Reason Roundup

J.D. Vance Says Government Should Seize Assets of Political Nonprofits

Plus: Fusionism, OnlyFans, and more...

|

This week in the Republican-descent-into-batshit-authoritarianism beat: U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Vance tells Fox News host Tucker Carlson that the federal government should seize money from nonprofit organizations and redistribute their wealth.

The proximate cause of these brain farts is the fact that a fellow with the Ford Foundation—a nonprofit organization dedicated to social justice—got into an argument with some of her fellow students at Arizona State University over a "Police Lives Matter" sticker. For daring to associate with someone who would commit this heinous transgression, Vance suggests that the Ford Foundation should have their assets seized and redistributed.

"Why don't we seize the assets of the Ford Foundation, tax their assets, and give it to the people who've had their lives destroyed by their radical open borders agenda?" Vance asked on Carlson's show last night.

In the past, conservatives and libertarians have freaked out—with very good reason—at the idea of the IRS or any other government agency targeting tax-exempt groups based on these groups' beliefs. To have charities, think tanks, grant-making foundations, activist groups, and other nonprofit organizations subject to the whims and will of each passing political administration would be antithetical to free speech, free markets, and the civil liberties of these groups and their donors.

Republicans—including Tucker and Vance—would surely be horrified if the Biden administration started taking any action against conservative nonprofits, let alone seizing their assets and handing it over to causes liberals support.

I know, I know—Carlson and Vance are not principled torchbearers of conservative ideology but people who routinely espouse whatever outrage-mongering nonsense will get them attention and rile up their audiences. Still, they have huge audiences among conservatives and the influence that goes along with that.

And last night's segment is a good reminder of the kind of anti-conservative, anti-liberty, authoritarian logic they employ.

Throughout the segment, Carlson and Vance try to portray nonprofit groups as an exotic Democratic Party plot and the whole idea of tax-exempt status as some sort of left-wing conspiracy. Carlson complains that groups like the Ford Foundation can "completely change the country, non-democratically, using their tax exemption" and acts aghast that politicians like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) aren't calling for taxing "openly partisan" nonprofits. Vance called groups like the Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and the Harvard University endowment "fundamentally cancers on society."

But Carlson and Vance probably wouldn't like it if Democrats came after the Heritage Foundation, Turning Point USA, the Independent Women's Forum, and other GOP-friendly groups that enjoy tax-exempt status, too.

As with arguments about social media, a policy requiring "nonprofit neutrality" wouldn't actually make anyone happy.


FREE MINDS

Is libertarianism incompatible with conservatism? Aaron Ross Powell of the Cato Institute weighs in on Twitter and at Libertarianism.org.


FREE MARKETS

The Argument tackles OnlyFans and online sex work:


QUICK HITS

• The U.S. has deported almost 4,000 Haitian migrants in a little over a week.

• A federal judge has blocked (for now) South Carolina's ban on mask requirements in schools.

• People are fleeing Washington, D.C. In 2020, the city lost "nearly 19,000 households to moves in 2020, according to U.S. Postal Service permanent change-of-address data. That was more than every state in the U.S. except California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts."

• Against the concept of punching up and punching down: "The whole concept is childish and unworkable," writes Freddie deBoer. "The entire notion is an absurd pretense. For it to make any sense at all, human beings would have to exist on some unitary plane of power and oppression, our relative places easily interpreted for the purpose of figuring out who we can punch."

• "We have submitted evidence showing that the most common search query on Bing is by far Google," a lawyer for Google's parent company told the European Union's General Court.

• "You do sort of need the word 'woman' for feminism, by which I mean, for addressing issues that almost exclusively impact women, and things like the ACLU tweet [rewriting Ruth Bader Ginsburg's woman quote] or the Lancet 'bodies with vaginas' cover (sounds so much racier than it is…) are not helping," suggests Phoebe Maltz Bovy.

• "A Harvard Crimson survey of the incoming Harvard Class of 2025 revealed that 87% of the class voted for Joe Biden, compared to 6.7% for Howie Hawkins and 6.3% for Donald Trump," notes Matthew Yglesias, in a riff on political polarization in education.

• The new Texas social media law "is blatantly unconstitutional," writes Reason's Jacob Sullum.

• Amazon is introducing a home robot.

• Here's a fun takedown of political children's books.

NEXT: Biden’s Inflation Scapegoat Is ‘Profiteering’

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

  1. …U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Vance tells Fox News host Tucker Carlson that the federal government should seize money from nonprofit organizations and redistribute their wealth.

    Should be a shoo-in.

    1. Considering how much more money is on the left, attacking political money would hurt the left more than the right, and so strategically it would benefit the right to start going after political money.

      It’s honestly quite surprising that it took this long for someone, anyone, on the right to start proposing something like this.

      1. It’s funny that ENB says the right wouldn’t like it if dems targeted republican non profits. She aparently doesn’t remember Obama IRS, sf and ny declaring gun rights groups terrorist organizations, and the mass shooter that looked to the splc for literal targets

        1. Umm, because she was commenting on a current news item, not something that happened years ago.

          1. 5 years is such a long time ago.

            1. 5 minutes is a long time when talking about Old News.

              1. Or for teen-brain concepts of “the past”.

                1. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FG And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

                  Try it, you won’t regret it!………………..PAYPAL PAYS

                  1. Seriously paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

                    Try now……………… http://gg.gg/w3b6a

              2. Fivetwo days is a long time when talking about transferring billions of dollars of military equipment to the Taliban, abandoning thousands of Americans in Taliban controlled Afghanistan and providing misinformation regarding intelligence leading up to Biden’s botch.

                1. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period.XCh Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..

                  Just visit this website now………… VISIT HERE

          2. Umm, because the Democrats have been proposing to do exactly that all over again in the last two months.
            But of course you know that you Democratic Party shillbot.

            1. There was the story of the government just doing it this year.

          3. Or focusing on the 1.2 + 3.5 trillion the Dems want to claim authority over right now by raising taxes and spending.

            1. Reason has been covering that story — but somehow you are still complaining.

      2. This is the first I heard the big mouth is a fellow of the Ford Foundation. Henry Ford must be turning in his grave. She should have been expelled for harassment but those two guys she chased out will probably get more punishment. Someone tried a Go Fund Me for those two guys, not sure why, but Go Fund Me shut them down, I am sure why.

      3. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months.Ktb I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Just visit this website now.

        Open this web…… Visit Here

        1. Against the concept of punching up and punching down: “The whole concept is childish and unworkable,” writes Freddie deBoer.

          Of course. Punching down mean means you’re fighting a little guy, and as Lazarus Long said: “Never fight a little guy. He’ll kill you.”

          Punching up makes no sense either if the guy above you is out of reach. Best to just block and evade the one above you and let him fall when he tries to strike you and loses strength and footing. Or, exploit weaknesses and use the enemies’ overwhelming strength and weight against him as instructed in Jiu-Jitsu. When in reach, do like Humpty Hump said and “Just grab ’em in the biscuits.” That way, you’re the Lazarus Long “little guy” to never fight.

          1. I’m sure you thought that all made some cohesive sense.

            At least before you started typing it.

    2. Especially among Christians who have no interests in non-profits. Only liberals give to charity, this is known.

      1. Yep. Those glass temples run by evangelicals were not built with money, but just by prayers. The same with the neighborhood church. Just prayers. No $$ needed.

        1. Yeah, I’m sure you heathens are all broken up about the corrosion of special protections for religious organizations. How Christianity would ever survive without brave protectors like you, I don’t know.

          1. Hardly. Some of my best friends — nay, nearly ALL of them, belong to one church, synagogue, or something. I just wish everyone was more “tax-free.”

            1. Churches have specifically numerated Constitutional protections. Nonprofits do not.

              1. Hmm. PEOPLE have specifically enumerated constitutional rights, whether they belong to a Church, a non-profit, or “belong” to nothing at all.

                One does not “gain” fundamental rights by belonging to an organization. An organization has rights because it is composed of individuals who have rights.

                1. A hearty Secular “Amen!” to that!

                  If religions used their tax-exempt status to make everyone’s taxes lower, it might be sufferable or even palpable. Non-believers could then have their own non-profits and be satisfied with that. But religions are as much a part of the Statist/Collectivist Establishment as many other non-profits and interest groups.

                  Either tax everybody until everyone is mad enough to do something about it, or un-tax everybody equally and Government can save themselves a whole ton of defiance and trouble.

                  1. “Either tax everybody until everyone is mad enough to do something about it, or un-tax everybody equally and Government can save themselves a whole ton of defiance and trouble.”

                    I prefer the “un-taxing” part.

                    Obviously, given that government, a some level, is a “necessary evil,” I promote that the federal income tax, along with ALL other federal taxes, be replaced by a consumption tax on all goods sold. Once people realize how much the Feds are actually collecting, indirectly and otherwise, it might just ignite a tax revolt (preferably a peaceful one). I would also like to see the federal budget limited to somewhere under 10% of the GNP. Yeah, and I know, that is pie-in-the-sky dreaming.

      2. Fun fact.
        For a couple of the years Obama released his tax returns, I not only gave a larger percentage to charity than he did, I gave more to a church in dollar amounts.
        Despite working for less than half his salary.

        1. O is a terrible person.

        2. You’re apparently not as sophisticated as he is.

          1. You obviously need to set aside more for hosting A-list parties on Martha’s Vineyard.

    3. Vance is one the the new Trump populist conservatives – big government, authoritarian, trade protectionism, deficit loving (but still Aborto-Freak) Team Red.

      1. turd lies. turd and the truth have never met. turd is a pathological liar too abysmally stupid to know he’s lying.
        turd lies; it’s what turd does

        1. “Conservatives have been calling out the recently announced JD Vance for his long history of negative anti-Trump tweets and statements, and now it appears the “conservative” claims to regret the comments since he is seeking office as a US Senator.”

      2. Hey Shrike, you still haven’t explained whether your “Aborto-Freaks” are the ones who want to kill the kids, or the ones who don’t.

        1. He doesn’t want kids killed. That reduces the chances of him being able to act on his urges.

          1. Chumby, without even realizing it, you’ve just Self-Red-Pilled and tumbled the game of The Vatican, The Southern Baptist Convention, The Jehovah’s Witnesses, and a whole bunch of Anti-Abortionist Sects. Very well-played.

            What they are doing is not about protecting innocent children at all. This is all about guarding and multiplying the Dura-Cells.

      3. So sort of like a pro-life Joe Biden?

    4. At the same time, they can’t seize money from non-profits! They earned those assets! They built that!

  2. Why don’t we seize the assets of the Ford Foundation, tax their assets, and give it to the people who’ve had their lives destroyed by their radical open borders agenda?

    He actually might be more suited for the House after all. But hopefully we’ve all found our new Trump to oppose.

    1. How is it the writers at reason have no problem with uniform support among the left for confiscation of wealth, but when a politician plays a game of tu quoc on the right, suddenly they have the will for full-throated condemnation and seemingly no ability to spot irony.

      1. What are you talking about? The writers at Reason have ripped Warren’s wealth tax at every opportunity. The same to Biden’s ridiculous $3.5 trillion zero cost bullshit.

        And they’re adamantly opposed to civil asset forfeiture.

        When has Reason supported the confiscation of wealth?

        1. Ripped?

          Name one time that one back bencher on team D got a similar firebrand treatment for some actual proposal to confiscate wealth… The top line kooks get explanations as to why that tax plan won’t work, not “all democrats are would be dictators because this one guy said…”

          This is somebody you never heard of saying “if they want to confiscate wealth so much, why don’t we start with them.”. And that is the would-be Hitler they call out.

          1. I mean, they even have a tag for it:

            https://reason.com/tag/wealth-tax/

            And those are long form articles criticizing Warren, Sanders, AOC and “california lawmakers” in general- not just morning links! They are very critical of this.

            1. Here is a ton of their articles from people like Napolitano, 2Chilli and others criticizing Obama’s targeting of Conservatives with the IRS:

              https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Areason.com+Obama+IRS&t=brave&ia=web

              1. Here is a ton of their articles from people like Napolitano….

                Yes, and isn’t it odd that, given all this, they attack a person who can be seen to be on ‘their’ side in this saying, as noted, ‘if they want redistribution so much, let’s start with them.’

        2. Bashing Reason, often done reflexively without any regard for whether the bashing is based on any truth about Reason’s history of coverage or writers’ opinions, is a way for right-wing commenters to signal to each other. Like fluffing up their feathers and strutting.

          For example, it is a “fact” that Reason campaigned for Biden.

          1. You are such a good intern!
            Now go fetch coffee.

          2. For example, it is a “fact” that Reason campaigned for Biden

            Let’s read Slade, Dahlmia, Boehm Riggs, Ciaramella, Weissmueller and Welch’s posts on the matter:

            “I will cast my ballot for Joe Biden in Michigan, a swing state, because there is no bigger libertarian cause right now”

            “Who do you plan to vote for this year? Joe Biden. The nationalists said the libertarian-conservative consensus is dead, and I take them at their word. Also, Stephen Miller is a white nationalist.”

            “I will vote strategically… for Biden.”

            “I will cast my first ever vote for president for Joe Biden in the battleground state of Pennsylvania.”

            “I’ve been vacillating between sitting out this election, as I did in 2016, or voting for Joe Biden. The strongest argument for the latter choice is that it’s an opportunity to support the repudiation of both Trumpism and AOC” (lol)

            “I’ll be voting for Joe Biden, primarily for three reasons: (1) A feeble president Biden seems like an opportunity to erode the power and glamour of the dangerous cult of the presidency and also push socialists, nationalists, and identitarians back to the margins, creating space for a more libertarian-friendly coalition to emerge.”
            (Oh wow! lol)

            “If it was going to be close in my state, I might have considered holding my nose and voting for the person most likely to supplant the eminently fireable incumbent.”

            https://reason.com/2020/10/12/how-will-reason-staffers-vote-in-2020/

            Looks like Mean Tweets were worse than the fascist mess America is now in after all, Reason.
            You wanted this. Enjoy.

            1. Emote! writers are such hypocrites.

            2. “I’ll be voting for Joe Biden… [to] push socialists, nationalists, and identitarians back to the margins”

              How’s that vote working out for you?

            3. Delightful, Mother’s. Nice finds.

        3. “The writers at Reason have ripped Warren’s wealth tax …”

          Ripped is an awfully strong word for what they’ve said.

          Also note the very obvious pattern that even you could not hide.

          When leftists propose something questionable Reason questions the proposal. but never the proposer(s).

          When it is someone on the right Reason’s opposition is always personalized.

      2. when a politician plays a game of tu quoc

        Let’s be clear, it’s not a tu quoque. “If money’s short and we’ve got to tighten our belts and cut the fat, we should take back the assets gained by organizations under our protection.” is not the same as “You didn’t build that.”

      3. You dont really have to ask do you? The same reason they condemned vaccine mandates for hospital workers but support censorship for silicon valley. They don’t have consistent viewpoints.

  3. Conservatism is incompatible with libertarianism because they have different aims.

    By that test, libertarianism is incompatible with libertarianism.

    1. Note that libertarianism apparently is not incompatible with leftism, because apparently they don’t have different aims.

      1. I would hope that he just assumes that it goes without saying that libertarianism and leftism are incompatible. But you never know with Cato these days, I suppose.

        1. The gist is that it was a marriage of convenience which is no longer convenient. American culture has moved too far left for libertarianism to be acceptable to conservatives, because allowing people to choose will result in greater nontraditional folkways. Of course, this tension was always there.

          Setting up libertarianism as an antagonist of conservatism likely reduces its potential as a governing influence. The goal for libertarians re: conservatives is to get them to incorporate more libertarianism into their conservatism, or as he states it:

          The second option begins similarly, in that political and economic liberty cut against conservative values and preferences. But instead of fighting the tide, this conservative accepts it. It’s not ideal from a conservative perspective, but they recognize the need to respect everyone’s liberty to choose, even if their choices are distasteful. In this case, the conservative sees that liberty has disrupted his favored patterns, but he still sees the government’s role as maximizing liberty.

          When you proclaim yourself an enemy though, you provoke a reflexive rejection by a conservative audience of everything you stand for. And if you need proof of this, just look around here.

      2. Not apparent at all. ENB said nothing on the subject of leftism.

        1. See.
          Does anyone still doubt that White Mike isn’t a writer or a paid shill at this point.

          1. The progressive equivalent of finding bottles on the side of the road for the $0.05 redemption. Mike makes sure to check both sides of the road for those returnables.

    2. The smaller political affiliation demands the larger allied political affiliation become the former one else they will not remain allies with the latter.

      How do you think that is going to turn out for the influence of libertarians over anything? It seems a terrible political calculation that only serves to divide the opposition to progressivism.

      1. so keep carrying water then?

    3. And it really depends on what kind of conservatism you’re talking about. “Conservative” is only meaningful in a historical and social context. Some types of American conservatism are at least largely compatible with libertarianism, I would say.

      1. Yes. And equally true that some liberal ideas (today’s “progressive” ideas not included) are compatible with libertarian ideals.

        1. No matter how much the writers here try to make it so.

      2. Conservatives naturally defend authority and tradition, which tend to be at odds with individual liberty. Except in America, which was founded on Lockean principles by radical defenders of individual liberty against central authority. So conservatives in America tend to be libertarian, in law if not in spirit. That seems like it’s starting to change though, as conservatives start to copy the progressive playbook for winning at any cost.

        1. “That seems like it’s starting to change though, as conservatives start to copy the progressive playbook for winning at any cost.”

          Many of them, at any rate.

        2. Re-read the Declaration of Independence. When otherwise lawful actions become oppressive of liberty then change becomes a necessity.

          The elite caste has thought nothing of reminding everyone of Ike’s warnings about the military-industrial complex ad nauseum, but have studiously ignored his other warnings for quite obvious reasons.

    4. By that test, libertarianism is incompatible with libertarianism.

      Maybe your defintion of libertarianism. Mine transcends partisan tomfoolery.

    5. I’m sure Ken Shultz will be along to point out the problem with your logic. (Who am I kidding? Ken would never point out, or even see, illogical thought if it aligns with Republican partisanship.)

      1. For the benefit of the thread, arguing with Mike is arguing with someone who will never take responsibility for what he says. You might as well mute him now, to save you the frustration.

        He is a completely disingenuous adversary and you would do better arguing with the main character from Memento.

        https://reason.com/2021/09/09/california-is-set-to-outlaw-unannounced-condom-removal/#comment-9091773

        That is Mike insisting that he “would never look to Rolling Stone” for news, after spreading their bogus ivermectin story only days earlier. Consider that: He didn’t apologize. He didn’t even try to ignore his mistake. He brazenly tried to dunk on Rolling Stone to make himself look like an arbiter of truth.

        The pathological narcissism required to disrespect the truth and readers so heavily should make him ashamed. It won’t though, so I advise others in the thread to avoid engaging with someone that argues in such bad faith.

        1. Could be that Mike, like turd, is simply too damn stupid to understand the difference between objective reality and those voices in their heads.
          Regardless. engaging either one is a waste of time and effort.

          1. She’s a squawking bird named Dee and should be treated as such.

      2. “Who am I kidding? Ken would never point out, or even see”

        Mike is like a jilted girlfriend at this point, and every bit as obsessive.

  4. A Harvard Crimson survey of the incoming Harvard Class of 2025 revealed that 87% of the class voted for Joe Biden, compared to 6.7% for Howie Hawkins and 6.3% for Donald Trump

    This is outrageous! Why are Trump voters being admitted to Harvard?!

    1. Too many assumptions about some of the black and brown applicants?

    2. We’re going to need the names of that 6.3%.

  5. The U.S. has deported almost 4,000 Haitian migrants in a little over a week.

    Giving so many Beltway worshipers weird or angry boners.

      1. Given the disdain for those deplatformed from the internet, they hate eRefugees as well.

    1. Now tell us where the other 10,000 went, and give us their vaccination status.

        1. It seems so.
          Every fascist elected or appointed to the federal government says so, it must be true.

    2. “The U.S. has deported almost 4,000 Haitian migrants in a little over a week.”

      Must have been those who looked or acted like a Republican or libertarian (or who didn’t profess loyalty to Democrats), as Biden’s goal is to expand the Democrat Party with several million illegal immigrants.

      1. Haitian culture is not African-American culture.

        The Dems are terrified of any disruption of the status quo or narrative despoilment.

  6. FUCK JOE BIDEN

    1. Yeah, fuck that fucker.

    2. And Phuck Phil Murphy!

  7. A federal judge has blocked (for now) South Carolina’s ban on mask requirements in schools.

    As long as it’s not the family’s decision…

    1. We need a ban on banning bans on bans.

      1. If we banded together, it could be a banner year for banning.

        1. Don’t make them angry, you won’t like them when they’re angry.

    2. I do not get how “You MAY wear masks but nobody can FORCE you to do so” runs afoul of ANY concept of civil liberties.

      1. You missed the new civil liberty of demanding everyone else concede to your perceived risk assessment.

        1. And how firing people for not getting a shot that really only keeps them from getting terribly sick and not much else is a good idea.

  8. People are fleeing Washington, D.C.

    I’m sure they’ll flee back once it’s its own state.

    1. It depends on the name, and on what slogans are painted on the streets.

  9. Amazon is introducing a home robot

    and an “autonomous indoor flying camera”. What fun!

    1. Because your smart TV and Alexa can really only cover your living room for spying purposes. Now you can have a drone fly around and check things out when the police need to check on anything.

  10. For it to make any sense at all, human beings would have to exist on some unitary plane of power and oppression, our relative places easily interpreted for the purpose of figuring out who we can punch.

    I’m going to have to know deBoer’s race and sexual preference before I can judge this take.

  11. Amanda Marcotte has a great piece in Salon about making sure people are unemployable if they dare refuse the vaccine that Biden delivered.

    It’s time to start firing unvaccinated people: Trump fans are overdue for a lesson in consequences

    #MyBodyMyChoice
    #(Sometimes)

    1. And artificial, contrived consequences are the best kind of consequences.

    2. It’s time to start firing people who advocate that someone else be fired. Everyone benefits from a taste of their own medicine.

      1. A shot in the arm for the unvaccinated.

      2. Firing, or firing at?

        At this point I’m ok with either for anyone who so threatens other’s livelihoods.

    3. As long as the ovens remain off, sarcasmic is fine with it.

    4. It’s a bit rich for A Man, Duh to talk about making people who choose not to get a specific vaccine suffer and lose their livelihoods for it, and invoke “consequences” as the justification.

      I’m not sure she and her stupidity-fueled social class understand the potential consequences of leaving millions of people with nothing else to lose.

      1. I know Godwin’s law is in play here, but the “othering” of a specific group was taken to its extreme when the jews were disenfranchised in the 30s, so it comes to mind. And other places, like “intellectuals” under Pol Pot, etc. Even blacks in America under Jim Crow.

        The people who want to disenfranchise middle class conservatives, brand them all “trump fans”, racists, etc really lack imagination for what could happen. Unlike German jews and all of the other groups othered for the sake of creating political division, conservative, middle class Americans are very heavily armed.

        You definitely do not want to push to the point where they have nothing left to lose.

    5. Including if they are 20- or 30-something professional athletes who are at almost 0 risk from COVID.

  12. Republicans—including Tucker and Vance—would surely be horrified if the Biden administration started taking any action against conservative nonprofits, let alone seizing their assets and handing it over to causes liberals support.

    Ah, for the good old days when, rather than seizing the assets of conservative non-profits, Lois Lerner at the IRS simply denied them the right to exist at all.

    1. I love how Reason is always thinking “Republicans will hate it if this is done to them” when it almost always has been done to them.

      1. At this point it cannot even be considered denial.

        They are hacks writing what they are told.

  13. We have submitted evidence showing that the most common search query on Bing is by far Google…

    Close but no meta.

    1. Poor Microsoft. About ten years ago, thieves broke into a mobile app development contractor’s office in Mountain View. They stole several prerelease Apple devices, and left all the prerelease Windows Phone devices sitting there.

  14. Conservatism is incompatible with libertarianism because they have different aims.

    Exactly right.

    1. Same for progressivism and liberalism, right?

      1. I’d say, yes.

        See: Glen Greenwald and his substack cohorts making bank railing against progressivism.

        Though, that’s actual liberalism, not like “Liberal” meaning “I’ll vote D no matter what”. The term has been completely adulterated since before I was allowed to vote.

  15. These books are typically upbeat, didactic, and unimaginative. … They often rely on the repetition of certain catchphrases, so there is no way to miss the point, even when the point is remarkably banal.

    Nonetheless, they persist.

  16. BING. But It’s Not Google. As I understood what BING stands for.

    1. I GNU you would figure that out….

      1. I regret not seeing this earlier, Cyto. Bravo.

        Jobs didn’t even break stride after that flop.

    2. So, like Not Trump?

      Biden, the BING of presidents.

  17. Look out! Democrats are in control in Washington DC, and you know what that means — “the rich” and “the corporations” will soon be forced to share their excess wealth with everyone else!

    From Biden’s Twitter: Last year, 55 of the largest corporations paid zero dollars in federal income taxes on over $40 billion of profits. It’s time for big corporations to finally pay their fair share.

    Yep, Biden’s going to financially punish his own base. Right after he establishes Medicare for All and a $25 / hour minimum wage. 😉

    #OBLsFirstLaw

    1. BTW $40 billion sounds like a lot doesn’t it? Well, that amount is slightly less than one person, Larry Page, has made in about 9 months of the Biden economy.

      #BillionairesForBiden

      1. 40 billion dollars is what the federal govt spends every two and a half days. So taxing that to 40% will fund the government for a whole day.

    2. Let me guess, Biden, or rather the schmuck staffer assigned to be Biden on Twitter, is conflating gross revenues with net profits. The question being whether this is deliberate or merely stupidity.

      1. Works for Bernie.

      2. I’m confused about how “corporations paid zero dollars in income taxes”. Were they working for tips and didn’t disclose them? Isn’t it already illegal to fail to pay your taxes?

        1. They make it sound like they were breaking the law, when in fact they are just following the rules that the likes of SleepyJoe set up.

        2. Carry forward losses. Which make obvious sense but democrats are too ignorant to know about.

          If you lose money for 9 years building a business, should you be taxed of your first year of profits?

          1. Cuz profits is evil!

          2. That’s the way it works for personal taxes.

            Source: me crying over my tax returns on the odd year I did well after struggling for a decade.

            1. You can carry capital losses forward on your taxes to offset future capital gains, but only 3,000 dollars per year. An amount that is oddly not indexed for inflation, even though 3,000 twenty-five years ago was real money and now it’s not even a month’s rent.

              1. My situation is weird, I understand. Serial entrepreneur (read: mostly unemployable) and I suffered greatly during the post 9/11 downturn, then did very well a few years later for a year as I stumbled into consulting. Then in the dumps after 2008 and didn’t do well again for many more years… etc.

                Christ on a fucking bike is the personal capital loss carryover useless. Especially for the feast or famine nature of what I used to do. You shouldn’t have to hire lawyers to understand taxes on a one person shop, but that’s how fucked up our tax system is.

        3. I am assuming what that means is those corporations reported no net profits, which is what corporate income taxes take from, which does not mean they had no income.

          1. Hint: “income” tax is a tax on income.

    3. They are well on the way to that $25 minimum wage. A nearby Pollo Tropical (fast food grilled chicken) was drive through only this weekend. Only 2 managers to run the store… Not enough staff to open the dining Room.

      1. Luckily, Biden has that inflation thing licked.

        A 2 liter of Mountain dew was $0.98 on sale at Publix 18 months ago. It was 2 for $2.50 this summer. Now the sale price is two for $5.00.

        No inflation my ass…. And our Fed chair is busy warning that it is Armageddon to shut down the government. 100% inflation in 3 months… But yet another fake shutdown is the death of the economy.

        I am so glad the adults are back in the room….

        1. “A 2 liter of Mountain dew was $0.98 on sale at Publix 18 months ago. It was 2 for $2.50 this summer. Now the sale price is two for $5.00.

          No inflation my ass…. And our Fed chair is busy warning that it is Armageddon to shut down the government. 100% inflation in 3 months… But yet another fake shutdown is the death of the economy…”

          CPI basket reshuffling in 3, 2, 1…. Repeat after me, “Hedonic adjustment.”

          I shudder to think of what Shadowstats thinks of the actual inflation rate.

        2. Well, food and energy don’t count.

          1. Only because they keep getting more expensive.

          2. Food counts, as long as you take out beef, pork, chicken, dairy, and grain products.

        3. But don’t leave 2 bucks on the counter and take one bottle of Mountain Dew — you’ll get 10 years in jail.

      2. Oh, I forgot to mention… Fast food around here is offering $15 per hour to start, plus a signing bonus.

        1. Funny you mention labor staffing. I just returned from an extended holiday trip, and there were help wanted signs everywhere I went around the country. The real eye opener was convenience stores that are 24 hours, shutting down at 10pm because there are no staff available to work the overnight shift. They simply cannot pay them enough.

          Personally, I am glad there are so many openings out there.

          1. I traveled to a low cost Midwestern state this summer, and there were dozens of ads on the radio for entry level jobs paying from 14 bucks an hour (janitorial and fast food) to 17 bucks an hour (unskilled light manufacturing, with double pay for overtime), all with signing bonuses from 1 to 5 K

      3. Once progressives push through minimum staffing, including mandatory hours, to further enhance minimum wage hikes, your chicken shack will be open again.

        And for “fairness”, there will also be price caps on fried chicken (and everything else).

      4. Only 2 managers to run the store… Not enough staff to open the dining Room.

        I don’t even think it’s not enough staff, it’s not enough trained/employable staff. Several local McDs have every promise under the Sun to new hires posted on their signage. At $5/hr.you can tolerate all the people who fail to show up for 25% of their shifts. Doubly so, on both sides, if the dining room can be closed down on a whim.

        1. That is;
          At $15 or $25/hr. , not so much. Doubly so, on both sides, if the dining room can be closed down on a whim.

  18. the federal government should seize money from nonprofit organizations and redistribute their wealth

    Hmm. Doesn’t “asset forfeiture” provide sufficient precedent?

    1. I think “complete inability to comprehend rhetorical flourishes” is a more immediate antecedent.

    2. I didn’t watch the clip. Were they being sarcastic and thats why only the transcript is being pushed?

      1. It starts with “sauce for the goose”… and when pushed… ” sure, if that is the way they want to play it, why not go after all of our enemies this way too. ”

        The foundation is clearly “Hey, we can play this game too”… the threat? Not real, no capability to carry it out. Just shooting off at the mouth.

        1. Isn’t this Tucker Carlson?

          I don’t know the character, I’m not a TV news guy, but as I understand it he’s not “the Republicans” so much as a political shock jock on TV “news”. His job is to talk about stuff like this, in this manner, right?

          Am I wrong that he’s not some sort of elected official with power, or a party functionary?

          1. Amazing how the ENBs of the world only recognize a problem when it is put in the proper rhetorical* context.

            * put in words that even ENB can understand: We notice that you really only care when it is your ox getting gored.

  19. In college news. Better known as The Fucked Generation….

    College starts petition to kick out student for penning an article that eventually hit fox News.

    https://campusreform.org/article?id=18221

    1. Segragation is back! Once again it is democrats leading the charge.

      https://campusreform.org/article?id=18209

    2. National Science Foundation grants U Wisconsin 7.5 million to develop tools to battle misinformation, also known as things that go against the liberal narrative. Primary concern is election integrity and covid.

      https://campusreform.org/article?id=18223

      1. Funny. Gotta battle misinformation about election integrity … By violently opposing anything that could guarantee election integrity.

      2. Lysenko lives. Can’t imagine why rumor is replacing Science! as reliable information in the minds of the populace.

        It takes a really long time to rebuild credibility once you’ve squandered it.

      3. Again I mention Ike’s other warning.

        When people get tired of their bullshit, dishonesty, and double dealings then whatever follows will be on them for abusing the privileges they were once afforded.

    3. 50% of Jewish students in college feel they need to hide their religion or face attacks and discrimination.

      https://campusreform.org/article?id=18215

      1. It is true, JesseAZ. I cannot believe that in 2021, I would even have to think about that here in the USA.

      2. How do you think the 6% of the Harvard incoming class who voted for Trump are going to feel?

    4. Pop quiz: what’s the difference between a college and a church?

      1. You can attend a church for free.

          1. Not so much that I’ve had to take out a loan for me or my kids to attend, no. Much less burden you or your children to absolve the debts of others who attended but couldn’t afford to.

          2. A tithe isn’t a requirement at any church save a few cults.

      2. Church congregants can be proven wrong and accept it

      3. The correct answer: a college gets most of its funding from the state.

        We would have given partial credit for: a college has a football team.

  20. ENB thinks “bodies with vaginas” sound racy. To me, it sounds dehumanizing. Is she into objectification?

    1. Maybe just into vaginas?

      1. What about vaginas with bodies?

        1. Those are the better ones.

        2. Old line sexist quote:
          “a woman is just a life support system for a pussy”.

          1. It’s the only reason men talk to them.

    2. It’s not just ENB. I recall Robby described a historical depiction of several men stripped naked, beaten, and left for dead in a cemetery as gay/homosexual art. Who cares that they were actually victims of a labor dispute? What really matters is that they were rather literally bodies with penises.

      1. That either says something terrible about the aesthetics of gay art, or something terrible about what aesthetics Soave thinks appeals to gays.

        1. AND is a word.

          And sometimes it is THE word.

    3. Clump of beef curtains.

      1. and now I want Arby’s.

  21. Feds can’t hide the inflation coming. Admit the increased democratic spending is driving inflation to decade highs.

    https://justthenews.com/government/congress/yellen-and-powell-see-inflation-higher-anticipated-dems-push-35-trillion

    1. Coming inflation?

      Been to the store lately? Prices on many goods are up by historic amounts. Not a few percent a year… Tens of percent per month.

  22. “Bodies with vaginas” doesn’t sound racy, it sounds dehumanizing which is exactly what the left in this country desires. You see they did this in the 20th century as the far left is responsible for all dictatorships back then as well. They want you in camps and in the ovens. They hate humanity and desire perfection and order, which requires tyranny. The want women subjugated and they want children ripped out of the womb. They hate families and anything normal. The left are complete and total evil personified.

  23. Remember that misguided leftist Reality Winner who didn’t mean to release national secrets? Turns out she visited Islamic blogs, planned to give stolen TSI material to middle eastern countries, hated America, etc. Not quite the story the media pushed to cover for her. At one point she had a thumb drive inserted into a TS system and the status of the drive is unknown.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/reality-check-adorable-whistleblower-was-an-anti-american-spy

    1. Chain of custody is going to be hazy for claims both for and against her at this point. Why weren’t these new allegations revealed at her trial, in open court? (Under penalty of perjury.) Or were they?

      Sounds like things that would merit bumping the grade of her punishment a few places, if true. Which is why I’m wondering why we’re just hearing about them now.

      She broke her oath, deliberately and maliciously divulging classified information she was entrusted to secure. That should be enough.

      I gotta’ admit though, in an era where the Awan’s got back pay for their suspensions, and the OPM contractors weren’t criminally punished—and then, of course, there’s Hillary—I don’t really care that much about classified leaks. Fix the giant fucking hole in the front of your building before you start yammering on about the trim not quite matching your color swatches.

      1. The story was interesting. The major news didn’t present any of that. No idea what was pled to in court, though she got a plea. But with that evidence against her that is even more amazing.

  24. Those of you who want to repeal Section 230 have some explaining to do.

    “CNN disabled its Facebook pages for users in Australia on Wednesday in response to a court ruling that made media companies liable for defamatory comments posted by other users on their posts.”

    —-Yahoo! News

    https://news.yahoo.com/cnn-pulls-facebook-pages-australia-094623865.html

    CNN asked Facebook for help, but Facebook’s could only offer to disable comments one by one, which was a) too time consuming for CNN (premoderated comments) and b) too expensive. So, CNN elected to shut down their social media presence in Australia. The question to ask ourselves is that if maintaining a presence on social media is too expensive for CNN, in the wake of something like a Section 230 repeal, how will smaller players in the U.S. manage if and when Section 230 is repealed?

    I don’t think there’s any hiding from the likely consequences of repealing Section 230 anymore. Instead of denying that Section 230 will chase all sorts of forums (like Reason’s) off the internet, those who want to repeal Section 230 should probably embrace the reality. Rationalizations aside, why not be honest about your intentions?

    Isn’t it true that those of you who want to repeal Section 230 hate CNN? Isn’t it true that you hate Facebook and the dominant social media companies, too? Isn’t it true that seeing CNN chased off of social media isn’t an unintended consequence of repealing Section 230? Isn’t it true that seeing CNN (and the other media outlets you hate) being chased off of social media is the intended objective of repealing Section 230–and a cause for celebration?

    1. False choice. It’s not leave it or repeal it. It needs to be rewritten to remove loosy goosy words like “objectionable”. 230’s problem is not the liability shield. It’s the liability shield plus unlimited editorial control over user content.

      1. Okay, anyone who is advocating for a repeal of Section 230 while keeping liability protections in place should is free to say so. It still seems to me that plenty of them want to repeal Section 230 because they want this outcome: They want Facebook to lose business and influence, and they want mainstream media outlets like CNN to eat shit. How many of them can say with a straight face that they don’t want to see mainstream news media outlets like CNN chased off of social media?

        1. Or how about we just stop using Political power to censor Our opponents speech? Isn’t that much easier solution?

          1. Sure. Right after we all eat healthy, get more exercise, and balance our checkbooks.

          2. It isn’t. The left is clearly uninterested in even considering censoring opposing speech less, and the right is becoming open to the idea of responding in kind as the left leverages its censorious powers for political gain with ever greater success. Nobody that anyone listens to is proposing less censorship anymore.

            1. I think everyone focusing on getting the abusive husband to stop beating his wife is more productive than focusing on getting the abused wife to quit bitching about it.

          3. “Or how about we just stop using Political power to censor Our opponents speech? Isn’t that much easier solution?”

            That sounds like you’re trying to address something other than protecting media outlets from liability for defamatory statements made by third parties–by revoking the protection of media outlets from liability for defamatory statements made by third parties.

            The principles of liberty and justice demand that people shouldn’t be compelled to answer in court for defamatory statements–they didn’t write–regardless of any other considerations. I don’t care if CNN is Jeffrey Dahmer. Jeffrey Dahmer shouldn’t be compelled to appear in civil court to defend himself for defamatory statements he never made.

            1. The only reason this is an issue is because they began “shadow banning” conservatives during the Obama presidency, shortly after Operation Choke Point.

              Absent politically motivated censorship, this is not an issue.

              You can keep trying to treat the symptom (pissed off conservatives) all you want, but the problem ain’t going away until the disease is treated.

              1. The reason some people hate Facebook is because Facebook treats them like shit.

                The reason some people hate CNN is because CNN is a propaganda organ for the Democratic party.

                There are good reason to hate these two organizations. They’re not good enough reasons to sell liberty, justice, and a place to exercise our free speech rights short.

                1. Yup. But if you want this to go away, you have to come up with a better stick for stopping the censorship and propaganda than attacks on 230 or other threats of regulatory action.

                  Because the right is going to fight back. Right now they see this as their only tool. The left has blocked “go make your own” and even direct hosting and direct sponsorship (they have pretty much completely blocked payment processing). Right now the left is gaining ground, not losing it.

                  Unless someone comes up with a better strategy for fighting back, 230 is going to remain a target. It is the only target they have at the moment. Give them another option, preferably A better one, and I am sure they will take it.

                2. But what good is living in a free society if I can’t use my political power to silence my opponents?

                  (I suspect this is actually how many progressives think.)

                3. Ken….The point is, it is only symptoms being treated. Treating symptoms doesn’t cure the disease.

        2. I have long been advocating it to be enforced as written. Which currently it is not

          1. “I have long been advocating it to be enforced as written. Which currently it is not”

            Are you in favor of repealing the Second Amendment for the same reason?

            1. That’s really weak Ken.

        3. Youreying about what 230 does. The Australian law specifically made the companies liable ken.

      2. False choice. It’s not leave it or repeal it. It needs to be rewritten to remove loosy goosy words like “objectionable”.

        False choices within a false choices. Did CNN take their own pages down in Australia? Is Facebook preventing them from starting comments on their own domains? If, in the context of this discussion, we repeal section 230 what happens? Facebook kicks every major media outlet off its pages and then takes over all of print/social media?

        Ken’s having trouble finding a problem to apply his solution to and is asserting it’s our fault for not being able to find it for him.

        1. Facebook says it’s too hard to moderate up front like it’s customer, CNN, is requesting. Not only does Section 230 not apply because it’s Australia, it doesn’t solve the problem. Ken’s asking us to care for no other reason than he thinks we should support S230.

          1. “Not only does Section 230 not apply because it’s Australia”

            They’re reacting to an Australian court decision that has the exact same legal implications as repealing Section 230.

            “CNN disabled its Facebook pages for users in Australia on Wednesday in response to a court ruling that made media companies liable for defamatory comments posted by other users on their posts.”

            —-Yahoo! News.

            That seems to be an entirely accurate description.

            1. Ending 230 doesn’t make the companies in the US liable ken. Your lying aboutbwhat 230 does. It protects them from lawsuits. Ending 230 doesn’t explicitly make them liable. Just gives users the ability to have a day in court.

              Youre wrong here.

              1. This.

                Kens argument is surprisingly inapt.

            2. They’re reacting to an Australian court decision that has the exact same legal implications as repealing Section 230.

              No it doesn’t. Unless Setion 230 can compel Facebook to provide a platform to CNN despite alleged technological/logistical inability to support it.

          2. “Ken’s asking us to care for no other reason than he thinks we should support S230.”

            I care because I want more space for us to exercise our free speech rights (rather than less), and because I care about the principles of liberty and justice. Not even evil people should be forced to answer in court for things they didn’t do.

            If you’re suggesting I should compromise on any of those principles because you like seeing CNN and Facebook eating shit, then that just underscores my point. Why try rationalize injustice in legal terms when they real point is to stick it to CNN and Facebook?

            Not acting that way is what separates us from the progressives. The progressives will rationalize anything they want to do on absurd grounds–even if it violates our rights and destroys the economy. I’m not willing to do that. Just because I hate CNN and Facebook, doesn’t mean I’ll sell liberty, justice, and a place to exercise free speech short.

            1. It isnt free speech when massive corporations work hand in hand with government

              1. But less-than-vague threats made to business owners work so well for the mafia.

            2. Just because I hate CNN and Facebook, doesn’t mean I’ll sell liberty, justice, and a place to exercise free speech short.

              Right. I was explicitly saying that regardless of yours or my feelings about CNN and Facebook one way or the other, you’ll sell liberty, justice, and places to exercise free speech short because you think US protections should apply in Australia despite Australians wishes one way or the other.

              Get your own shit together before speculating that I should care one way or the other.

          3. No, ken is accurately holding up a cautionary tale as to where this hole thing leads.

            I agree on that, 100%.

            I just think it is a fools errand to demand that Republicans cede the field to democrats and allow them to completely control all forms of mass communication. Nobody is going to take that bargain.

            That is why the cautionary tale does not work. As long as Facebook, Twitter, et al are happy to push propaganda for the left and silence the right, people on the right are going to see that cautionary tale and ask why they should have any f*cks to give.

            The rational response would be to say “let them go out of business… What do I care. We don’t get to use those tools anyway…. ”

            This disease cannot be treated at the level of the Republicans. As long as the Democrats are successfully pushing unamerican actions like this, there will be increasingly strident and even unhinged pushback. Saying “sure, they are fighting dirty, but you should stick to the Marques du Queensbury” just isn’t going to cut it.

            That is why I have little patience for focusing on the idiots on the right on this one. Not because they are not idiots, and not because they don’t have some destructive tendencies… But because it is like holding back the tide. They have righteous anger and are being wronged. They have absolutely no incentive to sit down and shut up about it.

            1. “I just think it is a fools errand to demand that Republicans cede the field to democrats and allow them to completely control all forms of mass communication.”

              One of my fears is that as the antitrust cases against these social media companies proceed, we’ll see Section 230 wrongheadedly repealed and replaced with a consent decree, in which the liability protections of Section 230 will only be available to those who sign on to a voluntary speech code. Social media is too big and powerful to lose those exemptions entirely. And if the protections of Section 230 become only available to those who sign onto the speech code negotiated by the Biden administration through antitrust court, we’ll be advocating for a new Section 230 so that social media companies (and websites like this one) can get out from under the thumb of those progressive negotiated speech codes again.

              1. This is a very likely outcome. The left has weapon used consent decrees very effectively in recent years.

            2. No Ken is not accurately holding up what 230 does. Ending 230 does not force liability on these companies. That required an Australian court ruling to do so.

              1. Ugh…. Australia has no 3rd party liability protection.

                …. Just like the US would be absent 320…

                It doesn’t mean Australia repealed 320. It is “you don’t want to go where they are going”

    2. We’re supposed to feel bad for CNN and Facebook? Next we’ll be ask to cry for Kim Jong-Un and the Iranian Ayatollahs.

      1. No. And you’re exposing a real hole in your thinking there. You’re supposed to care about your own rights to justice, liberty, and your ability to exercise your freedom of speech online. And repealing Section 230 would have a negative impact on that. If CNN can be held liable for defamatory statements they never made–legally–how safe are your rights? If Reason can be held liable for the defamatory statements of commenters, what makes you think they would keep this forum open and allow you to comment here?

        1. The comments section wood be tossed in the chipper. And they wood preetend it never existed.

    3. Those of you who want to repeal Section 230 have some explaining to do.

      Explain how a spat between Facebook and CNN is any of the government’s or taxpayers damned business one way or the other. Does CNN owe its users a Facebook page?

      Rationalizations aside, why not be honest about your intentions?

      Never been dishonest. Cubby v. Compuserve was rightly decided. Section 230 was passed specifically to reverse that decision.

      1. Never been dishonest. Cubby v. Compuserve was rightly decided. Section 230 was passed specifically to reverse that decision.

        I’ve always been rather explicit that this is the intended outcome. Media companies competing in an open market. Why do you oppose this? Because the government doesn’t have a say so?

        1. The point is, we lose HnR if section 230 (or equivalent) does not exist.

          If Reason is responsible for my ramblings, they are just gonna pull the plug.

          1. Ending 230 doesn’t make reason responsible.

            Do you guys even realize what 230 does? It just opens them up to lawsuits. It doesn’t say those lawsuits are valid.

            Just stop.

            This is like the people arguing net neutrality at this point.

            1. Do you guys even realize what 230 does? It just opens them up to lawsuits. It doesn’t say those lawsuits are valid.

              A case that, even with section 230, has arguably already been decided and settled in Reason’s favor.

              1. Death by 1,000 cuts? Think there are not activist groups that will find thousands of litigants to sponsor in order to shut up people who make enough noise? Think Rumble survives that? Any chance Locals survives that?

                Yeah, this makes it worse, not better.

                This strategy has been used effectively in other arenas (companies forcing all disputes into arbitration of their choosing.. Where they are guaranteed to win. So have all your supporters file for arbitration and refuse to join the complaints. Thousands of arbitration fees later…..)

                1. This strategy has been used effectively in other arenas (companies forcing all disputes into arbitration of their choosing.. Where they are guaranteed to win. So have all your supporters file for arbitration and refuse to join the complaints. Thousands of arbitration fees later…..)

                  So what you’re saying is Congress didn’t need to pass a law to block/screen offensive speech? That these companies could’ve handled it with their users on their own dime(s) through arbitration? That courts could’ve, through arbitration and/or class action, rolled up hundreds of decisions into one? Huh.

                  I’m sure Facebook or Youtube would be the absolute powerhouse that it is if it took hundreds of its users to arbitration.

          2. The certainty of your presumption relies on your predicate hypothetical.

        2. Some people think Shrike is a paid commenter sent to disrupt the libertarian message on the web. Imagine he is for a moment. Think about the organization behind him. Would they sue Reason because John came back and called him a pedo? I’m sure they would! Do you doubt it?

          1. Is that an Obama-esque “there are those who believe”.

            Corollary question: are there those who don’t believe there are paid sock accounts here specifically to disrupt?

            We know the HRC for President campaign employed people to do exactly that back in 2014-2016.

          2. Ken… youre now in net neutrality defense in arguing something not contained in 230.

            1. The question is whether the hypothetical people behind Shrike would sue Reason for something John said–just to disrupt the libertarian message online–and the correct answer is “yes”.

          3. So, would Shrike bring suit against Reason or would an attorney financed by a shadow organization?

            If an organization wanted to influence opinion and remain in the shadows, wouldn’t they prefer the current arrangement?

            Should we keep comparing tin foil hat sizes?

            1. Why did CNN shut down their exposure to Australia–is that a mystery to you?

              1. No, because they didn’t. Use your VPN to proxy to Australia and pull up cnn.com. See what you get.

    4. Comments existed on the internet before section 230 ken. The Australian law didn’t end their 230. It explicitly made the hosts liable. Ending 230 doesn’t do that. Please don’t use this type of misdirection.

      1. Ending 230 doesn’t do that.

        And, as has been repeatedly seen, talked about, and even tested first hand on these very forums, Section 230 doesn’t prevent these forums (or backpage’s or onlyfan’s or craigslist, etc.) from being held liable from by the government.

      2. Not really.

        The internet was nothing really. The first consumer browser had just been born.

        1. The first consumer browser had just been born.

          Huh? Microsoft was notoriously late in offering a browser in 1995.

          1. And Netscape was born in late 1994.

            The internet wasn’t hardly anything when the CDA hit in 1996.

            How hard do you need to dig to find content from 1996? There just wasn’t much out there.

            Because comments existed when few people even knew how to connect means nothing.

            1. Because comments existed when few people even knew how to connect means nothing.

              Weird how there were legions of frivolous lawsuits that required protection of a service nobody used.

              So, exactly how fully developed does the internet need to be before the government has to protect one of its one parents from suing the other for liability?

              1. What if Section 230 made social media as we know it possible? If Section 230 was necessary to get social media off the ground, is it any wonder that it all seems to have started in a country with Section 230?

  25. Biden to make things st the border worse as he sent a memo to fire all Border Patrol agents who are unvaccinated in November.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-judiciary-gop-biden-threatening-to-terminate-major-portion-of-border-patrol-agents-if-not-vaccinated

    1. Without any religious exemptions, this is going to go poorly

      1. Can’t they just claim to be pregnant?

        In response to questions about automatically resetting illegal alien women who claim to be pregnant, the administration indicated that even questioning that assertion was sexist.

        Surely worth the gambit if you were gonna be fired anyway.

    2. So the agents have to be vaccinated, but the would-be immigrants do not?

  26. Blah blah blah. We are barreling toward a civil war. Pick your side, and stick with it and be prepared to fight to the absolute last man.

    Everything else is bullshit.

    Secession, or civil war. Take your pick.

    I suggest secession.

    We do not have to live like this.

    1. Can we organize the secession(s) by county?

    2. Dammit. I’m going to have to move. I have too many neighbors on the other side.

      1. Kill them and take their property.
        What part of revolution don’t you understand?

          1. An environment too rich with targets, the limitation of a small mind

      2. My problem too. I live in the People’s Republic of NJ, surrounded by busybody uberlibs who don’t have the good sense to leave people alone.

    3. “I suggest secession.”

      OK. Even leaving aside the point that the old American Left won’t stop trying to subvert the States that leave, just where do you draw the lines? See: https://imgix.bustle.com/inverse/e5/a3/87/f9/5b64/4103/b71d/3fc80eb0d2a8/hello-coastal-cities.png

      Which should load, but if it doesn’t, Searx, “The Clinton Archipelago.” It’s not quite as bad as those old ethnic maps of the former Yugoslavia, but it’s in the running. Every major city is going to have to be split, if not encapsulated entirely. Good luck.

      The bloodletting from the Partition of India in 1947 seems a decent comp, albeit on the low side, given the much smaller percentage of Muslims in India versus Leftists in the US. That mass migration resulted in, depending on who you believe, anywhere from 200k to 1 million dead. Out of ~340 million people or so. (1970-71 carve-off of Bangladesh was even bloodier, albeit that was an actual shooting war.)

      1. The lines are pretty much already drawn.
        Except maybe in Texas and Georgia, and we know how those will break if it comes to an actual fight.

        1. New Mexico and Colorado make an annoying blue shape in the middle of the country.

      2. If you look at this–“The Clinton Archipelago.” and understand that the Biden version is even worse for the left you begin to understand some important facts.

        There are no blue states. Not one. The only ‘blue counties’ there are only exist when a ‘county’ and a city occupy the exact same area–and even then, if you granularize further, down to districts, you see that even many blue cities are mostly red.

        The left relies on tiny, super compressed dense population areas.

        Contained.

  27. Global relations continue to be so much stronger under Biden as another European official comes out negatively on US/European relations.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/top-european-leader-urges-continent-needs-to-shift-course-as-u-s-relations-deteriorate-under-biden

    1. Return to norms, steady hand at the helm.

    2. Thank god The Adults Are Back In Charge.

    3. I blame Trump for advancing divisive ideas like nations standing for themselves and their own culture and buttressing China’s ascendance.

  28. Vance called groups like the Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and the Harvard University endowment “fundamentally cancers on society.”

    TRUTH

    1. Yeah, but not quite as bad as the news media.

  29. This week in the Republican-descent-into-batshit-authoritarianism-beat

    ENB rages over comments about seizing assets of partisan non-profits. Justifiable, if pointless, as they are not taking action. Last week Democrats proposed legislation on the floor of Congress that would interfere with private contracts to an unprecedented scale, a power specifically denied in the Constitution. ENB didn’t even cover it in the daily links.

    Thank you, Ms. Nolan Brown for losing your temper and revealing the true extent of your bias.

    1. Look, any moment now republicans are going to catch up to where the democrats were 8 years ago…..

      1. Democrats and Republicans usually agree on the absolutely worst shit.

    2. She is a libertarian so why should she kiss GOP ass like you do?

      1. turd lies. turd and the truth have never met. turd is a pathological liar too abysmally stupid to know he’s lying.
        turd lies; it’s what turd does

      2. Pretty gutsy for a DNC fifty-center like you to be accusing others of political shilling.

    3. Technically, Democrats ALREADY massively interfered with private contracts way back in 1933 when FDR forced contracts to accept dollars as payment instead of gold notes.

    4. Losing her temper? Revealing the true extent? It’s been pretty clear that she expends copious amounts of energy just to appear libertarian while sitting in place.

    5. This coming from a big govt social conservative Mormon.

      I know you’ll say you’re a libertarian, but if you were(or had a brain) you wouldn’t belong to the LDS Church. A church who’s members are overwhelmingly big govt social conservatives and itself advocates such causes.

      You’re not a libertarian Chuck. As long as you tithe to your evil fucking church you aren’t.

      Mormons are pure scum.

  30. Amazon is introducing a home robot.

    Skynet begins its existence ordering Dockers.

    1. Will it vote for me?

    2. The main function of the robot is serving is as a remote controlled camera platform. Gee I wonder what that could be used for.

  31. You do sort of need the word ‘woman’ for feminism…

    8th wave feminism is full of TERF’s.

    1. Fingers crossed that 80085th wave feminism lives up to its name and I live to see it.

  32. A Harvard Crimson survey of the incoming Harvard Class of 2025 revealed that 87% of the class voted for Joe Biden…

    As long as D isn’t the party of the elites.

    1. “Harvard Students Strongly Prefer Demented Politicians”

    2. Again, it might be time to let the Land Grant folks take a crack at government. Can’t hardly do worse than the HYS crowd.

  33. TDS is not restricted to any old lefty shits:
    “68% of Muslims say they face bias”
    […]
    “Zainab Ramahi said she chose to attend UC Berkeley School of Law in 2016 because of its “glowing reputation” for social justice. Her father was less thrilled. He reminded her that Donald Trump was campaigning for the presidency and she was a Muslim woman.
    “Be vigilant about your surroundings,” he counseled…”
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Berkeley-institute-Islamaphobia-is-shockingly-16494831.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result
    (May be pay-walled)

  34. For example, a conservative might hold the following beliefs:

    Secularism is bad and more people ought to be religious.
    Women are having too few babies and it’s bad that so many are choosing not to have children at all.
    Life in decadent, cosmopolitan cities is undesirable when compared to living in virtuous, rural, small‐​towns.
    The cultures that immigrants bring are inferior to American culture, and to the extent their cultures displace American culture, immigration is a threat.

    IDK, sounds more an-cap than conservative.

    1. Isn’t it possible to hold those beliefs and also hold the belief that it isn’t the government’s job to interfere with them? That the much of problems that conservatives can identify in modern society are directly attributable to government interference in the market and lives of individuals?

    2. I don’t see anything in any one of those beliefs suggesting the Government ought to do anything about any of their beliefs. Something a libertarian would be critically seeking.

  35. “If we understand libertarianism as a philosophy which aims at at protecting those social and institutional patterns that maximizes individual liberty.”

    If you are protecting the patterns of a culture of liberty then you are a conservative in that culture. Protecting those patterns will mean excluding non liberty enhancing patterns. The problem between libertarians and conservatives is how best to protect the patterns of liberty. All too often, libertarians will gleefully help progressives pull down Burkean fences without understanding what they were for.

    Also on the example of women not choosing to have enough babies. A culture that does not reproduce enough to maintain its population, is a culture that is dying. A culture that maintains its population by immigration but does not insist that immigrants adopt its culture will be replaced. If a Culture of Liberty results on both things, then it is not long for this world.

    1. I don’t get the lack of understanding on this.

      As we have seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc… There are cultures that do not value self-determination, individual liberty, self rule, democratic representation. The neocons naively believed that given the choice, Arab citizens would love to live in a democratic society. Turns out…. Not so much.

      Culture matters. Import enough Islamists, and you no longer have a constitutional republic that respects individual righta. Import enough communists, and your freedoms go out the window.

  36. “But Carlson and Vance probably wouldn’t like it if Democrats came after the Heritage Foundation, Turning Point USA, the Independent Women’s Forum, and other GOP-friendly groups that enjoy tax-exempt status, too.”

    Why do any of these groups, along with all churches, NGOs, foundations, etc. have special tax status? Like any financially “failing” enterprise, if they operate at a loss, they should have no tax burden. If they attain profits, why should they avoid the same taxes that other enterprises pay?

    Can we at least stop pretending that taxes are fundamentally for raising revenue, and not for punishing (and rewarding) political targets?

    1. Yes, they would have no tax burden if they didn’t make a profit. However, contributions to them would no longer be deductible for major contributors on their personal tax returns and that may severely dry up donations from big contributors.

      1. I suppose there’s an argument to be made that an organization can’t stay afloat because people are no longer able to write off those donations on their taxes, they probably aren’t serving much of a useful function to begin with.

        People subscribe to all kinds of media without a tax break, and they do so because they find value in the product being sold. If they really believe in the organization’s mission, they’ll continue donating irrespective of whether they can write it off or not.

        Vance’s idea is dumb primarily because it’s one-sided. I’m fine with these all these guys getting sheared, however, with NO exceptions whatsoever.

      2. So? Again, why should any group have different tax status? If you choose to donate to your cause, why should your tax burden be less than mine?

    2. The power to tax is the power to destroy.

      ES, I don’t want the federal (or state) government taxing churches or synagogues or mosques. No way. That is simply a price we pay in civil society to maintain non-interference by the government into religious affairs.

  37. I see the aclu continues to think students have a constitutional right to not see the mouths and noses of other students.

    1. A constitutional right to be forced to make a fashion statement by government institutions.

      1. At least they can pick their mask design, to a point. I bet they wouldn’t let me wear my Fuck Joe Biden face mask if I was still a student 🙁

  38. Actually, repealing ALL charitable tax deductions would be totally fair, and reduce federal expenses at the IRS.

  39. things like the ACLU tweet [rewriting Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s woman quote] or the Lancet ‘bodies with vaginas’ cover (sounds so much racier than it is…) are not helping,

    What an understatement! They are engaged in the torturing of honest discourse to accommodate a very few individuals who fallaciously claim that words not even directed at them rise to the level of personal insults and that long established group identifiers somehow fail to include them. It is solipsistic nonsense.

    And it is certainly not a coincidence that this corruption of language undermines religion. Jesus Christ was the ‘Son of Man’, His grace extending to every single person. To change religious texts would be blasphemy and yet failing to do so would make religious language even more anachronistic than it already is. ‘More inclusive’ language is meant to be a wedge; to create cognitive dissonance for youth engaged in religion.

    The Pronoun War does not minimize differences and encourage tolerance. It is divisive and mean-spirited at its core. It is the pitiful plea of a spoiled child who wants the teacher to force the other kids to play with him.

    Every sane person should refuse.

    1. The really scary part of 1984 was newspeak, not the stupid cameras.

    2. The destruction of it’s primary religious competitor seems paramount for the establishment/clerisy right now. You can see it in every Shrike and Tony post.

      1. ML isn’t religious. He just loves sucking religious conservative cock and lying for them.

        1. Thanks for the assist, Shrike.
          See what I mean folks?

          1. Why do you call me shrike? Sorry I’m not up on the Qanon/alt-right lingo.

            Talking shit to fascists like you isn’t a threat to religious liberty. Mormons are a threat because they’re trying to replace other religions.

            My point is for someone who isn’t religious you sure go overboard on conservative religious causes and kiss conservative religious ass.

  40. J.D. Vance Says Government Should Seize Assets of Political Nonprofits

    Koch foundations imperiled, Reason much troubled.

    If the corn pone goes away, where will the magazine get its ‘pinions?

  41. https://idahonews.com/news/local/idaho-doctor-threatened-after-refusing-to-ivermectin-or-plaquenil

    “One family member threatened her with physical violence and said, ‘I have a lot of ways to get people to do what I want them to do, and they’re all sitting in my gun safe at home.’”

    The dumbshittery that comes from the stupid Red vs Blue partisan war.

    1. And if anyone knows dumbshittery, it’s Mike.

    2. Soooo…the Ivermectin human moo-cows favor treating Doctors and Nurses as rightless slaves, just like supporters of Socialized Medicine, but for a different reason.

  42. one idiot (R) *candidate* is definitely more important than the pile of maniacs running the show

    1. Vance is a smacked ass. I doubt he’ll be around long.

  43. Generals on Afghanistan: Yes, Trump is Largely Responsible for Chaos

    Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – The Senate Hearing on the collapse of Afghanistan, at which the top US generals testified, underlined that actions taken by the Trump administration had a significant impact on undermining the Ashraf Ghani government and the Afghanistan National Army.

    …..

    Milley said that shortly after he sent his recommendation to keep troops in country to Secretary of Defense Mark Esper,

    “Two days later on 11, November, 2020, I received an unclassified signed order directing the United States military to withdraw all forces from Afghanistan no later than 15, January, 2021.”
    That is, Trump tried his damnedest to do in January what Biden did in August. In some ways, it was Biden’s bad political luck that Trump had a failure of nerve and in the end kept 2500 troops in the country until, he said, May 1 — kicking the can down the road and leaving Biden holding the bag.

    All those partisan Trumpists who raked Biden over the coals for ordering a complete withdrawal in August are revealed to have feet of clay. Their golden calf had intended to do exactly the same thing.

    https://www.juancole.com/2021/09/generals-afghanistan-responsible.html

    1. LOL at the hicklib pederast trying to conflate Biden’s fuckups with Trump’s desire to end our useless Afghanistan adventure.

      The mere fact that anyone is citing that Web 1.0 fossil Juan Cole as an authority is sufficient to dismiss the argument.

      1. So the lead voice against US imperialism is now a “fossil”?

        I thought you New Wingnuts had seen the light on US Middle East misadventures? Like your hero, Donnie-Boy?

        1. LOL, Cole hasn’t been a “lead voice” since Dubya’s first term in office. He’s been a “literally who?” for years.

          I thought you New Wingnuts had seen the light on US Middle East misadventures? Like your hero, Donnie-Boy?

          Here the hicklib pederast continues to lie that people criticizing Biden’s fuckups on the pullout also wanted to stay in Afghanistan. But he’s totes a libertarian, gaiz!

    2. Juan Cole? Really?

      Cole’s views are shaped by his fundamental belief in a conspiracy of Jewish “neo-conservatives” who dictate U.S. policy toward the Middle East. His recurrent theme is that a nebulous “pro-Likud” cabal controls the American government from a small number of key positions in the Executive Branch. He never names the leaders or organizations behind this conspiracy, but vaguely associates it with AIPAC, MEMRI, and Jews in the Bush administration.

      1. Those “Jews” led by Richard Perle and Dick Cheney actually signed a strategy document on how the US military would invade Iran followed by Syria, Iran, Egypt and others in domino fashion and convert them into Western democracies on behalf of Israel and US business interests.

        1. should be “Iraq” first.

      2. The dude’s also another “how do you do, fellow Latinos?” douchebag like Robert Francis O’Rourke, Hispanicizing his first name.

        He’s basically just another self-hating white dude whose Islamophilia happens to occasionally intersect with some good positions such as criticism of CIA glow-games in the Middle East.

      3. Well we just gave a modern prosperous country $1B to pay for a missile defense. Would we do the same for England? Germany? Italy..heck a lot more Americans from those countries than Israel.

        1. We might, if any of the three countries you mentioned were getting shot at.

          This isn’t a gift to Israel, so much as it’s welfare for the defense industry. Plus field testing of said industry’s more experimental ideas. No, we shouldn’t be doing it at all…ideally, but if we are going to do it, we might also want to include countries like Japan/SK/Taiwan/Australia, and maybe even Vietnam in on the action. I’m thinking missile defense is going to be a very relevant topic, very soon in those countries.

    3. SLOPPY PULLOUT!!!!!!!!!11111

      Oh I’m sorry, I saw “Afghanistan” and “Chaos” and immediately went into Buttplug-inspired Defend Biden At All Costs mode. I didn’t realize we’re allowed to acknowledge there was, in fact, chaos — as long as we blame Drumpf? OK then!

      Yeah, forget everything I said recently about how brilliantly things were handled in Afghanistan. Forget my praise of the LARGEST AIRLIFT IN HISTORY. Didn’t really mean it. Afghanistan was a clusterfuck. It was a shitshow. And the blame? 100% Drumpf, 0% Biden.

      #LibertariansForBiden

      1. Wow I was worried until I saw the last sentence.

    4. >>Milley said

      your source is known liar.

      1. A CJCS who actually prepped for a conspiracy theory about the sitting President proposed a leader of the opposition party. The word credible doesn’t mean anything anymore.

    5. Generals on Afghanistan: Yes, Trump is Largely Responsible for Chaos

      If only they’d had more than a year’s worth of peace to prepare or ar least notify anyone! Then they wouldn’t have to blame Trump for their failure.

    6. The Republican ratfuckers have gotten so bad at this. Benghazi was one thing. There was no victory to be had there. They could ratfuck that into oblivion, and did. It might as well have been a mugging in Detroit.

      Come next November, the Afghanistan narrative will be “Biden ended the war in Afghanistan.” Does FOX News really think its sheeple are going to weep for the plight of Afghan civilians on election day over a year from now? They’d be better off wishing Biden gets caught wearing a seersucker out of season.

      Eh, they’ll think whatever they’re told to think, I suppose.

  44. “The U.S. has deported almost 4,000 Haitian migrants in a little over a week.”

    And the other 35,000 or so? Where are they?

    1. Not standing in line to get vaccinated, I promise you.

  45. Vance called groups like the Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and the Harvard University endowment “fundamentally cancers on society.”

    Vance’s proposal is dumb, but he’s not wrong on that score at all.

  46. I guess ENB woke up this morning and took a gander at what was going on and said, I can go with a republican senate CANDIDATE who wants to strip a non-profit of its non-profit status (good case to make for this) and take its assets (not good) or I can go with the president who wants to force as many private citizens as possible to take a shot of something they don’t want and a democratic congress who just proposed legislation to fine private companies (I thought reason liked these?) 70k to 700k for not forcing their employees to get a shot against their will……

    reason is to libertarianism what the aclu is civil liberties

    1. or, I don’t know, focus on the Dem-controlled Congress, and whether or not they can gain unanimity on whether to blow “only” an additional 1.2 trillion dollars we don’t have, or whether they’ll go for the whole 4.7 trillion we don’t have right away.

      1. What is your complaint? Reason has been covering that story.

    2. Then why are you spending your time here?

    3. (good case to make for this) and take its assets (not good)

      Almost certainly not all, but there’s probably a case that at least some assets should be seized. I could see a case that assets contributed by public sector unions are public property.

  47. Conservatism is incompatible with libertarianism because they have different aims.

    What the fuck would the people who said this-

    Let’s read Slade, Dahlmia, Boehm Riggs, Ciaramella, Weissmueller and Welch’s posts on the matter:

    “I will cast my ballot for Joe Biden in Michigan, a swing state, because there is no bigger libertarian cause right now”

    “Who do you plan to vote for this year? Joe Biden. The nationalists said the libertarian-conservative consensus is dead, and I take them at their word. Also, Stephen Miller is a white nationalist.”

    “I will vote strategically… for Biden.”

    “I will cast my first ever vote for president for Joe Biden in the battleground state of Pennsylvania.”

    “I’ve been vacillating between sitting out this election, as I did in 2016, or voting for Joe Biden. The strongest argument for the latter choice is that it’s an opportunity to support the repudiation of both Trumpism and AOC” (lol)

    “I’ll be voting for Joe Biden, primarily for three reasons: (1) A feeble president Biden seems like an opportunity to erode the power and glamour of the dangerous cult of the presidency and also push socialists, nationalists, and identitarians back to the margins, creating space for a more libertarian-friendly coalition to emerge.” (Oh wow! lol)

    “If it was going to be close in my state, I might have considered holding my nose and voting for the person most likely to supplant the eminently fireable incumbent.”

    know about libertarianism?

  48. Vance is not a conservative

  49. Carpe Dem – Seize the Pay

  50. “non profits” as they started to come into existence with the baby boomers/60s radicals who avoided the real world are true grifters..NGOs do terrible damage internationally for the most part and in the US they push a very radical cultural marxist agenda attacking traditional values, and Christians in general. They are grifters and should be taxed. Most are parasites..

  51. Sometimes we want to post a beautiful image on Facebook, Instagram, or another social network but do not know precisely what. We joined the useful to the pleasant and selected beautiful images with phrases of various kinds for you to share on your networks. Check it out!
    https://bit.ly/3ApHRkY

  52. “Why don’t we seize the assets of the Ford Foundation, tax their assets, and give it to the people who’ve had their lives destroyed by their radical open borders agenda?” Vance asked on Carlson’s show last night.

    To the autistic writers at Reason: this is known as a “rhetorical question”.

    In any case, the reason for seizing the assets of the Ford foundation would be that it is failing to live up to the goals and objectives it was founded and endowed for. The people running foundations shouldn’t be able to hijack the endowment of a foundation and then use it for other purposes.

    Ideally, all foundations and non-profits should be of limited duration and spend down their money during that time.

    1. Fuck, now much top-down force do you want to impose on Americans exactly?

      Why do I have to come to a libertarian site to get the real free-base authoritarianism? The Daily Stormcuck folks want to exterminate the undesirables, of course, but that’s mostly hot air. You guys have plans.

  53. I know, I know—Carlson and Vance are not principled torchbearers of conservative ideology

    Yes, but Reason certainly is! What could be more “libertarian” than granting special tax breaks to institutions that promote authoritarianism! /sarc

    (The libertarian position, of course, is that there should be no special tax breaks for any institution. The Ford Foundation should be subject to the same rules as any other private entity.)

    1. Conservatism is Oldspeak for fascism. Libertarian platforms are as laissez-faire as can be constitutionally hoped for even by the standards of Bastiat, Spooner and Rand. Objectivist party platforms published in 2008 are still there and clearly similar to Libertarian platforms. The Republican platform just as clearly resembles the NSDAP platform, only with an extra 34,758 words added. Search “Republican National Socialism”

  54. It’s always refreshing when Losertarians expose themselves as merely Marxist-minded fascist Democrat shills with screeds like this which wouldn’t be out of place at Vox or Slate. “Republicans are authoritarians!!! Booga booga!!! Leave the liberal indoctrination moneybags alone!!!” Spare me.

    Other than wanting lower taxes and legalized dope, what differentiates Losertarianism from modern liberalism (which is illiberal in the dictionary sense)? Not a thing.

    1. Conservative National Socialists have had chapped asses since the Liberal Party of America donated its Prohibition Repeal plank to the Dems–who used it to win five consecutive elections. Their definition of liberal switches in Hitler’s definition of Juden. And yes, the Liberal party platform of 1931 stoutly defended Jews against the Ku-Klux Klan with no euphemisms. Conservative tears water my schadenfreude, and their carpet-biting outrage is an assurance that someone, somewhere, is happy.

  55. Name one influx of immigrants in American history that did actual harm to America.

    Except the original one, of course.

    1. See “With Friends Like These” at Libertariantranslator. Attached is a list of convicted criminal aliens. It is true that a hefty percentage violated no rights, only quaint superstitions about the Satanic content of plant leaves. Furthermore, ICE figures neither match nor add up in Excel. They claim 350,000 convictions for 2018, yet in a different report report that 2018 figure as 105,000. Taking that and stripping off trumped up victimless stuff leaves 15,000 border-crossers convicted of actual crimes in FY 2018. But adding robberies, homicides, property damage, etc you get 37,000 with normal border inspection and not Pancho Villa raids.

  56. I’d normally side with ENB against fascist outrage-mongers. But rewritten: “Why don’t we seize the assets of the 2018 LNC, and give them back to the Libertarian party members and candidates who’ve had their efforts sabotaged by 5th-columnists injecting radical open borders agenda?” It starts to look better. When LP vote share stood over 3%, increasing 80% a year, communist anarchists conveniently wrecked our vote harvest by demanding uninspected entry of dangerous criminals. Terrorist invaders are NOT what my dues and donations were intended to support.

Please to post comments