide you the opportunity to shill for the Left.

          It is pathetic and neither fools nor convinces anyone.

          1. Goobers are the militant self-righteous both left and right.
            Note they both use authoritarian tactics.
            Blame their parents

            1. Shut up Hihn. You are a deranged lunatic. You are the only person on this board who suffers from real mental illness rather than just being a troll. You creed the hell out of everyone.

              1. Note they both use authoritarian tactics.

                Shut up Hihn. You are a deranged lunatic.

                Thanks!
                The Authoritarian Right has ALWAYS hated libertarians, BECAUSE we expose their thuggish mentality … and sometimes, like here, the tactical geniuses prove us correct!

                BOOGA BOOGA.

                1. PArt of being crazy is not realizing it. Ever wonder why everyone in the world hates your guts and can’t stand to be around you?

                  1. Posted in defense of MOAR authoritarian tactics and personal assault.

                    I am PROUD to be hated by scum like you.

                    The Authoritarian Right has ALWAYS hated libertarians, BECAUSE we expose their thuggish mentality … and sometimes, like here, the tactical geniuses prove us correct!

        2. He’s not trolling any more than OpenBordersLiberal-tarian. In fact, LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian is a direct analog/answer to OpenBordersLiberal-tarian.

          I’ve never seen anyone saying that OBLt is a troll. Personally, I think he is funny sometimes, except the part where he has posted the same Koch joke every day for weeks.

          Anyway, LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian, please stick around and post. We need more libertarian commenters here to balance out the Trump apologists.

        3. To be fair, John is not a troll. He has been commenting at Reason for a long time, often very insightfully.

          1. To be fair, JesseAZ and loveconstitution1789 are not trolls, either.

            I did feel I needed to push back on loveconstitution1789 when he started posting ASCII art comments that said nothing but “TRUMP 2020”. Again, because I don’t want people who are coming to this blog to learn about libertarianism to get the idea that 1789 is representative of libertarians.

    3. “…(I’m a libertarian so I hate the army)…”

      You’re a liar, besides.

      1. Plus, libertarians don’t hate the army. The “army” is one of the few proper functions of government under libertarian theology.

        1. Please. Says who? Paul Ryan?

          1. Military for self-defense. Very libertarian. Who TF is Paul Ryan?

  42. Beto O’Rourke accuses Pete Buttigieg of representing “a kind of politics that is focused on poll testing”:

    And Pete accuses Beto of representing a kind of politics that is focused on losing.

    1. Talk about a cripple fight. Thankfully, I think both of their 15 minutes are about up.

    2. Was that a homophobic dog whistle?

      1. lol Pete’s favorite kind of testing.

    1. They are taking a page from the left. They are just not waiting until she sits down to eat.

  43. >>>That kind of mass collection

    so all they have to do to not be mass-collected is stay where they already live?

  44. Now the press is trying to sell the fact that I wanted a Moat stuffed with alligators and snakes, with an electrified fence and sharp spikes on top, at our Southern Border. I may be tough on Border Security, but not that tough.

    Let down once again by a politician

  45. Serious question: Can anyone explain why Yang’s “you own your data” idea is so stupid that it should be rejected out of hand?

    1. I don’t see how it is. As I understand it, it would put Facebook and the social media platforms out of business. If I own my own data, they can’t sell it without my permission. If they can’t sell my data, then they have no business model.

      I think Yang and Gabard are the only two Democrats who are not bat shit crazy.

      1. >>>If I own my own data

        unless you’re King Henry this may have never happened ever.

      2. Thanks. I tend to get suspicious when someone act as if a proposal is self-evidently out of the question.

        1. how would it begin? everyone on earth is already sold.

    2. I’ll need a definition of “your data”, Cotton.

  46. The latest atrocity ( DNA) confirms what libertarians have always known. The most secure method toward a total police state is to go slowly, one step at a time.

    Lately, it’s still one step at a time, but accelerating sharply. In2020, we could see a crypto fascist vs a crypto socialist. While the libertarian elites continue furiously masturbating, in an ivory tower, still totally devoid of even a single policy solution, for anything, under a wall banner, “Elections are for promoting libertarians IDEAS. not policies, because governing requires conspiring with statists!”

    As we all know, a free society will spring from the ground spontaneously, like weeds, with no effort (or conspiring) …. someday.

    1. LEFT-RIGHT/b>= a well functioning welfare state with a small Gini coefficient and a small military for self-defense that doesn’t invade and occupy poor 3rd world countries?

      1. Ah, fuck.

        1. Good work, dumbass.

    2. “”As we all know, a free society will spring from the ground spontaneously, like weeds, with no effort (or conspiring) …. someday.””

      Sadly people have a high tolerance for bullshit. When that tolerance line is eventually crossed. Free society loving people will have little recourse because the right to bear arms was nibbled away too.

      1. You’ve already proven my worst-case scenario, if you think the right to bear arms is an absolute right, when no TOTALLY absolute rights exist. Learn what unalienable means. And individual liberty

        1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s about to rub that gun ban boner again.

        2. “”You’ve already proven my worst-case scenario, if you think the right to bear arms is an absolute right,””

          WOOOOOOOOOSHH

          I have proven nothing. I’m not making an argument for absolute rights.

          You say you are libertarian. What level of gun banning do you find unacceptable?

          1. You say you are libertarian. What level of gun banning do you find unacceptable?

            Unlike you THUGS, libertarians know

            1) Not our decision, and only authoritarians like you would ask.
            2) Gun rights are NOT absolute, which you AGAIN fucked up, just down the page! (smirk)

            1. Unlike you THUGS, libertarians know

              “Libertarian” comfortably excludes you, “TheLibertyTruthTeller”.

  47. “”That kind of mass collection alters the purpose of DNA collection from one of criminal investigation basically to population surveillance, which is basically contrary to our basic notions of a free, trusting, autonomous society,” ACLU lawyer Vera Eidelman told the Times.”
    No data bases of criminals? Please note these are NOT US citizens.
    Yet the UCLA is fine with a full data base of citizens exercising their second amendment rights. No chance at all that will get used for confiscation down the road.

    1. Please note these are NOT US citizens.

      So you shit on equal and unalienable rights. endowed by a Creator or God? The freedom you claim to long for was defined by our revolt:

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

      Discover liberty

      1. Nothing in there about a right to cross international borders in violation of national sovereignty that I can see.

        1. You AGAIN prove your contempt for individua

          1. You AGAIN show your contempt for fundamental rights. The freedom you long for is NOT freedom. Plus, when challenged, you ran away by changing the subject! (Evasion)

            I’ll go slowly. There are TWO stated protections of fundamental rights. The Declaration and and the Constitution (9A)

            The Ninth Amendment protects ALL fundamental rights NOT listed in the Constitution, which may not be denied or disparaged by ANY level of government.

            9A
            The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

            1) Please tell us which fundamental rights are included in the the packages: Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..

            2)Please tell us what fundamental rights are protected by 9A.

            3) Why did you change the subject from privacy, or search and seizure, and/or other possible to …. border crossing??

            One more time: why do you keep insisting that Jefferson was full of shit about “all men” … because God Almighty has bestowed natural rights on ONLY US citizens (which will surprise the hell out of Moses, Jesus Christ and MANY others).

            No offense intended, and not your fault, but you are trusting the wrong people on issues of individual rights abd liberty.

            1. Plus the word “equal.”

            2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s just desperate because he’s scared his Social Security checks are going to run out before he croaks.

              1. Another infantile diversion.

            3. “”You AGAIN show your contempt for fundamental rights.””

              I’ve been told there are no absolute rights.

              1. If TrickyVic thinks there is ANY contradiction there … he’s dumber than I thought,

                I’ll TRY to dumb it down.
                1) ALL fundamental rights are absolute (unalienable). Am I going too fast.

                2) Thus NO right an be absolute over another absolute right, if they conflict. DUH.

                Can you pass this easy test, (#2 is taught in high school)

                1) How would YOU resolve a conflict between two rights both absolute?.

                2) How are such conflicts settled now?

                1. 1) How would YOU resolve a conflict between two rights both absolute?.

                  There are no conflicts between the rights libertarians recognize, namely negative rights.

                  The US is a valid legal entity, and someone who crosses its territory against the laws of the US is aggressing against the US and has to expect a proportional response, including having their biometric and forensic information recorded in the US and being forcibly removed from the territory of the US.

                  1. There are no conflicts between the rights libertarians recognize, namely negative rights.

                    Those aren’t libertarians. Largely authoritarians who follow Ron Paul, and-or self-describe as an-caps.

                    Negative rights, as you apply it here is like the bullshit that NAP is the only principle needed.

                    Hence, their long history of bigotry, racism and homophobia,
                    Neither negative rights nor NAP provide for EQUAL rights which you again deny as being innate to humans,

                    Plus, in “principle” you have just opposed, ummm WOMAN’S SUFFRAGE, marriage equality and (again) the entire panoply of EQUAL rights.

                    ONLY PEOPLE CAN BE AGGRESSED AGAINST, SO YOU’VE ALSO BEEN PERVERTED ON AGGRESSION.

                    If two males (or females) demand a marriage certificate, based on equal rights, are they committing aggression against county registrars. Ron Paul thinks and teaches that. (puke)

                    What you defend is the philosophical base of the alt-right.
                    Probably also defend moral atrocities like Ron Paul’s 10th Amendment bullshit, which traces to the KKK — that states have rights never delegated; we have NO constitutional defense from abuse by state governments — and fuck a balance of power, with checks and balances, among THREE equal branches.

                    Like the ignoramuses who babble about judges inventing laws. And I held the most shameful moral atrocity until last.

                    Ron Fuckhead Paul BRAGS about having sponsored a bill that would have forbidden SCOTUS to even consider any challenges to DOMA …THE most shameful abuse of power since slavery. Homosexuals would have been the first entire group FORBIDDEN to defend those equal rights that you despise and reject … since slavery. Fucking niggers and fags. (/sarc).

                    Or, have you been taught some twisted and perverted version of aggression here, also?

                    We all chose PRIORITIES. Is your commitment to liberty or to excuses for authority and bigotry?

            4. You argue like the typical socialist/communist: “rich countries have no right to exclude poor workers from third world countries”. The people making that argument then have no qualms shooting their own citizens when they try to leave.

              You keep proving that you are a totalitarian.

              1. SHAME ON Y0U.
                I NEVER SAID NOR IMPLIED THAT, YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT.

                YOUR BULLSHIT DENIAL OF EQUAL RIGHTS — i.e. ALL RIGHTS — IS DETAILED JUST ABOVE.
                https://reason.com/2019/10/03/children-refugees-and-anyone-booked-by-ice-will-have-dna-added-to-criminal-database/#comment-7958257

              2. “”You keep proving that you are a totalitarian.””

                A totalitarian with a leftist edge. That’s why he thinks you having gun rights is a threat to his life. I tried to get him to defend any level of gun rights and he sidestepped it by saying it’s not our decision.

                1. That’s not what you asked, fucking pyscho.
                  You asked what level of gun banning I find acceptable, as a libertarian.

                  https://reason.com/2019/10/03/children-refugees-and-anyone-booked-by-ice-will-have-dna-added-to-criminal-database/#comment-7957786

              3. NOYB2,
                STOP EVADING YOUR OWN WORDS, COWARD.

                1) Why do you defend blatant fascist bigotry. like bans on women’s suffrage, interracial marriage, gay marriage, and so many other EQUAL rights?

                2) If two males (or females) demand a marriage certificate, based on equal rights, why do YOU say they are committing aggression against county registrars?

                3) Do you also defend Ron Paul’s SHAMEFUL attempt to make homosexuals the first group forbidden to defend their constitutional rights at SCOTUS … since slavery?

                4) Do you support Ron Paul’s claim that only “ROGUE JUDGES” would defend citizen’s fundamental rights from abuse by state governments … leaving us DEFENSELESS from rights abuses by state and local governments?

                5) How DARE you defend such SHAMELESS violations of individual liberty as being …. LIBERTARIAN?

                https://reason.com/2019/10/03/children-refugees-and-anyone-booked-by-ice-will-have-dna-added-to-criminal-database/#comment-7958257

  48. When users stop getting news from Facebook, they don’t necessarily start getting it somewhere else.

    When people stop hitting themselves in the head with a hammer, they don’t necessarily start hitting themselves in the head with another blunt object.

    When people stop drinking Drano, they don’t necessarily start drinking some other form of poison.

    When people stop sticking their hands into punch presses, they don’t necessarily start sticking their hands into other sorts of industrial machinery.

    Am I supposed to be concerned about this sort of thing?

  49. The Trump administration says it will start collecting DNA samples from anyone booked into federal immigration custody.

    And the problem with this is… what? What moral or libertarian principle does it violate?

    1. MORE shitting on individual rights and liberty!
      Scroll back just a bit, to be educated on moral and libertarian principles … but most important … the entire founding principle of equal, unalienable and/or God/Creator-given rights.

      https://reason.com/2019/10/03/children-refugees-and-anyone-booked-by-ice-will-have-dna-added-to-criminal-database/#comment-7957583

      1. but most important … the entire founding principle of equal, unalienable and/or God/Creator-given rights.

        Take it from an actual immigrant: nobody has an “unalienable right” to enter a foreign nation.

        The idea that immigration restrictions are some kind of infringement on individual liberties is a communist propaganda trope; the same communists who usually try to shoot people who want to leave. You’re either a believer or a useful idiot for those people. Take your pick.

        1. Take it from an actual immigrant: nobody has an “unalienable right” to enter a foreign nation.

          I NEVER SAID THEY DID.

          The idea that immigration restrictions are some kind of infringement on individual liberties

          NEVER SAID THAT, EITHER.

          GOTCHA!

          Communist propaganda trope

          Only the Authoritarian Right MINDLESSLY screeches SOCIALISM or COMMUNISM. for any and all oppression .. which outs you TOTALLY … as what you are.

          ****BY SAYING OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENTS **MUST** BE COMMUNIST OR SOCIALIST … ***YOU DENY THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE ***RIGHT-WING DICTATORSHIPS*** YOU WORSHIP …. THE SAME AS YOUR BULLSHIT ABOUT NEGATIVE RIGHTS, AND YOUR NON-STOP LIES AND DIVERSIONS TO DENY EQUAL RIGHTS AS BEING INNATE TO HUMANS ,… THE VERY CORE OF NATURAL LAW.

          And the self-righteous prattle about liberty and libertarians.

          STOP YOUR DAMN LIES ABOUT WHAT I’VE SAID … AND WHAT YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY OPPOSED, SO SHAMELESSLY

  50. “”That kind of mass collection alters the purpose of DNA collection from one of criminal investigation basically to population surveillance, which is basically contrary to our basic notions of a free, trusting, autonomous society,” ACLU lawyer Vera Eidelman told the Times.”

    Detained illegal migrants aren’t part of the population, they are people who violated our laws. Hence, the DNA collection exactly serves its original purpose, namely tracking and identifying (former) criminals.

    1. How many times can he screw liberty on one page?

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

      FACT: The Authoritarian Right has as much contempt for individual rights and liberty as the Authoritarian Left.

      The only difference: Each seeks to use the power of government .. to defend ONLY their own selection of preferred rights.

      It’s not just the KKK opposing equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights … which is WHY God created libertarians!

      1. “”How many times can he screw liberty on one page?””

        Someone much wiser than you said liberty is a well armed lamb. But you piss on that when you think the lamb’s rights to be well armed are not absolute.

        1. ANOTHER cowardly diversion. Plus you’re STILL confused
          Where is the conflict in your IRRELEVANT question, between TWO absolute rights? HELLO? HELLO?

          ONE MORE TIME:

          1) ALL fundamental rights are absolute (unalienable) , in themselves.
          2) How are conflicts resolved between two rights, when they are both absolute?.
          3) Does the very notion EXPLODE YOUR BRAIN, that there is more than one absolute right … there are MANY. Take it up with Jefferson and the Founders … AND STOP STALKING ME

          HOW STUPID IS HE?

          But you piss on that when you think the lamb’s rights to be well armed are not absolute.

          GREATER THAN MY RIGHT TO LIFE?????
          Try it and I’ll KILL you. Self-defense, chump.

          1. ALL fundamental rights are absolute (unalienable) , in themselves.

            Well, you don’t have an “unalienable” right to cross national boundaries without permission.

            GREATER THAN MY RIGHT TO LIFE?????

            In libertarianism, people’s “right to life” is limited to other people not killing you through force. Beyond that, you’re responsible for your own survival.

            1. Well, you don’t have an “unalienable” right to cross national boundaries without permission.

              I NEVER SAID THERE WAS
              How many times will you LIE so shamelessly

              NWO THE CICKSUCKER LIES A

              1. NOW THE (proven) PSYCHO **AGAIN** LIES ABOUT WHAT I SAID, TO *AGAIN* DENY EQUAL, UNALIENABLE AND/OR GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS!.

                His quote of me.

                GREATER THAN MY RIGHT TO LIFE?????

                The ACTUAL context.

                But you piss on that when you think the lamb’s rights to be well armed are not absolute.

                GREATER THAN MY RIGHT TO LIFE?

                Any one else as fucked up as NOYB2? I asked if the right to be armed is greater than my right to life?

                ANOTHER COWARDLY DIVERSION BY THE FAR-RIGHT PSYCHO (as PROVEN here)

                In libertarianism, people’s “right to life” is limited to other people not killing you through force. Beyond that, you’re responsible for your own survival

                *** IS
                *** THE
                *** RIGHT
                *** TO
                *** BE
                ***ARMED
                ***GREATER
                ***THAN
                ***MY
                ***RIGHT
                ***TO
                ***LIFE?

                ****Can you hear me NOW?

                That is your seventh REJECTION that all fundamental rights are precisely co-equal …. CONTEMPT for equal rights so common within the alt-right, fascism, Paulism, all on the Authoritarian Right … who LAUGHINGLY claim to be libertarian, or “strict constitutionalists”.

                https://reason.com/2019/10/03/children-refugees-and-anyone-booked-by-ice-will-have-dna-added-to-criminal-database/#comment-7958264

                P.S. The entire subthread is alt-right bullshit. TrickyDick LIED about the context of a quote he FALSELY attributed to Ben Franklin

                “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb disputing the outcome.”

                For any other right-wing PSYCHOS, that is NOT a defense of gun rights. And NOT by Franklin (the part he cited.)
                (vomiting in disgust)

          2. “”GREATER THAN MY RIGHT TO LIFE?????
            Try it and I’ll KILL you. Self-defense, chump.””

            And with what tool will you dispute that?

            You falsely equate the right to a firearm as a right to kill you. As evidenced by

            *** IS
            *** THE
            *** RIGHT
            *** TO
            *** BE
            ***ARMED
            ***GREATER
            ***THAN
            ***MY
            ***RIGHT
            ***TO
            ***LIFE?

            ****Can you hear me NOW?

            1. IS THE RIGHT TO BE ARMED GREATER THAN MY RIGHT TO LIFE?.

              You falsely equate the right to a firearm as a right to kill you. As evidenced by

              BIGGER lie.
              They are two different rights. And YOU say the right to be armed is superior to the right to life.

Please to post comments