Reason Roundup

Trump Can End Census Now, Says Supreme Court in Ruling That Could Have Big Impact on House Seats

Plus: DOJ sues over Melania Trump adviser's book, Justice Clarence Thomas wants to limit Section 230, and more....


The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the Trump administration can stop the 2020 census count right now, instead of at the end of the month. The ruling comes in response to officials arguing in an emergency request that an October 31 deadline would keep them from processing census counts by the end of the year.

"A group of local governments and nonprofit groups, led by the National Urban League, said that ending the count early will result in an undercount of immigrants, low-income people and other groups that are difficult to count," writes James Romoser at SCOTUSblog. Technically, the Court's order is framed "as a temporary pause of a district judge's ruling that directed the department to proceed," he explains. "But due to the compressed timeline for completing the census, the order is likely to be the definitive say on the matter."

The Commerce Department, which leads the census, wanted to stop on September 30. The National Urban League said it should keep going until October 31, as previously planned.

At first glance, it may seem both sides are arguing over a very small window of time that can't make that much of a difference either way. But Republicans want to make sure they wrap things up while President Donald Trump is still in power because census numbers are used to determine how seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned—a process the administration wants to change.

Per two executive orders, the first in July 2019 and the second in July 2020, Trump declared that the census would include a question about citizenship status and then that "for the purpose of the reapportionment of Representatives following the 2020 census, it is the policy of the United States to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status."

Commerce is required to process the census data for apportionment purposes by December 31, 2020.

If it doesn't, and if Trump loses in November, "it is possible that the new administration would then be in control of the population totals used for reapportionment," explained Romoser last week."Trump wants to exclude unauthorized immigrants from those population totals—a change that could shift political power away from some populous blue states, such as California and New Jersey."

In a dissent to the majority's one-paragraph decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the Census Bureau's claim that "absent a stay, the Bureau will not be able to meet the December 31 statutory deadline for reporting census results to the President…" goes against "the Government's repeated assertions to the courts below that it could not meet the statutory deadline under any circumstances." Sotomayor continued: "Moreover, meeting the deadline at the expense of the accuracy of the census is not a cost worth paying, especially when the Government has failed to show why it could not bear the lesser cost of expending more resources to meet the deadline or continuing its prior efforts to seek an extension from Congress. This Court normally does not grant extraordinary relief on such a painfully disproportionate balance of harms."


• Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is looking for a chance to cut down Section 230.

• From Reason's Billy Binion: "No, Amy Coney Barrett Isn't Part of a 'Dark Money' Plot To Overturn Gay Marriage and Abortion"

• Los Angeles County will pay out $14 million in a class-action lawsuit settlement against the local sheriff's department. The lawsuit alleged the department "routinely held people in jail beyond their release dates solely because of pending immigration investigations," reports the Los Angeles Times:

More than 18,500 people who were held illegally for days, weeks or months from October 2010 to June 2014 because of requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement could qualify for a share of the settlement, attorneys for the plaintiffs said. The Sheriff's Department agreed to stop honoring detainer requests in 2014.

• Trump tweeting that something is declassified does not actually mean it is declassified, argues the Department of Justice (DOJ).

• The DOJ is suing Stephanie Winston Wolkoff over a book she wrote about her time as first lady Melania Trump's adviser, arguing that she breached a non-disclosure agreement that includes "no termination date."

NEXT: Colorado Couple's Adoption Plans Wrecked by Child Neglect Charges for Briefly Letting a Kid Nap in the Car

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. Missing frames from the Keltner shooting in Denver have been released.

    The missing frames appear to show Doloff, the shooter, reaching for his gun before Keltner raises his mace.

    Doloff has a real problem here.

    1. Additionally, there is discussion of the relationship between a professional provocateur, the photog, and the news station.

      Speculation is that this was a staged photo op that went very bad.

      1. “There is discussion”

        Can you be more specific about who is having this discussion and where? Perhaps a link?

        1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I'm working online! My work didn't exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…CMs after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn't be happier.

          Here’s what I do…>> Click here

          1. OK, what do you recommend I google for, to find the same discussions you have been following?

        2. Or spend 5 seconds using the information he provided in your preferred search engine? Hint, you'll probably get a better hit off duckduckgo than Google.

          1. Normally people that want to convince others of their viewpoint aren’t afraid to share their sources of information.

            1. Have to agree with white night here. " it's not my job to educate you and show my work" is a very progressiveve/socialist thing

              1. True, but white knight's life doesn't matter

                1. I disagree?

                  1. Doesn't matter

                    1. Harsh.

              2. I would agree in general, but how many times has somebody tried responding to Dee’s squawking, just for her to squawk again at the response?

              3. "Have to agree with white night here."

                Cool I still don't care.

            2. You posted uncited comments and beliefs below. So are you saying you don't want to convince anyone of your arguments?

              1. If you are talking about my saying that the FBI arrested the alleged Michigan kidnapping conspirators after they made a move to buy explosives, that is exactly what I am saying. It's just something I read in the news. I'm not sure it is true, and I'm not attached to anyone's believing it or not.

            3. "Normally people that want to convince others of their viewpoint"

              There's your mistake.

        3. ●▬▬▬▬PART TIME JOBS FOR US RESIDENTS▬▬▬▬▬●
          Makes $140 to $180 per day online work and i received $17884 in one month online acting from home. I am a daily student and work simply one to a pair of hours in my spare time. Everybody will do that job and online makes extra cash by simply You can check more.

          open this web……↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓ ­­⇛­⇛­⇛­⇛­⇛­►Click here

    2. I'm sorry, what does any of this have to do with prostitution and abortions?

      1. It may prove they were just fucking around?

      2. ENB has her obsessions, and conservative and conservative-leaning libertarians have theirs.

        1. This is how it's done folks.

        2. Can you be more specific about these obsessions?

          1. Don't forget to cite your sources.

          2. ENB: "sex work", feminism
            CACLLs: Trump as victim of persecution, Trump as swamp drainer, Trump as last bastion of defense against the Green New Deal, Trump as most libertarian president (ever, in a long time, in this race), Democrats as all a bunch of liars, Democrats as being evil people, who is a sockpuppet of who, football, chemjeff's weight, Black Lives Matter, the mainstream media, Kyle Rittenhouse as hero, Reason not writing about topic CACLL is obsessed about.

            1. You are so broken.

              1. Perhaps, but I’ve got your number.

    3. So, is anyone asking why the frames were edited out? Seems pretty clear that the intention was to present a narrative knowing that the public would make their initial conclusions and then pay far less attention to the the inevitable corrections.

      The editors have engaged in a conspiracy to portray a murder as self defense. At the very least every journalist involved and their editors should be fired.

      1. Dollof drew and shot in one motion at a man who was retreating and not presenting any threat, let alone a lethal threat. The victim never went for his gun. The spray of mace was a reaction to the draw, and completely ineffectual. That is a murder. If their really was a plan to incite a response, it is 1st degree murder.

        1. It's a conspiracy between at least 4 people too - instigator, trigger man, producer, photographer.
          They were seen together throughout the day, conferring often.
          They even pick Keltner specifically to go after.

    4. If he pulled his gun first but then fired after being maced; how does that work with a mutual combat defense?

      Not saying that was the course of events, I plead somewhat ignorant on this case as the facts I've seen are rather sparse.

      1. There was no mutual combat. The guy only deployed his mace because someone drew a gun on him. That is self defense, not mutual combat.

      2. If he pulled his gun first ...

    5. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make Abi me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…CMs after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…>>Visit Here

    6. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this Abq month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions..........Click here

    7. I quit working at shop rite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 per/h. Without a doubt, this is the easiest and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started 6 muonths ago and this has totally changed my life.

      For more details………………Visit Here

  2. Trump Can End Census Now, Says Supreme Court in Ruling That Could Have Big Impact on House Seats

    The Democrats were pushing big for Census this year quickly and early and then Lefties created this Kungflu hysteria lie.

    The Constitution requires a Census every 10 years which should be completed in the year that it is required. It was started in 2020 and should be completed by Dec 31, 2020.

    Government employees need time to compile the data by Dec 31, 2020.

    Census 2020 was already going to force Blue states like Cmmifornia to lose House seats to states like Georgia and Texas.

    1. Pretty good work on getting the entire population of the earth to believe in a Democratic Party lie.

      1. I'm guessing you are stupid enough to have missed the point as opposed to 'clever' enough to hope people would believe what you claim.

      2. The liberals you side with exist in many countries. The us media is also globally influential.

        1. Love to see you explain, using Venn diagrams, how anything I said indicates that I side with liberals.

          1. You are to the Left of Centrist Libertarians, so that makes you a Socialist.

          2. I like how you want simplified pictures of your beliefs instead of actually stating your beliefs in any semi complex manner.

            Hint: You side/defend almost every leftist story on here. You side/defend most BLM/Antifa articles.

            What's the old saying again...

            1. Ducks are birds! Well done.

            2. Please link to even one place where I defended a leftist, Democrat, BLM, or antifa.

      3. Troll comment, but it's not a Democratic Party lie. It was a freak accident that was thoroughly exploited by authoritarians the world over to push their own agenda. The authoritarians in the US just happen to be Democrats.

        1. Are you advancing as fact the unsubstantiated belief that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a Chinese lab?

            1. Brain dead baby fascists: "STEM is really important, and the only thing worth learning in college. But scientists are wrong about: climate change, epidemics, germ theory, evolution, carcinogens, biospheres...."


                The replication crisis (or replicability crisis or reproducibility crisis) is, as of 2020, an ongoing methodological crisis in which it has been found that many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce. The replication crisis affects the social sciences and medicine most severely.[2][3]

                Scientists are right about EVERYTHING! JUST ACCEPT HER TRUTH!

              2. STEM is really important, and the only thing worth learning in college. But scientists (activists) are wrong about: climate change (hockey stick curve fraud, hiding emails where climate change "scientists" are worried about the lack of warming unrepeatable modules and altering historical data tk fit their narrative) , epidemics, germ theory (fauci and fergason have never said a correct thing since the 80s. The fda and cdc published fraudulent research about covid and vaping and aids and many others) , evolution(libritarian believe in evolution) , carcinogens (the falsified round up case, the Johnson and Johnson fraud, and the coffee/aclidomide being ruled a carcinogen) , biosphere (the recent retracted German insect apocolyps story, the expanding the definition of species to create a more urgent tone) ….”

                All of this on top of many "scientists" saying lying is okay because it helps get the point across. Stem is important, but you have many activists plaguing it who's only concern is getting rid of wrong think and amassing power and money.
                (note I left out all of the fraud in psych and soc because those aren't science)

              3. De Oppresso Liber: "Stupid conservatives don't listen to scientists, and by the way I don't listen to scientists who say masks aren't worth the trouble, COVID could have manmade origins"

                1. DOL listens to “The Science” because he doesn’t know how science really works.

                2. I have posted the studies here many, many times. The overwhelming majority of studies on the topic show that masks are effective. The studies that are posted here as refutation never claim that masks are ineffective, but that doesn't stop brain dead cultists from seeing what they want to see.

                  With that level of evidence, and the extremely low cost of just wearing a fucking piece of cloth over your nose and mouth, I judge masks to be a good cost/benefit measure.

                  1. The good news is that if we wear a fucking piece of cloth over our nose and mouth forever, we'll never get sick again.

                  2. Hey, DoL, the studies you post say that N95 masks are somewhat effective in a clinical environment when worn correctly. The mass of the population are wearing cloth masks incorrectly.

                    Masks are not effective for the general populace. End of story. Sit down and STFU.

                3. I don't listen to "scientists" who can only get published in partisan rags.

                  If you actually follow the links posted in the intro paragraph to LC's article, you will find that they do not support a man made origin for covid at all. The one paper that makes such a claim has not been peer reviewed, and has been refuted by many other teams of scientists.

                  It's a blatantly dishonest article from a blatantly dishonest, partisan rag. I understand why the cultists like it; they like things that confirm their fantastic worldview, and hate things that do not.

                  You can always find one kook with an agenda to write whatever you want to read. That's where ill educated and willfully ignorant cultists come in to cherry pick, which is ironically what you accuse me of, when I follow the scientific mainstream almost completely.

                  1. Okay, so we're supposed to LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS!, but only the scientists that confirm your own biases.

                    1. Good scientists good, bad scientists bad. How difficult is that?

          1. Of course you'd take that from my comment, because I never said anything even close to that. Not grade A trolling, but here I am still replying.

            It literally doesn't matter where the Wuflu came from, the fact is that it spread and it's been used as an excuse for obscene abuses of power by authoritarians the world over, including Democrats here.

            1. The lefties here love to make up shit about what others are saying. It’s partly because they’re dishonest, but also because they’re not very bright.

              1. This is what is called a question: “Are you advancing as fact the unsubstantiated belief that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a Chinese lab?”

                It was phrased as a question precisely because I was not sure that was what Moonrocks was saying.

                And, besides, I am a libertarian, not a lefty.

                In other words, you just said two things about me that were not true.

                1. No you’re a lefty Dee.

            2. “It was a freak accident...”

              What were your referring to if not the belief that the virus was accidentally released from a Chinese lab?

      4. Socialists stick together.

    2. "If unauthorized immigrants were excluded from the apportionment count, California, Florida and Texas would each end up with one less congressional seat"

      Is this another example of partisans fighting the wrong battle?

  3. You will be pleased to learn that your tax dollars are ensuring that Melania Trump can enforce an NDA against her personal advisor, even though neither of them work for the government

    How am I not surprised, the low-grade, low-class Russian whore is taking my tax dollars for some sick revenge scheme of hers.

    1. So we should stop using taxes to fund the court system?
      Or just for Trump?

      1. Considering this isn’t a matter of Federal interest, the Trump family could hire their own lawyers to pursue a lawsuit against the friend who betrayed her.

        1. Congress and senators use the same avenues as members of federal government in these types of lawsuits.

          Unless you're claiming the office of the first lady has zero federal dollars going to her.

          1. Can you give an example of a senator, etc. using the DoJ to pursue a defamation lawsuit for their spouse?

            1. I would say that in this case anything that can hurt the first spouse may leave the the president vulnerable to bribery coercion etc so yes it is in the public interest to spend federal dollars to defend her. that said i do believe that all private suits against sitting presidents in the past had to be paid by the president not the tax payers. wether this is good or bad i'm undecided

              1. Before calling me a dumbass, maybe you could find an article that talks about precedents for the *spouse* of a Federal government figure, as I asked. That you fudged on that part would make me dumbass rubber and you dumbass glue.

            2. And here you go for the case precedence.

              You really are a know nothing ignoramus.


              1. This case only tangentially involves the spouse, in that it involves marriage and presumably he was married to a spouse (which is usually how these things work). Nice try.

          2. 1) There should be no Office of the First Lady since it doesn't appear in our constitution.

            2) You are correct that Congress has been doing this for things like the 17 mil they spent on sexual harassment and other lawsuits which they were summarily chastised for. More work should be made to name names on that one but it seems like both Pelosi and P. Ryan worked to hide this under the rug. Does that make it right for the White House to turn around and do it? Should Bill Clinton's legal expenses been paid for by the taxpayer for his skirt chasing?

            1. although it would be funny if there were an Office of the First Lady in the Constitution and Kamala's husband had to call himself that.

              1. Lol

          3. office of the first lady


    2. Liberals Are People Too


      1. Let us comment the morning CACLL One Minute of Hate.

        1. And then watch you cry anout it.

          1. So, you acknowledge there is a morning round of hating on liberals and signaling to each other among the conservative and conservative-leaning libertarian commenters.

            1. The Republicans around here are awful. I can't even believe how disgusting this place is. Me and my husband are appalled at the hate we've gotten just for being liberals and expressing our beliefs in the comments here. We actually fear for our lives. I hope you're okay, you're very brave for standing up to these bullies.

              1. Lol

                Not bad.
                Not great, but not bad.

                1. “We actually fear for our lives.”

                  Haha. Yeah, gotta be trolling. Or a staffer at the NYT. We all know how delicate they are.

            2. You have replied to every single one of the conservative posts in this thread. Almost every single post they make has you replying with a trollish one liner that stereotypes, condescends and whines.

              As a child you should have learned the phrases about throwing stones from glass houses, or pots and kettles. But perhaps you haven't reached that phase of your development, since I'm guessing that you are muttering "They started being mean first."

              It is disappointing that the mean kids can't avoid stinking up the place with their shit-flinging, but just grow up and ignore them. To the extent that you (and LAPT if she isn't a parody) act so hurt about what people are saying on the internet, you are just giving the monkeys what they want.

              This is very simple- if you see a stupid troll comment, skip past it. I've been doing that for 4 years, since the trumpers arrived, and for what feels like decades since SPB got here. It is liberating just how easy it is to not give a fuck.

              1. You realize you just gave white knight exactly what he wants.
                His trolling got you to vilify, in blanket terms, all pro Trump comment(er)s.
                Really mutes your otherwise accurate criticism when you essentially affirm his perspective.

              2. Keep in mind one of the first things Dee did after becoming white knight was to steal my handle to teach everyone to be civil. That was a great idea that’s working out great for her.

              3. "if you see a stupid troll comment, skip past it."

                That you for permission to ignore your virtue signaling.

              4. Yes, I respond to conservatives, because in a given day the CACLLs here make numerous untrue or questionable statements. I try to stick a pin in every CACLL bubble of echoed untruth I see.

                This is a libertarian website. I'm going to challenge non-libertarians who echo conservative narratives here, when those narratives stray from truth.

                1. Yes, I respond to conservatives, because in a given day the CACLLs here make numerous untrue or questionable statements. I try to stick a pin in every CACLL bubble of echoed untruth I see.

                  Except for the fact that you're not actually offering the "truth" in refutation, you're just being contrarian.

                  1. Aka, squawking like a bird. Because Dee is a bird.

            3. Do you have a citation? Or do you want nobody to care about your argument?

        2. You really think this is a clever comment with how often you repeat it. Next up, Canadians should stay quiet.

          1. They don’t have to stay quiet. It’s just really weird for one to be so deeply, deeply obsessed with American politics.

            1. You're actually retarded WK. You never learn and still don't realize you reveal how deep your ignorance is every time you say this.
              Would it be weird for Australians to be obsessed with American politics ? Here's a link to an Australian news network covering the US election. Super weird how people living in a country so far away to be so deeply, deeply obsessed with US politics right ?


              1. Dee doesn’t understand why the president is called “The leader of the free world”.

                1. White knight doesn't believe in a free world.

        3. It's 'Two Minutes Hate', you cretin. You can't even get your quotes correct.

          And the description Orwell made describes exactly what we see every day when jeffy, DoL, Tony, SPB, or one of the many throwaway socks like LAPT, log on for the day. I won't lump you in with them because yours doesn't rise to that level, it is more like 'Two minutes Passive-Aggressive Innuendo'.

          The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.

          1. This one only goes to 1.

            Seriously, though, thanks for the correction.

    3. Melania is Slovenian.

      1. Also, hot.

    4. >>Russian whore

      Slovenia, dummy. Troll better.

  4. I’m to lazy to read through the 600+ comments in the Whitmer kidnapping thread. Anyone remember the name of a previous case that was similar where the judge through out the case because it was bs?

    1. Evidently the FBI informant even admitted under oath that this criminal case is based on discussions of kidnapping and surveillance of the Governor's mansion.

      These guys are dipshit but I think the FBI arrested them because there was actually a criminal conspiracy and real action that a kidnapping was definitely going to occur.

      Its not illegal to discuss a crime and then not actually do the crime.

      1. I saw something on Facebook, which I haven’t looked into yet, that their defense attorney is claiming that the undercover fed was the one that pushed the group into it. That’s why I’m curious about the previous case.

          1. Yeah that’s the one, thanks.

      2. Allegedly, they had moved beyond discussion to making a move to purchase explosives. It was at that point they were arrested.

        1. Do you have notarized proof of this wild claim?

          1. Nope, just news stories.

            As I’ve said many times, if this follows the pattern of other big, politically-charged news stories like this, more and more facts will come out, especially in the first week. And the initial reporting will prove to be wrong.

            1. "News" Stories from a proven lying MSM that tries to fix Narratives that do not agree with their plan.

            2. And yet no citations even after begging others for them in this very thread. Amazing!

              1. I’d provide a citation if I cared, as I explained to you in another comment on this page.

            3. Normally when people ...

        2. Your cite is missing.

          1. Not worth citing. I don’t really have any dog in this hunt, and don’t care about convincing anyone it is true.

            It’s just what I’ve read in the news. Could be wrong.

            1. AKA you're full of shit.

            2. Well you were wrong on Wisconsin gun laws for sure. But you argued for hours about that one. All because you heard it on the news.

              Weird you act like that with no dog in the hunt.

              1. You, my dear friend, are the one who made a big argument about it, because you were trying to get one over on me

                1. No you posted some shit you don’t know anything about and got ridiculed for it, to my amusement.

            3. So you were lying.

          2. unreason bots dont need to cite. They make wild claims and dont have to prove it just like unreason articles.

            Lefties that run unreason dont even realize how this is backfiring against them. They will when they get laid off, like their betters at NYT and WaPo.

        3. except there were no actual explosives, and the purported seller was the FBI itself?

        4. Shut the fuck Dee.

      3. It is illegal me lawyer to conspire to commit a crime. And the line between 'discussing' and 'planning' is very blurry.

  5. unreason should do an article on how many times Trump has won in courts. It's a lot.

    unreason usually covers some Lefty District Court judge in Hawaii demanding some injunction nationwide over immigration or whatever and then the federal court of appeals or SCOTUS reverses those incorrect District Court decisions. Handing those wins to Trump.

    unreason doesnt cover those follow up reversals for some reason.

    1. “unreason should do an article on how many times Trump has won in courts.”

      Ha! Now that’s funny.

    2. So, you essentially want Reason to be another zerohedge.

      1. You really get offended when people criticize your idols. You seem to have a problem.

        1. What website are we on?

          1. unreason. Lefty rag.

          2. So you only go to websites when you idolize someones viewpoints? You never seek out any challenges to your world bubble?

            You sound so learned and intelligent!!!

            1. There’s a vast difference between going to a website and spending every day habituating a website’s comments section.

    3. There should be a rule that when a district court have been overruled three times they should be replaced. Of course then some supes would not overturn because they wouldn't want them fired while others would want them fired


    Overlooked is the fact the
    seized Hunter Biden’s laptop in DECEMBER (yes during impeachment) this evidence would have proved Biden’s shady business deals with Ukraine.

    1. Yeah, I figured that wouldn't make the cut for this today.

    2. And there is video of Hunter doing crack and then doing a hooker....unreal.

      1. The picture of him passed out with a crack pipe hanging out of his mouth is classic!

    3. Good scoop by the Post.

      1. How is this not a textbook case of influence peddling by Hunter Biden? The emails are absolutely damning.

        1. It is influence peddling by Joe Biden

    4. Facebook is limiting distribution because it hasn't been fact checked...

  7. Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad

    Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post.

    The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month.

    “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads.

    An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.

    The blockbuster correspondence — which flies in the face of Joe Biden’s claim that he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings” — is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer.

    The computer was dropped off at a repair shop in Biden’s home state of Delaware in April 2019, according to the store’s owner.

    Other material extracted from the computer includes a raunchy, 12-minute video that appears to show Hunter, who’s admitted struggling with addiction problems, smoking crack while engaged in a sex act with an unidentified woman, as well as numerous other sexually explicit images.

    1. Ummm who cares?

      1. At least no one will suspect it’s me.

      2. You. You do. A lot.

      3. Certainly not lefty fucking ignoramuses like you.

    2. Local news. Russia isn’t a thing anymore.

      1. Last I checked Hunter Biden's not running for POTUS.

        1. Don’t over play it, you’ll burn out.

        2. His father using his son to sell access and influence over US foreign policy is a big fucking deal. Biden is a crook.

          1. So, what's your point?
            Both the Clintons are crooks. What difference, at this point, does it make?

          2. This is textbook influence peddling.

        3. Did you miss the email where Joe met with people arranged by his Son?

          1. Does it count as a meeting if Sleepy Joe wasn't awake for it?

        4. Turnabout is fair game. Dems have harped on Trump's kids in WH for 4 years now. Repubs will do the same now. Is this your first presidential election? Its called attacking your opponents integrity and is an effective strategy.

        5. Yeah, and I totally believe that you wouldn't care if this was Don Jr., either.

          1. isn't Donald Trump Jr, is it? No, it is the crackhead son of a POTUS candidate. And this is not something to be concerned about? You think maybe Sleepy Joe might be compromised by Druggie Hunter?

            C'mon man.

    3. I, uh, guess Hunter hasn't quite licked that sexual addiction problem. And looks like Joe might get ANOTHER grandkid he doesn't want to admit to.


    In China, much capital is privately OWNED, but DOMINATED by the CCP. The rest of the world is becoming like that - capital is owned by American or European companies, but it obeys the commands of the Chinese Communist Party, or else it suffers massive economic retaliation.
    This is most clearly and obviously seen in Hollywood, news media, and certain pro sports, but believe me, it's getting worse in every industry the CCP cares to dominate. That trend would massively accelerate under a Biden presidency, and not just because China bought him off.
    It will get worse because Biden, and the left-wing radicals he would sweep into power, are madly determined to sabotage everything America could do to compete with Chinese industrial and political influence. The Green New Deal might as well be called the China Triumph Plan.
    There isn't a single pillar of American strength the Biden Democrats are not salivating to destroy. Give them a few years to work on America, and China's dominance as global hegemon will be unquestioned. They'll push us back into every globalist pit China has dug for us.
    Worse still, the increasingly totalitarian Democrat Party AGREES with much of China's ideology, very much including that 8-cylinder fascist engine rumbling under the hood. Absolute political domination of private capital, political control over every aspect of life? Yes, please!
    China will dominate the 21st Century because America under Democrat control will try to emulate their system instead of fighting it. The Dems will try to "learn" from China's "success," embracing the power of fascism while swearing they can avoid its grisly ornaments.
    This happened last time around, too - the elite intellectual class of the early 20th century was brimming with people who thought fascism was brilliant, Hitler and Mussolini were geniuses - just look at their incredible economic achievements! - and we needed to get on board.
    It will be MUCH worse this time, because China was given decades to loot the Western world through idiotic globalist "engagement," develop the sharp power it needs to control Western politics, and study the mistakes made by the Nazis and Soviet Union.
    Imagine going up against Hitler, except in this version of history he has political control over much of the West's capital and culture. No one in America dares make a movie or TV show that insults him or violates Nazi speech codes. Everyone fears losing access to German markets.
    Vital supply chains for everything from household goods to medicine and military equipment run through Germany. Nazi media constantly threatens to cut those chains if the free world is too "provocative" or acts against Nazi interests. ...

    1. Lol! Who needs control from CCP when we get controlled by Uncle Sam and his 50 children and hundreds of grand children? EPA, IRS, safety code, health department, etc etc.

      Don't get me wrong, I hate the CCP. But they didn't tell millions of small business owners that they had to shut down the last 6 months. Fuck Hollywood and their groveling. Far more harm is being done by our own government. Let's get them the fuck out of our business first.

  9. You’ll be pleased to know that Michelle Obama had undue influence over school lunches, even though she doesn’t work for the government.

    1. I’m sure Wolkoff‘s book will not include any government related information. Probably just stuff about yoga classes and wedding planning.

  10. Except For Locked-Down Blue States, America’s Economic Recovery From COVID-19 Is Amazingly Strong

    unreason and Democrats hardest hit!

    Georgia is open for business and has been. No masks. No state restrictions. Homes being built. Businesses being built. People going to work.

    Less than 1% death rate.

    1. I wish a moderator would come and fact check this. Every word is a lie. Less than 1%? Gotta cite for that? Red States were way way way worse than blue states and that's a fact. I’m guessing you're a Russian troll here to spread disinformation?

      1. That is first class trolling there.

        1. I give it a B-.

        2. Not really, it is too obvious. It is more of a pathetic cry for attention than trolling, on the the level of SQRLSY or the Redneck Killer. I give it a C-.

          1. Tough, but fair.

          2. While I don’t claim to speak for the official judge of performative outrage, I will anyway: .000000000001/10

        3. smacks of effort, John. C-


        7,454 deaths as of 3:15PM yesterday.
        Georgia 2020 population is estimated at 3,989,167 people at mid year according to UN data

        You do the math.

        1. It has been firmly established that math is racist.

        2. Dude, that is the population of the country of Georgia.

          The US state was 10,617,423 mid year 2019.

          333,080 TOTAL CONFIRMED CASES*

          1. Just another point of proof that Google is out to influence the election (?)

            1. Nice pivot! I like it.

        3. That population of 3.9M is for the COUNTRY of Georgia.
          STATE of Georgia population as of Census 2019 is 10.6 million. Its higher in 2020.

      3. Needs more irrational Trump hate (Nazi is always nice) and maybe a cheap shot at a random Conservative because people love to hate that kind of thing but not bad.

        1. Lying Jeffy went with Jeffrey Dahmer the other day. That was pretty funny.

      4. New unreason bot.

        JHU sick map.
        333,304 confirmed infected in Georgia. Tens of thousands more infected but never tested because of a Wuhanvirus infection rate ~10% of 10.6 millions Georgians. Deaths while infected at 7,454 as of today.

        Since actual infections are higher and deaths from actual virus killing them are lower, the death rate is <1%

        1. even when rounding its less than a 1000th of a percent

      5. the death rate is around 0.6% nationwide, per the CDC. so yes, that's less than 1%.

      6. 'Moderator' *snort*. We don't need no stinkin' moderators.

        We need an edit button!

  11. Contra Media Poll Narrative, Trump Tracking Just Fine In Electoral College

    Lefties don't have many strategies left, so they still think lying about polling data will get all those new Trump voters to change their minds.

    Democrats really do hate elections because more and more Americans are not voting Democrat.

    1. The polls are there for the "he cheated!!" violence in case they lose. This is the only reason for the polls.

      1. Yes. Exactly that. They also are there for the Democratic establishment to avoid blame for losing the election. If Biden loses, the far left is going to claim the problem was the Democrats didn't run a big enough lunatic and there is a real danger the party will go so far left it splits. The Democrats' plan to avoid that is to claim Trump cheated and Biden didn't really lose thus focusing the left on burning down cities rather than taking over the party.

        1. Big plus...most cities are Democrat.

          I do like Biden now blaming Trump for the lockdowns. That's some borderline chutzpah

          1. I know at least five suburban white women who are all obsessed with COVID and think they entire country should be welded inside their homes to stop it and then turn right around and blame Trump for the economic harms caused by the lockdowns. They also called Trump a racist when he cut off travel to China last winter but now claim he is the worst President ever because he did nothing to stop COVID.

            The sheer audacity and amount of their irrationality and emotionalism is amazing. Someone could get a PHD writing on the neurosis and irrationality of the typical suburban white woman.

            1. "...They also called Trump a racist when he cut off travel to China last winter but now claim he is the worst President ever because he did nothing to stop COVID..."

              I'm sure they are also convinced that the Euros have done just wonderfully, since they are so culturally-advanced, right?
              "Europe's travel windows are slamming shut"
              "Just weeks after many countries opened their borders to travelers within the continent, some have been closing again, often at such short notice that people are left scrambling to get home before quarantine orders are put in place.
              Such confusion, often coupled with acrimony and threats of reprisals from countries who feel unfairly added to so-called "red lists" of Covid-19 unsafe destinations, looks set to undermine efforts to salvage Europe's vital summer tourism economy well before the warm sunshine months have cooled into winter..."

              1. When I point out things like this or the fact that the US's death rate is comparable to Europe and way better than Europe's if you don't count Democratic paradises of New York and New Jersey all achieved with significantly less economic damages, I am told I just have a bad case of supporting Trump. No shit. That is their answer when confronted with contrary facts. It is fucking terrifying how ignorant and irrational these women are.

                1. Some of these women wont admit that they are irrational thinkers and have to try real hard to be rational thinkers. Women ra-ra themselves into this fantasy they can multi-task things where that is not a talent they have.

                  Justifying Kungflu hysteria in spite of actual numbers even with low deaths rates in states like Georgia that didnt have lockdowns just shows how irrational one's thinking is. You are literally rejecting scientific method which favors objective rational thought.

                2. Let’s not just put this all on chicks. I know dudes who think(?) like this.

            2. John, not sure if know anything about the NXVIM cult.

              HBO has documentary about that cult and there are numerous discussions with ex-cult members. Lots of women.

              These women (and men) dont realize how crazy and gullible they sound to people watching the show. They try to act like victims but since it was a pyramid scheme, they often convinced people close to them to join/give money.

              I honestly think a good portion of the Lefty women in America use delusion and projection to avoid personal responsibility. It is such a powerful tool for them to justify their abhorrent behavior against others, that they wont even admit that they are doing it. There is some sociopathy there.

              This is a scary departure from the women that are nurturers for their families and friends. Some of these "Liberated women" are sociopathic assholes.

              1. There seems to be a rise in pyramid schemes these days. My wife has several female friends who tried to sell her on them. I thought those things went out with the 70s.

                1. Of course poor education plays a part, so people refuse to learn from mistakes especially those that happened more than 10 years ago.

                  Not giving young people the skill of skepticism plays a part too. Socialists cannot allow skepticism or nobody would sign up for their nonsense.

                  NXVIM also had a bunch of non-Americans join with cult centers in cities like Vancouver.

                2. Also, we talk about Lefties are actually religious on here sometimes, and the NXVIM show illustrates that. They hated that Trump won in 2016, so they felt they needed to do something. They followed a "divine" prophet, used religious terminology, and conducted religious type rituals.

                3. Nah, it's been a thing for as long as I can remember, they're called Multi Level Marketing now. One of my college buddies was trying to bang some chick that was involved with one that was selling energy drinks or something. Before he brought her over the first time he asked us not to be mean to her about it since he was still trying to score.

                  I managed to bite my tongue until she went into the sales pitch and wouldn't shut the fuck up about how I needed her $5 energy drinks. She might still be crying from the tirade I went on. My buddy was not pleased, but a man has his limits on what he'll put up with in his own home.

                  In any case, the MLM people market these things to women as "being your own boss!", "make your own hours!" and "it's empowering!". The pandemic has likely made it worse since more people are looking for ways to make money.

              2. It's women who believe victimhood is virtue and whinging is action. They are consumed by completely irrational fears and hatreds and find a repulsive sense of community in this. Unfortunately, members of my own family have provided me with vivid examples of this behavior.

              3. I was reminded of the influence of fear and mommys as I drove past the school today and saw all of the cars lined up to pick up their little ones because they can no longer ride a bus together. Along with keeping them safe from bullies and the socialization needed to build some kind of defensive skin against offense, that is also a tremendous amount of the workforce that is interrupted each day to play chauffeur to and from school. I hate to be the old man curmudgeon but what a bunch of coddled kids we are raising these days.

            3. There are a lot of people like that, including the Dem campaigns. They say how Trump and Republicans should have put all these restrictions on everything, then turn around and blame them for the economic damage wrought "by the virus" (when really it was the political response to the virus). To the extent this has any logical basis, I guess it is that, according to Ds, if Trump would have just ordered everyone not to leave their house for two weeks in March and that everyone must wear a mask at all times, this would have literally disappeared from the nation this spring and there wouldn't be economic hardship because of restrictions (or people just not wanting to go out) now. Just like how every other "better" country on Earth has eradicated the virus with their authoritarian lockdowns and masks... right?

            4. According to, I believe, Gallup --- 5% of Dem men and 3% of Dem women are ready to return to life as normal. That is it. Fear porn has worked amazingly well.

              1. About 30-40 years of media brainwashing towards hyper-risk aversion has finally come home to roost.

                1. And yet bodies aren't stacking up like cordwood. So far, they're about 1/3 of the number of people killed by heart disease every year, and we're not seeing the huge spikes in deaths that we saw early on.

                  That was the whole fucking point of "flattening the curve"--allowing hospitals with the chance to manage surges until the virus settled down fully. That's basically what's happening right now.

                  On the back end, we've seen that the illness primarily kills older fat people. Don't be a fucking fatass and your chances of getting sick from this are small, your chances of dying from it even smaller. Meanwhile, economies were blown to shit, medical treatments put off because of fear of the coof, and mental illness and depression on the rise. All because hyper-risk averse hysterics want everyone to shut themselves inside and wear a fucking face cloth for an indeterminate amount of time.

                  1. I haven't seen the numbers recently, but total deaths wasn't up by a significant margin last I checked.

                    Meaning, of the people who have died because of COVID this year, most of them would've died this year anyways from the litany of other health issues they already had.

                    To the extent that our numbers are worse than other countries it's because we're a country of fatasses. Sweden has a much lower obesity rate, and despite their total lack of lockdown is doing better than we are. My wild ass guess is this is mostly due to the average Swede not being 1 Twinkie away from a coronary.

                    1. There is going to have to be a correction in the relatively near future. The average age of deaths with covid is something near 80- thus, almost all of those people would be dead within 10 years even if you don't consider any other health factors (i.e. it's not just a bunch of 80 year olds, but a bunch of 80 year old fatties with advanced heart disease). Therefore, if we have 250k excess deaths this year attributed to covid, based on the profile of those deaths we MUST see a corresponding reduction in deaths (negative excess deaths, as it were) in the years to come. Given how tough of shape most of those who died were in, I don't expect we will need to wait a decade for that to happen- we might (this isn't a guarantee, but a possibility) even see a significant negative excess death number in the last quarter of this year, even. There are only so many unhealthy 80+ year olds out there- at some point fairly soon, the people dying would either have to start being of a different demographic (and I'm pretty sure we would be made aware if suddenly the average covid death was in their 40s or 50s) or the excess deaths need to taper off.

            5. studying the neurosis of white women would give the scientist a neurosis. One can not define the undefinable. Theres a reason why Jesus wasn't married and he was the son of the creator of women, he knew better.

          2. Cuomo blamed the nursing home deaths on the GOP yesterday. Democrats have no shame.

    2. There's a reason the leftist media is tacking completely opposite to their 2016 narrative on accepting the results of the election. They think the election won't go their way, so they're already preparing to never accept it.

      I'm just excited to see Trump get enough electoral votes to win on election night while California, New York, etc. spend months "finding" ballots in random cars.

      1. With New York City losing 20% of it's population, New York might be a bit more competitive than usual. I don't think Trump will win New York, but I would love to see them have to manufacture a few thousand mail in ballots to keep it from happening.

        1. I think those leftists states will also see more vote fraud than usual this time around, cancelling out any right-wing bump that may have happened. On the other hand, that extra fraud will be so blatant and so expected that we may see some indictments for vote tampering crimes, cleaning up those states somewhat for future elections.

  12. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is looking for a chance to cut down Section 230.

    The free ride for commenting is OVER. Let the free ride for attorneys begin.

    1. Just give Twitter the same legal exposure as the NY Times has.

      1. Are you really that stupid?
        Hint: Give Twitter the same exposure AT&T has.

        1. Last I looked AT&T doesn't revoke my cell service because they don't like what I have to say on the phone. If Twitter wants to act to the same standard, they can have the same immunity. Otherwise, they can fuck off and be treated like every other publisher.

          1. No No. As libertarians we must continue to defend special liability protections to sub sections of industry we prefer. Anything else would destroy the 1A as we know it.

            1. unreason still thinks the 1A protection "freedom of the press" applies to the media not just anyone who prints speech.

              1. There is definitely some writers here that appear to think journalists are a protected class.

        2. AT&T isn't curating content.

    2. Wtf man you wanna get sued?

    3. Speak for yourself Monseigneur! I've maked $25-85/hrs. commenting from home on these very nice articles for years and I don't face charges... now and ever!

      Tosee how... > > CLICK HERE!


    Senator Kennedy calling some Boston U law professor some "butt head professor" was awesome. Of course the guy called Kennedy a racist. The professor objects to interracial adoption but it is everyone but him who is racist. Whatever you tell yourself there pal.

    1. If Boston U had any standards at all that guy would've been fired instantly. Making a claim, with no evidence of any kind, that this woman adopted those kids as some kind of political stunt is disgusting, and outright racist. It's so disgusting and racist that anyone with any sense of dignity would distance themselves from the accuser immediately.

      But it's Boston, the most racist place in the country, so this will probably go completely unchecked aside from Sen Kennedy's comments.

      1. you know who else went to Boston U?

    2. Mazie Hirono had a senior moment and thought she was questioning Kavanuagh again.

      That pharmacist in DC who was laughing on social media about how many Alzheimer meds he has to fill out for these politicians makes more sense every day.

      1. That or setting up a "shocking" accusation from all the former students they're spamming

      2. Feinstein is 87. Pelosi is 80. It is stunning how old these people are. There is no way Feinstein is playing with a full deck.

        1. The sad part is that these fossils are going to be the last of a generation of legitimately competent politicians.

          Once the Gen-Xers and Millennials begin taking over things, which has already started to a certain extent, the country is going to go to shit pretty fast because these generations never stopped looking at elections like a middle school student council contest.

          1. En masse, maybe. There are some decent X'ers in the bunch. Cruz, Rand Paul (does a 63 birth year make him an Xer?), Massie. Probably some Millennials worth a shit too.

            The current political culture needs to change though, in a big way.

            1. Xers are generally accepted to have started in 1965. Paul is close, but technically he's a late-stage Boomer.

              The current political culture needs to change though, in a big way.

              The political culture won't change unless the people themselves change. There's too much invested now in zero-sum politics, which has been increasing in intensity ever since the New Left took over the Democratic party and their foot soldiers started the long march through the institutions in the early 70s. The Boomers massively fucked up by implementing scorched-earth political strategies while teaching their kids that power is the ultimate goal, and as such any means to acquire it is justified.

              A best-case scenario would be a complete divorce from each other, but that's probably not going to happen. People always forget that the Roman empire went through several civil wars, some of them that spanned across continents, and it still didn't completely break apart until 476 AD. England's done the same and still managed to survive as a distinct nation for centuries.

              There's too much to be controlled in terms of resources and geopolitical standing in this country to allow an amicable breakup.
              The first ones who actually try it are probably going to get MOAB'd into dust, with whomever happens to be in charge taking over what's left. And the aftermath won't be like the first Civil War--back then we were still a nation that was largely ethnically homogenous, so there was an acceptance that the former Confederates needed to be re-integrated back into the Union in order for the country could heal and get on with building the US up again.

              The fact that the country is far more ethnically diverse now, combined with the seething hatred that liberal whites have for their own ethnic group (they're the ONLY demographic with negative in-group bias, and they're also the ones largely in charge of mass media organs and the educational system), means that any civil conflict is not only going to be incredibly vindictive and violent, there's not going to be ANY hope of reconciliation afterwards. The vast majority of Union soldiers certainly didn't go to war to free the slaves--they fought to make the country whole again. That kind of broader motivation won't be the case next time.

  14. Broke: Don't be evil

    Diego Rivera: honoring a big Communist with a Google doodle
    President Obama, Occupy protesters, and even the Muppets have been accused of communist leanings. But Mexican muralist Diego Rivera was the real thing.

    1. Today Mr. Rivera, a one-time member of the Mexican Communist Party who roiled with his portrayal of Vladimir Lenin and jockeyed the Mexican government for asylum for Leon Trotsky, is being commemorated with a special version of Google's logo to celebrate the 125th anniversary of his birthday.

  15. In regards to the Sotomayor dissent, am I correct in surmising that hers was the only dissent? I'm sure I'm correct in surmising that the Constitution says what it says about the way the census is conducted regardless of whether we like what that means for illegal immigrants or blue states losing representatives in the House. In fact, that rule can be generalized . . .

    Facts are what they are regardless of whether we like the implications and regardless of whether they hurt our feelings. The good news is that reality has a libertarian and capitalist bias so we don't need to fear the facts. Our opponents fear the facts, which is why they twist them. Picking a position and pretending the facts are other than what they are to support it is for authoritarians, socialists, and stupid people who can't use persuasion.

    Libertarians use facts and reason not only because persuasion is the only legitimately libertarian means for change within the framework of a civil society but also because a society predicated on facts and reason would necessarily be a more libertarian and capitalist society. Pretending things are other than the way they are, therefore, fundamentally undermines the libertarian cause.

    If the Constitution and the law allows President Trump to end the census "early", then that's what they do.

    1. Sotomayor is a racialist. Hence her dissent.

      1. I've heard she's wise. Shouldn't we listen to her wisdom?

    2. P.S. The Constitution will still say what it says regardless of whether Biden packs the Court with seven more justices.

      1. Yeah, but his justices won't care what it actually says. That's the problem.

    3. I saw the clip where Amy Barrett was trying to answer Senator from CT about 2nd Amendment gun control laws being struck down.

      Barrett said that the 2nd Amendment allows from taking guns from "dangerous" people but not a blanket stripping of 2nd Amendment rights.

      I disagree with her because the 2nd Amendment specifically prohibits the government from infringing on rights to keep and bear Arms for any reason.

      Only duly convicted person under the custody of the state can be placed in a position of slavery (under the 13th Amendment) and have rights stripped during their incarceration.

      This means that ex-felons gun control, restraining orders, red flag laws are all unconstitutional gun control.

      1. Same with 1st Amendment rights of peaceful assembly, religion, speech, and press cannot be taken away without the person(s) being duly convicted and having the 13A allow for deprivation of rights while in state custody.

        Its also why the Founders wanted to make it so difficult for the state to get you into state custody.

        After Democrats were defeated in the Civil war, Democrats used penal codes to strip constitutional rights from Black Americans that they could not otherwise strip away.

        1. I argue that the Second Amendment doesn't protect the right to violate other people's rights with a gun, and the First Amendment doesn't protect the right to violate other people's rights with your speech. In both cases, if you use your gun or your speech to violate other people's rights, the government has a legitimate duty to protect people's rights from you.

          There is a process they need to go through that's fairly well defined. They need to give you legal counsel, respect your right not to be compelled to testify against yourself, give you a jury of your peers, etc.

          I think they also need to prove something to the jury that should be extremely important to libertarians--mens rea. I would argue that if a jury finds unanimously that you willfully chose to use your gun in the commission of a crime, then they have effectively also found that you have willfully chosen to forgo the right to bear arms.

          And that isn't just as a function of mens rea, that's also a function of the fact that a jury isn't the government. Maybe the government shouldn't violate your rights, but what does a jury of "your peers" mean if not that the jury isn't the government?

          1. "[T]he First Amendment doesn’t protect the right to violate other people’s rights with your speech."

            Apart from defamation and incitement to imminent violence, what other categories of speech do you believe fall into the category of violating the rights of others?

            1. Those aren't the first examples I'd think of.

              Writing a note to a bank teller that reads, "I have a bomb. Empty your register or we're all dead" isn't protected by the First Amendment. That's robbery.

              Fraud isn't protected by the First Amendment. If you purposely defraud someone with your speech, you have violated their rights.

              Perjury isn't protected by the First Amendment. If you commit perjury, you're probably violating someone's rights.

              Violating people's rights is the legitimate definition of crime, and if you violate someone's right with your speech, the government has a legitimate obligation to protect people's rights from you--just like they would if you violated someone's rights with a gun. The Second Amendment protects your right to own and carry a gun without interference from the government. It does not grant you the freedom to shoot people indiscriminately. The First Amendment protects your right to speak without interference from the government. It does not grant you the freedom to violate other people's rights with impunity.

              1. The first example is robbery. The speech itself is not what is punishable.

                Similarly, in the second example, the speech itself is not what is punishable but the inducing of reliance in others.

                Likewise, one is not punished under the laws of perjury for the speech, but for disrupting either a tribunal or some other function of the legal system.

                None of the examples you cite are examples of punishment doled out for saying things that are intrinsically harmful, but for the conduct attendant to the speech.

                1. >>inducing of reliance in others

                  others also have free will to not rely w/o diligence. mho.

                  1. This is true. Fraud is not an easy thing to prove.

                2. "The first example is robbery. The speech itself is not what is punishable."

                  You're trying to split unsplittable hairs there. The point is that if you violate people's rights with your speech, that isn't protected by the First Amendment.

                  The guy in that example may not even be armed with anything but his note for the bank teller.

                  1. I am not splitting hairs.

                    Passing a note to someone that reads "I have a bomb, empty your register or we all die" is not punishable speech. Passing such a note to a bank teller becomes problematic because it is robbery and a threat. The speech, in this example, is not the prohibited conduct. The robbery is.

                    1. The correct answer is that because you robbed someone with speech doesn't mean it's protected by the First Amendment.

                    2. "The correct answer is that because you robbed someone with speech doesn’t mean it’s protected by the First Amendment."

                      The correct answer is that the speech itself is not the prohibited conduct, but the robbery.

                      Using a fork to eat your noodles is legal. Using a fork to murder someone is illegal. The distinction between legal and illegal conduct, in this example, is not the fork. I think you see my point.

                    3. So Geiger..."I have a bomb, do notempty your register or we all die". That speech doesn't violate a right?

                    4. "So Geiger…”I have a bomb, do not empty your register or we all die”. That speech doesn’t violate a right?"


                      I can prove it.

                      I just read that speech. And my rights have not been violated.

                      But if I was a cashier, and you were uttering those words with a bomb strapped to your chest, or with the intent to make me believe you had a bomb, in order that I surrender my money to you under duress, that would be a violation of my rights.

                      It is not the speech that is the violation, but the act of robbing someone.

                3. "Likewise, one is not punished under the laws of perjury for the speech, but for disrupting either a tribunal or some other function of the legal system."

                  The government is prosecuting you on the behalf of someone who's rights were violated regardless, and the reason it's a crime is because perjury probably means someones' rights were violated.

                  I maintain that the legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights, and that when the government protects our rights from perjurers it is not violating the First Amendment because the First Amendment doesn't protect the freedom to violate people's rights.

                  1. "The government is prosecuting you on the behalf of someone who’s rights were violated."

                    This is not correct. Perjury is punishable because of the harm to the judicial system. In the case of perjury, it is the judicial system, if anything, that violates the rights of others.

                    If a witness lies deliberately, or inadvertently testifies falsely, the rights, for example, of any accused may be equally violated in either circumstances. The dispositive factor is not the violation of the rights of some third party, but the intent of the perjurer to subvert the judicial system. The speech itself is not punishable, but the act of subverting the judicial system in its proper functions.

                    Your preferred formulation that any speech that violates the rights of others is, ipso facto, unprotected by the First Amendment opens the door to an endless stream of abuse by the government. It is a decidedly vague and exceedingly poor standard.

                    1. The reason perjury is wrong is because the people interested in the case have a right to justice and/or a fair hearing.

                      Whether you're violating a victim's right to justice with your perjury or whether you're violating an innocent man's right to a fair trial, someone's rights are probably being violated when you perjure yourself.

                      Regardless, the First Amendment doesn't protect violating people's rights with your speech, and if the crime of perjury can be rationalized in some other way, rather than as a crime against a victim, that doesn't mean it should be.

                    2. The speech itself is not the reason that perjury is prohibited. The fact that you are focusing upon the consequences to the legal system and/or the rights of those interested in its proper function demonstrates that sufficiently.

                      "[T]he First Amendment doesn’t protect violating people’s rights with your speech"

                      That is not the standard, nor should it be.

                    3. I'm saying that the First Amendment doesn't protect violating other people's rights with your speech, and you're contending that speech that violates other people's rights isn't speech--because what they're doing with their speech is either a crime or against the law?!

                      Once again, you're splitting unsplittable hairs.

                    4. "I’m saying that the First Amendment doesn’t protect violating other people’s rights with your speech"

                      And I am saying that other people's rights cannot be violated with speech.

                      Using your formulation, misremembering facts on the witness stand can be perjury. Having Tourette's syndrome and barking out threats at a bank teller can be robbery.

                      I am not splitting hairs. You are simply proposing an unworkable standard that is ripe for abuse.

              2. Would you be ok with taking someone's right to free speech away permanently?

                1. I think the penalty of having foregone your gun rights should probably be a part of the sentencing. Don't think I have a problem with that. I'm not sure there is or should be a one size fits all rule, but if it's just for anyone to enforce a jury's decision to find you guilty of violating someone's rights, surely it's the judge, whose legitimate responsibility it is to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. Those of us who wish to avoid forfeiting our right to bear arms should choose to not use them to violate people's rights.

                  1. The constitution must be amended to allow a 2A protection to be stripped when you are not instate custody anymore.

                    Thats like some punishment for a crime being you cant speak ever again. Thats ridiculous and not permitted by our constitution.

                    Its another reason that sex registries are not permitted by the constitution. Life sentences under the 13A are permissible for sex offenders. Instead politicians want to let sex offenders out of state custody but punish them for the rest of their lives.

          2. Then what other rights do you believe can be taken away from some one permanently and not just for the duration of a custodial sentence.

            What that really sounds like is that you're looking for a justification of the status quo and not reasoning from first principles.

  16. Fact Check: Amy Coney Barrett Did Not Write ‘Radical’ In Gun Rights Dissent

    Poor Democrats who think Arms restrictions that violate the 2nd Amendment are not radical.

    Trump is getting good judges who want to follow the Constitution and strike down these unconstitutional laws that Democrats and RINOs pass.


    Clarence Thomas questions the god emperors of tech. Thomas thinks that maybe section 230 should be read to mean something and in the context of it's passing. The horror.

    Quick where is Leo and the rest of you to come and stick up for the little guy. Maybe Thomas should just start his own Facebook rather than reading and interpreting statutes like he is a judge or something.

    n a statement on Tuesday, the powerful conservative justice said he thinks the high court should weigh in soon on the sweeping interpretations of Section 230 emerging from lower courts. He argued the courts have interpreted the statute too broadly, allowing internet companies to shirk any responsibility for the content posted on their platforms.

    "Extending §230 immunity beyond the natural reading of the text can have serious consequences," Thomas wrote, in response to a Section 230 case before the court, Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software. He agreed with his fellow justices that Malwarebytes is not the right case to take on. But he added, "in an appropriate case, it behooves us to do so."

    That monster!!

    He raised multiple high-profile examples, including Jane Doe v., in which a court determined Backpage could not be held liable for the design decisions that enabled sex trafficking on its site, and Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC, which determined online websites cannot be held liable for defamatory posts even if they select, edit and "prominently" feature that content.

    Websites can edit and feature content but they somehow are just neutral platforms or something. Yeah, that makes sense.

    1. John, I don't even think it was that controversial. Justice Thomas correctly pointed out that the legal distinction between distributor and publisher needs to be clarified and defined more precisely. I mean, the law was passed in 1996. It is not crazy to think the Congress in 1996 did not have a crystal ball into the future. How could they have known how the Internet would develop.

      This is much ado about who decides the question. The progressive ENB is troubled by a Justice Thomas making that definition.

      1. I don't think so either. People like ENB are on the payroll to defend the tech oligarchs. God forbid the courts read the statute as intended.

      2. "I mean, the law was passed in 1996. It is not crazy to think the Congress in 1996 did not have a crystal ball into the future. How could they have known how the Internet would develop."

        They protected platforms from necessarily frivolous lawsuits because they knew exactly what would happen if they didn't.

        In 1997, Amazon was a bookstore. They didn't start selling music and videos until 1998. Still, legislators understood the potential of ecommerce, and they knew exactly what might kill it, too.

        "The 1998 Internet Tax Freedom Act is a United States law . . . signed into law . . . on October 21, 1998 by President Bill Clinton in an effort to promote and preserve the commercial, educational, and informational potential of the Internet.[1][2] The law bars federal, state and local governments from taxing Internet access and from imposing discriminatory Internet-only taxes such as bit taxes, bandwidth taxes, and email taxes. It also bars multiple taxes on electronic commerce.[3]"

        The likely impact of floods of necessarily frivolous lawsuits was no more mysterious in 1996 than the likely impact of taxation and rent seeking was in 1998. in this case, things were made the way they are because legislators knew what exactly what they wanted--and to the extent that the internet has been a success since then, it's largely because of legislation like this.

        Certainly, just because you would have strangled Facebook in the cradle doesn't mean the world would be a better place if the government would strangle emerging companies in the cradle by unleasing a never ending deluge of necessarily frivolous lawsuits.

        1. Since when are lawsuits necessarily frivolous? Is it your opinion that all copyright and slander lawsuits are frivolous?

          More importantly, no one says they can't have immunity. They just have to stop engaging in content censorship and acting like publishers.

          Why do you and others refuse to even engage in that point?

          1. "Since when are lawsuits necessarily frivolous? Is it your opinion that all copyright and slander lawsuits are frivolous?"

            It is my opinion that if you want to sue someone for copyright or slander, you should sue the person who actually violated your rights--rather than third parties.

            If Tony sues Reason because Ken called him a retard when he actually doesn't have down syndrome, Reason shouldn't even need to show up in court to answer the allegation. After all, the plaintiff isn't even alleging that Reason defamed him.

            It is my opinion that most of the people who are trying to rationalize making third parties answer in court for things the plaintiff doesn't even allege they did is driven by two primary things: 1) a desire by progressives to regulate hate speech on social media and 2) an intense hatred of social media by conservatives for discriminating against them.

            It is my opinion that the ultimate impact of allowing a deluge of lawsuits against social media will likely result in either a consent decree or legislation that protects social media from liability in exchange for regulation--much like we saw happen with the studio system and the tobacco industry.

            It is my opinion that the right is playing directly into the left's hands on this because once Donald Trump's term(s) are over, there won't be a politician in the world who's willing to stick his neck out to protect homophobes, xenophobes, misogynists, and racists from regulation on social media--and that means opposition to gay marriage, opposition to illegal immigration, opposition to abortion, and opposition to both affirmative action and BLM will no longer be discussed on social media.

            And it is my opinion that the person answering a defamation charge should be the person who actually defamed you. It's one thing to sue someone when it's questionable as to whether what they wrote was actually defamation. Quite another to make people answer in court for what third parties wrote. That's what makes those 230 lawsuits necessarily frivolous.

            If John defames me, John should be the one to answer for it--not Facebook. The only reasons I'd sue Facebook are because 1) I hate Facebook and 2) for the same reason John Dillinger robbed banks--because that's where the money is. If I'm not even suing the party that wronged me, and only because I hate them and they have money, isn't that the definition of a frivolous lawsuit?

            1. "It is my opinion that the right is playing directly into the left’s hands on this because once Donald Trump’s term(s) are over"

              This. I supported the PATRIOT Act, and defended Bush and his FISA courts because I found terrorists to be a huge threat. It only took them about 10 years to use those powers to spy on and nearly depose Trump.

              It just boggles the mind that people think that giving government the power to regulate the speech of private platforms won't result in Democrats turning that against conservatives. It is *already* happening in European countries.

            2. It is my opinion that if you want to sue someone for copyright or slander, you should sue the person who actually violated your rights–rather than third parties.

              That is an opinion no one shares. By your logic newspapers would never be responsible for their content only their individual reporters. And that is just not how it works. It never has worked that way. If I publish something that you wrote, I am just as responsible as you are. You apparently either don't understand what it means to be a publisher or have just forgotten because you will say anything to defend the tech companies. Whatever the reason, that is an embarrassingly stupid argument and you need to stop making it.

              Everything else you say stems from the bizarre assumption that publishers are somehow not responsible for what hey publish. Try again.

              1. "By your logic newspapers would never be responsible for their content only their individual reporters."

                No, I think corporations are often responsible for the actions of the employees who work for them--at least when it comes to civil suits. Newspapers, meanwhile, have editors, and nothing used to be printed in a newspaper unless the editor approved it. Social media isn't like newspapers because the content isn't generated by or approved by employees of Facebook. And that's probably the way it should be.

        2. Ken...what do you mean that I would have strangled FB in the cradle? WTF is up with that?

          There is a legitimate legal question here, and Justice Thomas articulates it well. What is the division - legally - between a distributor and a publisher? That isn't frivolity.

          1. "Ken…what do you mean that I would have strangled FB in the cradle? WTF is up with that?"

            If it weren't for Section 230, Facebook probably would have suffocated in the cradle--long before they became as big as they are. Just as Amazon might be one of a handful of competitors to Border and Barnes & Noble if it hadn't been for the act that preempted punitive tax regimes by rent seekers.

            Facebook didn't exist in 1996, and neither did Friendster, Myspace, or Second Life. Because one thing happened before the other doesn't necessarily mean the first thing cause the second, but it doesn't necessarily rule causation out either. The reason these social media companies emerged in the U.S. rather than the other 88% of the world may be because we have both the First Amendment, better defamation laws than most because of that, and because of Section 230--among other things.

            Anybody out there who imagines that these companies would have been the same regardless of whether their primary activity were developing new and innovative services or engaging in unprofitable activity like defending themselves against a deluge of frivolous lawsuits is living in a world of make-believe. Social media would not be what it is today without Section 230, and isn't that why you want to tie a rope around its neck and kick the chair out from under it?

            1. No Ken, you are not addressing the core legal issue Justice Thomas articulated. The law is very imprecise in delineating the difference between publisher and distributor. And this has created legal problems for Courts.

              Normally we agree....but you've lost your way here.

              1. The reason I'm not addressing it is because it's a distraction. People shouldn't be compelled to answer in court for things they didn't do--not even according to the plaintiff--regardless of whatever mistakes the courts and lawmakers have made in the past.

    2. At this point, I'm looking at Reason's backing of Biden as a good sign.

      We have a sitting President, an oppositional nominee, several congresspersons, and a SCOTUS Justice all opposed to s230 while "Reason" (*drink*) supports it. Between their positions on HRC, Turkey, Iran, Kavanaugh, etc., etc. it's beginning to look like a good omen. Reason has become a bellweather not for libertarianism, or free markets, but for just the unreasonable.

      Hopefully, they push harder for more COVID lockdowns for everybody's safety.

      1. hush you're gonna get Bailey all wound up.

  18. Academic behind startling 'circuit breaker' study which found half-term lockdown could save up to 100,000 lives by New Year admit their death figures are wildly over-estimated and say they wish they'd never used them
    Professor Matt Keeling said he wished he 'hadn't put these numbers in the study'
    Paper said about 107,000 Britons could die by January without a circuit breaker
    Study's findings already been used as ammunition by scientists and politicians

    1. "Gee, wish I didn't do something that fucked over the world for most of the year". Not sure that apology is sufficient here.

      1. To be fair to them, they aren't the ones that fucked us over for months, it's the politicians that used it as an excuse that did that. You can see that right in the blurb, where they guy says his finding was wrong, but "scientists" and politicians will still be using that wrong finding without even flinching.

        1. They knew exactly how the politicians would use the information though.

          Has the government ever commissioned a study because they're looking for a reason to NOT do something?

  19. OMG! I cannot believe Barrett used the highly offensive word "preference" rather than "orientation." Of course, we already knew she's a dangerous theocratic extremist who will literally turn this country into The Handmaid's Tale. But that problematic word choice was the final straw. All serious libertarians must unite with our Democratic #Resistance allies to oppose this illegitimate nomination.


    1. Biden used the same phrase.


      Yesterday morning, "sexual preference" was a perfectly normal term. By lunchtime, left wing Twitter had decided that it's problematic. A few hours later Democrats were denouncing it publicly. Then came the media thinkpieces. By bedtime, the dictionary had changed its definition.

      1. Yep, best summary so far.

    3. #LibertariansForWaitingForBidensSCNominee

      you mean?

    4. Isn't making "preference" offensive exclusionary towards people that do have a sexual preference that's different from their orientation(s)?

      1. yes but those people don't matter, today.

    5. “...... that problematic word choice was the final straw....”

      Haha. You’re on your game today OBL. Nicely done.


    Ladies and Gentleman, the city of the future. A couple of federalist guys take a look at what the "libertarian moment" looks like in Minneapolis these days. It used to be such a great city. Now it is a third world country. It is a national disgrace that an American city could be reduced to this. But that is what cultural leftism does to a society. But hey, there are lots of immigrants, no one gets busted for pot, and the porn is still free on the internet. I am sure there is a food truck running somewhere. Libertarian moment man!!

    1. I think unreason's disclosure of who they would vote for makes it clear that none or very few at unreason are Libertarians and unreason does not cater to Libertarian principles for 10+ years.

      Voting for the LP does not make you a Libertarian. I'm sure this Jo lady is a nice person but the LP has been infiltrated by Anarchists, Democrats, and LINOs who are simply sabotaging Libertarian political standing. I have never heard of her before.

      The LP embraced Bill Weld and that guy is definitely NOT a Libertarian.

      1. Most of them said they would vote for the LP candidate or not vote at all. That's what libertarians do.

        1. 5-6 of them said Biden. One said Trump.

    2. Let's see what happens to the congress-critters up for re-election in MN. If the people of MN are truly that unhappy, they will vote Team D out. If not, then they truly deserve the Team D representation they re-elect. As long as you or I don't have to pay for it - let them have at it.

      1. As long as you or I don’t have to pay for it

        That is a pretty big if. And you and I paying for it is most certainly part of the plan.

        1. Yeah...but fuck that = And you and I paying for it is most certainly part of the plan.

          It is one thing when there is a natural disaster. I am happy to help. It is quite another when people just fuck up their neighborhood for kicks. I am not enabling that horseshit one iota.

          1. The plan is pretty simple: run your state into the ground by encouraging lockdowns and riots, which helps drive the economy and public perception of public safety down. A down economy is one of the few ways to get an incumbent President voted out after one term.

            Once your guy/gal gets elected instead, petition them for a Leviathan sized pile of federal pork to rebuild, and reward the faithful. Liquidate any useful idiots who insist on continuing to riot.

            Am I wrong? Explain another way why Governors like Kate Brown and Tim Walz have decided to commit economic suicide in Oregon and Minnesota respectively.

            1. 100% correct. Same with WA and Inslee.

          2. Getting the rest of the country to pay for California, Ney York, and Illinois’s stupidity is what Nancy is using to hold up the Covid relief bill. If Dems get control, you’ll be paying for Minneapolis’s shit whether you like or not.

            But it’l be a libertarian moment!

            1. To be fair, those states' idiocy far pre-date either the WuFlu or rioting. Pelosi wants a pension bailout for those states, and probably a few others too.

      2. Something like this really shows the importance of getting involved in local elections. These are where a lot of the up-and-coming busy-bodies start cutting their teeth, such as PTA boards and town councils.

        Minneapolis is going to be the 21st century's version of Detroit specifically because the people who live there were too passive and too apathetic to take charge of their own city and maintain it in a manner that made it a decent place to live to begin with. The shitheads running the city are a direct result of that. In one way, I feel bad for them because they're seeing their city devolve into a third-world shithole; at the same time, they're the ones who sat back and let it happen because the people encouraging this social destruction belonged to the same political party they did.

    3. It's not a libertarian moment, it's a leftist moment. That the leftists that write for Reason call it a libertarian moment doesn't make it so anymore than declaring that 2+2 is 5 makes it so.

      1. Yes. I should have put "libertarian moment" in quotes. My sarcasm wasn't as apparent as it should have been.

        1. I figured as much, but these days one can never be sure.

    4. gonna need lots of food trucks, with all the restaurants destroyed


    As recently as last month, Webster’s Dictionary included a definition of “preference” as “orientation” or “sexual preference.” TODAY they changed it and added the word “offensive."

    Insane - I just checked through Wayback Machine and it’s real.

    1. All down the memory hole. Preference has always been an offensive oldspeak word.

    2. Yesterday morning, "sexual preference" was a perfectly normal term. By lunchtime, left wing Twitter had decided that it's problematic. A few hours later Democrats were denouncing it publicly. Then came the media thinkpieces. By bedtime, the dictionary had changed its definition.

    3. Truly disturbing.

    1. How was this not already a rule?

      1. Politicians gotta make their millions somehow.

        1. I gotta think there's enough opportunities for graft and corruption within our own borders, they don't need the foreign help for that.

  22. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $56.5 billion

    He's in danger of falling out of the global top 20. Absolutely unacceptable for a man who built a successful business from the ground up. Mr. Koch deserves nothing less than a spot in the top 10 — which is where he was before Orange Hitler denied him access to his preferred (foreign-born) labor force.


    1. He should stop giving money to Reason and make them live off their customers.


    The Washington Post accused Barrett's children of spreading COVID at their school. WTF is wrong with these people?

    1. Barrett family looks different. Fear it.

    2. Because liberals have one or zero kids, and conservatives have large families. They are literally ceding the future politically.

      1. Just import other people's children and promise them free stuff.

      2. How many of those kids' teachers are conservative?

    3. Even the adopted, er, appropriated, children of color?

      Oh, man. It’s on now!


  24. Shelby Steele is a black conservative who has made a film, "What Killed Michael Brown?” about the shooting that sparked the . . . um . . . . "social unrest" in Ferguson, Mo. in 2014. The film, apparently, undermines the popular narrative about that shooting.

    “Michael Brown represented, even more so than Trayvon Martin, Freddie Gray and others, the distortion of truth, of reality . . . . It was almost absolute,” Mr. Steele said. “The language—he was ‘executed,’ he was ‘assassinated,’ ‘hands up, don’t shoot’—it was a stunning example of poetic truth, of the lies that a society can entertain in pursuit of power . . . . “there are blacks today, right now in Ferguson, as I point out in the film, who still truly believe that Michael Brown was killed out of racial animus,” he said. “In a microcosm, that’s where race relations are today. The truth has no chance. It’s smothered by the politics of victimization.”

    Amazon has the film under "content review". They won't show it on their service until they determine whether this is the kind of truth they want to be associated with, I guess. Regardless of what Amazon does, it's important to note that BLM isn't the only black voice out there. There is and always has been a black conservatism, too, and I'm not just talking about public figures like Mr. Steele, Thomas Sowell, Herman Cain, Ben Carson, and Clarence Thomas.

    There are hard-working, church-going, nuclear family, well-educated, middle class, black people out there who think that whatever other problems there are with systemic racism, etc. in our society, the solution to the problems in the black community (and every other community) also have to do with hard work, church going, nuclear families, and education.

    I'm old enough to remember when painting black people as if they were all the same was considered racist. Black is whatever it wants to be, and sometimes it wants to be conservative.

    P.S. Shame on Amazon.

    1. Amazon is run by liberal white people. Of course it is racist. Liberal whites are the biggest racists left in society today.

      1. Lol. I worked for amazon at the seattle hq. You are, as usual, wrong. Unless by "white liberal" you meant "white, indian, and asian capitalists".

        Bezos not being a trump cultist is about all it takes to convince you he's a commie, a commie who suppresses unions and any benefits above the bare minimum for his laborers. Genius.

        1. Surely, you'll at least concede that Amazon's thinking here is being driven by a fear of social justice warriors--many of whom are both white and "liberal".

        2. Yeah because Indians and Asians could never be racist.

          Honestly, you are so stupid that you probably believe that. And last I looked the guy in charge is white.

          1. You said it was liberal whites specifically, John. Please, do connect the dots here for us. Liberal whites run amazon, and are more racist than, say, Jerry Falwell (yuge Trump supporter, thank yooo), and so they want to frame a cop in Missouri?

            Ken is much closer to the mark, that the under review status is probably due to cancel culture. Everyone is trying to make a buck, and controversy isn't always a good marketing tactic.

            1. YEs they are. Liberal whites are horrible racists who view minorities as sub humans who could never succeed without the help of benevolent white people. You of all people should know this because that is exactly what you think.

        3. "I worked for amazon at the seattle hq"
          Delivering parcels in the Pacific Northwest isn't actually "working for Amazon".

          1. Are you denigrating honest labor there, mother?

            I was a financial analyst, for the record.

            1. Is that before or after you owned your own business, doing, what was it again?

            2. Weren't you a federal bureaucrat at one point too?

              I'm having a hard time keeping up with all your "jobs".

        4. Well, the Democratic party lumps those three together as a single group that has 'privilege' and should therefore be hobbled.

    2. The BLEXIT movement aims to uplift and empower minorities to realize the American Dream.

      Blexit is a direct threat to the subjugation of minorities under a Democrat victimization mentality.

      They do anti-BLM rallies because many of the BLM unpeaceful protests were co-opted by White Lefties.

    3. P.P.S. Here's a trailer for the film.

  25. Census was going to be f’d up this year anyway because of covid. A lot of people have moved temporarily in search of work, or to live with relatives if they lost their job and couldn’t afford rent, so I don’t see how extending it another 15 days will make any difference.

    1. It won't. The enumeration is done anyhow.

    2. Physically counting people is a relic of the 18th century. The federal government already has everyone's name and address from income tax filings or Social Security/unemployment/welfare payments. A computer could tally that up in a few milliseconds, not months.

  26. My general impression of the confirmation hearing has been that they're pretty ho hum so far.

    It seems to me that the Democrats so far haven't really taken the bait--and it was a trap for them. They could hurt themselve by demonizing ACB, and so far, they haven't pulled anything like they did with Anita Hill on Clarence Thomas or the decades old sexual assault allegations like they did on Kavanaugh.

    Obviously, they weren't about to go after Amy Coney Barrett on sexual harassment or sexual assault, but they could have gone after her for any one of a hundred other progressive sins. I was expecting someone to suggest she was a racist for adopting Haitian children at the very least. They're letting her walk, and the Republicans are probably disappointed by it.

    1. It's still early in the process. Don't be surprised if something comes up at the last minute like what Feinstein pulled with Kavanaugh.

      They're not going to let off all their artillery on the first day.

    2. >>ho hum so far

      (D) showed up with an empty hopper and no hope.

      1. It might have been different if Harris weren't on the committee. With Harris on the committee, they're reluctant to make it a full-on circus.

        Didn't Trump's popularity go up in the aftermath of the Kavanaugh hearing?

        1. was hoping to see one of those Luntz-meters with an uptick-spike when Barrett was being asked about the various forms of her previous sexual assaults ... if any ...

    3. I think the dems realize there is little to go after ACB on and have no chance of stopping her so they are using there time to lecture and with no questions for her.
      Although Senator lee was an ass by asking her three times does she believe no one is above the law and also asking what if Trump doesn't obey the law and pardons himself, that question assumes Trump is guilty of something. The court does not enforce laws they only make determinations of law what an ass

      1. Yeah, instead of a witch hunt, it’s a political add.

      2. "Although Senator lee was an ass by asking her three times does she believe no one is above the law and also asking what if Trump doesn’t obey the law and pardons himself..."

        What? Mike Lee was asking these questions of ACB? Interesting.

        Don't tell me another 'Libertarian Hope' annointed by this magazine is turning out to be another corporatist, NeverTrump asshole. What is this site's batting average on those anyway? I count Rand and Massey as not being disappointments so far, and was hoping Lee might still be one, despite his sponsoring another H1-B expansion bill.

  27. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…CMs after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

    Here’s what I do…>> Click here

  28. "The Commerce Department, which leads the census, wanted to stop on September 30. The National Urban League said it should keep going until October 31..."

    One of these organizations is in charge of the conducting the census and one is not. Next case.

    If you haven't filled out your census form in 7 months, that's on you.

    1. It's like these chuckleheads go out of their way to act as if black people aren't capable of functioning in a relatively complex society without white people holding their hands at every turn.

  29. This ruling will have little effect on the count since they are done enumerating anyhow. Almost every ACO (area census office) is at >99.5% done.

  30. "Trump wants to exclude unauthorized immigrants from those population totals—a change that could shift political power away from some populous blue states, such as California and New Jersey."

    By "unauthorized immigrants" do they mean illegal aliens here? And by "shift political power" do they mean that they are basing the vote on foreign lawbreakers?

    1. Trump wants to shift power away from the people who are illegally squatting and towards the people who legally live here. The nerve of that guy.

    2. They mean illegal aliens. And frankly, I don't want them counted toward allocation of House seats. Count them..yes. Use that count toward allocation of House seats - NO!

      1. Fuck man, I'm pro open borders and still think non-citizens of any type - authorized or 'unauthorized' - should not be counted.

        How In the hell can you have any say in your 'representation' if you can't vote? To pretend otherwise is . . . pretending.

    3. All residents have been counted in pretty much every Census -- it's precedent. There is a legal case that could be made to make it otherwise, but that case hasn't been won.

  31. Andy Stone
    . Alum:

    While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook's third-party fact checking partners. In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform.

    1. Should we mention Stone's history on Democrat staffs? I bet that totally isn't relevant...

    2. But Twitter hasn't picked a side. Nah.

  32. In Section 230 news, Facebook is unilaterally limiting the reach of the NY Post story until their fact checkers weigh in. Note, there is no claim of anything inaccurate. They are just doing it for...FYTW.

    Tell me, again, why S 230 is so vital.

    1. Because you will never be able to use it as a weapon as efficiently as the liberals who infect every large organization on earth.

  33. Trump tweeting that something is declassified does not actually mean it is declassified, argues the Department of Justice (DOJ)

    Reminds me of the scene from The Office.


    I just wanted you to know that you can't just say the word bankruptcy and expect anything to happen.

    I didn't say it. I declared it.

    1. Trump tweeting that something is declassified does not actually mean it is declassified, argues the Department of Justice (DOJ)"

      Seems to me Hillary Clinton did just that with her emails as secretary of state. Did she have more power than a President?

      1. She didn't declare them declassified. What she said was, "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

        1. thats what she said about the men she let die in Bengazzi

      2. She did 't declassify them. Their classification was made moot when they were leaked.

        Very different.

    2. To be fair, it doesn't. There's a piece of paper he has to sign first.

  34. I just got paid $6562 working off my laptop this month. And if you think that's cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over $8k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less.

    This is what I do… ------>Click Here.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.