Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Reason Roundup

Back to Work

Plus: Who's in charge of DOGE, protests over Israel's renewed assault on Gaza, and a tribute to the life of Manuel Klausner.

Christian Britschgi | 3.19.2025 10:21 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Elon Musk thinking | CNP/AdMedia/SIPA/Newscom
(CNP/AdMedia/SIPA/Newscom)

Back to work: A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration's unilateral dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) likely violated the U.S. Constitution.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang ordered the administration to return computer and email access to employees of the agency, including those who had been placed on administrative leave, reports the Associated Press.

Get your morning news roundup from Liz Wolfe and Reason.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The ruling comes as part of the lawsuit filed by unnamed USAID employees who have challenged the constitutionality of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its apparent head Elon Musk's ability to fire employees, cancel grants, and shutter the congressionally authorized agency.

These employees and contractors had requested a preliminary injunction from the court that would reinstate USAID employees and funding.

Chuang partially granted that request, writing that DOGE's actions to shut down the USAID and close its headquarters without the approval of a USAID officer "likely violated the United States Constitution in multiple ways" and "deprived the public's duly elected representatives in Congress of their constitutional authority to decide whether, when, and how to close down an agency created by Congress."

His order instructs the Trump administration to return USAID employees and contractors' access to all electronic systems within a week.

It also prohibits Musk, DOGE staffers, and anyone designated as part of a DOGE team within the federal government from taking further action to wind down the USAID, including terminating contracts, firing employees, or placing anyone on administrative leave.

Within two weeks, DOGE is also supposed to come up with a plan for allowing the USAID to return to its offices in the Ronald Reagan building in Washington, D.C., which DOGE very publicly evicted it from.

Politico notes that there is some ambiguity in the order. Chuang's injunction applies only to Musk, his DOGE deputies, and anyone named as part of a DOGE team focused on the USAID. That would seemingly not bind other non-DOGE members of the Trump administration from taking actions to wind down USAID employees and programs.

Who's in charge? Beyond the immediate reinstatement of some USAID functions, Chuang's ruling is consequential by finding that Musk is in charge of DOGE and that his role in running the agency is constitutionally dubious.

To date, there's been a lot of ambiguity about what the billionaire's precise role within the federal government is. In other DOGE-related lawsuits, the Trump administration has claimed that Musk is serving merely as a White House adviser and has no formal role in the two DOGE units within the White House, nor with the DOGE teams that have been set up in various federal departments.

As Chuang notes in his ruling, President Donald Trump has very publicly undermined that stance by repeatedly referring to Musk, in interviews, cabinet meetings, and a joint address to Congress, as the head of DOGE with wide powers to fire employees and make cuts.

According to plaintiffs in the USAID lawsuit, this presents a problem for DOGE, as Musk is apparently acting as a principal officer without the needed Senate confirmation in violation of the Constitution's Appointments Clause.

Chuang's ruling is the first to support that argument. That could lend support to the many other anti-DOGE lawsuits accusing Musk of acting as a principal officer without congressional authorization.

A life for liberty: Earlier this week, Manuel Klausner, a co-founder of the Reason Foundation and early editor for Reason, died at the age of 85. Brian Doherty has written an obituary of Klausner, charting his life as a young lawyer and instructor at the University of Chicago Law School and his involvement in the very early days of Reason.

[Klausner's] enthusiasm for spreading libertarian ideas led to him connecting with a local libertarian philosopher he heard on the radio, Tibor Machan; the two men eventually allied with local engineer Robert Poole and took over Reason in 1971, which had been foundering under its founding editor Lanny Friedlander. Klausner played many roles with the magazine through the 1970s, including editor and publisher, and in 1978 was a co-founder of Reason Foundation, which took on the publishing of Reason, as well as other public policy work pushing libertarian ideas in the real world.

In a 1999 interview, Klausner told Doherty, "On my death bed I'll be proud and happy—I'm positive by nature. We have a free country here in that we can accumulate capital and invest in building frameworks to circulate ideas."

Read the whole obit here. Reason Foundation co-founder Robert Poole has also written a tribute to Klausner. RIP.


Scenes from D.C.: Last night, demonstrators gathered outside the White House to protest Israel's renewed assault on Gaza.

Protests outside the White House !

????????????

pic.twitter.com/lBqDsUwBqm

— Winter's Politics ???? (@WintersPolitics) March 19, 2025

In what's being reported as one of the deadliest days of the war so far, Israel broke the ceasefire by launching air and naval strikes against the small territory on Tuesday. At least 400 people, including women and children, were killed in the attack.


QUICK HITS

  • Reason reports yesterday on a Rhode Island town that's decided to forgo all the pesky process involved in the taking of private property and instead just sign the title over to itself.
  • Russia and Ukraine are accusing each other of violating a partial truce, reports The Wall Street Journal.
  • Read Virginia Postrel on "lawn-sign liberalism vs. supply-side progressivism."
  • Arrested Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil issues a letter from the Louisiana detention center he's being held in by immigration officials. He calls himself a "political prisoner."
  • Trump releases the last of the John F. Kennedy assassination files.
  • Dems in disarray as Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) criticizes Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) for not blocking Republicans' government funding bill.

Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: The Supreme Court Has an Opportunity To Correct Its Kelo Eminent Domain Error

Christian Britschgi is a reporter at Reason.

Reason RoundupElon MuskDOGEUSAIDConstitutionDonald TrumpIsraelPalestineLibertarianismPolitics
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (369)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)   2 months ago

    Israel did not break the cease fire, hamas did

    1. Stupid Government Tricks   2 months ago

      Came to say the same thing. This reluctance to hold Hamas accountable is tiring.

      1. Commenter_XY   2 months ago

        What do you expect from Britschgi? The truth? LMAO.

      2. damikesc   2 months ago

        It's Reason. There is no libertarianism here.

        They need, DESPERATELY, to leave DC. Move south.

        1. Mother's Lament - (Here's your attention, Sarckles)   2 months ago

          ...or north, west, or, if those directions are refused, east. But leave Babylon, guys. It's making you look and act like fools.

        2. Cyrano   2 months ago

          Anti-libertarians don’t necessarily have to be anti-semitic too, yet Reason writers are.

    2. Bertram Guilfoyle   2 months ago

      Fuck Britchgi and fuck reason.

    3. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

      https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2025/03/18/hamas-leaders-are-getting-put-into-the-ground-by-israel-n2654004

      “Hamas could have released hostages to extend the ceasefire but instead chose refusal and war," Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Brian Hughes released in a statement.

  2. Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)   2 months ago

    Usaid was created by executive order, it can be gutted by executive order or is this another case of its (d) ifferent

    1. Stupid Government Tricks   2 months ago

      Its creation was later confirmed by legislation. Executive order cannot undo that.

      1. Gaear Grimsrud   2 months ago

        But they merely recognized it as an executive agency and Congress exercises zero oversight.

        1. Mother's Lament - (Here's your attention, Sarckles)   2 months ago

          And its destruction can be later confirmed by legislation, I'm sure.

      2. Randy Sax   2 months ago

        USAID is an executive branch agency. Does the commander in chief not have hire/fire power within the executive branch? Maybe he cannot dissolve the agency, but he can gut it.

        1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

          The job of the executive is to execute the will of the people in the form of laws passed by elected representatives, even if the laws are dumb. It's not to pick and choose which laws to uphold and which ones to openly defy. If you want to get rid of agencies created by laws, you need to change the laws. Not ignore them.

          1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

            Which laws is he violating buddy?

            He didn't get rid of USAID. He moved it to state and is acting in minimal compliance.

            You've been told this over and over. Yet you keep repeating bullshit MSNBC talking points.

            1. Bertram Guilfoyle   2 months ago

              He's a bot now.

            2. sarcasmic   2 months ago

              Do you ever get tired of arguing against things I didn't say?

              1. Spiritus Mundi   2 months ago

                Sarc: It's not to pick and choose which laws to uphold and which ones to openly defy.

                Jesse: Which laws is he violating buddy?

                Sarc: I didn't say that.

                Me: stop feeding the drunk troll

                1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

                  If a law creates a government agency, and the president guts the agency and refuses to do what the law says, then the president is defying the law. I know you believe it's ok because Trump is doing it, but what happens when Democrats retake the White House? You want them to ignore laws passed by Republicans? Is it ok for them to gut the military because they don't like Republican appropriation bills? According to you it is.

                  1. Spiritus Mundi   2 months ago

                    According to you it is.

                    Do you ever get tired of arguing against things I didn't say?

                    You are really bad at this.

                    1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

                      If it's ok for Trump do ignore laws he doesn't like, then it's ok for the next Democratic administration to do the same thing. So by defending Trump you're giving the green light to Democrats so they can ignore laws they don't like too. As long as they get lawyers to write up a rationale too.

                      You guys really don't get the concept of "me today, you tomorrow."

                    2. Spiritus Mundi   2 months ago

                      So by defending Trump

                      When did I do this? Man, even your strawmen are drunk.

                    3. Mother's Lament - (Here's your attention, Sarckles)   2 months ago

                      "If it's ok for Trump do ignore laws he doesn't like"

                      LIKE WHAT TROLL? That's the whole point of Jesse and Spiritus' argument.

                      You claimed Trump's ignoring laws.
                      Jesse asked you when and how.
                      You claimed you never said that.
                      You then again claimed Trump's ignoring laws and said that Spiritus is cool with it.

                      I asked you yesterday how many times you have to bounce your head off concrete to be like you, but you never came up with a number.

                    4. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

                      Sarc, if you were a quarter as smart as you’re retarded, you might understand how this works, and that you have to start somewhere to drain the swamp and get rid of the deep state.

                    5. Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)   2 months ago

                      Stop feeding the drunk troll.

                  2. Bob of Nazareth, PA   2 months ago

                    It's an executive agency under the president that Congress acknowledged. You're arguing if you build a room in my house that I can't tear it down. It's the president's house and he can tear it down.

              2. Don't get eliminated   2 months ago

                Poor sarc.

          2. Randy Sax   2 months ago

            I don't see how firing people within the agency can be construed as "openly defying" any law.

            1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

              If that agency is created by a law, is given a budget, and a mission, then firing everyone, not spending the money, and not doing the mission is defying the law.

              I'm fine with getting rid of USAID. I just want it done in a way that's going to stick. That means getting rid of the laws that created whatever Trump is trying to cut.

              That's the thing I don't understand about you Trump defenders. You say you want to cut government, but you get violently angry at anyone who suggests the cuts be made more permanent with legislation.

              1. Randy Sax   2 months ago

                The problem is with the way congress writes laws. Extremely vague.

                Bill "n":
                Create an agency to make cookies for homeless people, and the budget is 100Billion.

                It's now up to the president to enforce this law. Hire 100,000 bakers and give them out by hand? Hire 1 baker and buy a cargo plane to drop them from the sky? Completely up to the president. And when a new president is in office he can change the way the mission is executed. At will. No laws broken. It also doesn't particularly matter how successful the mission is. And if you can do it without spending all the budget, that is legal too.

                1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

                  I would fully support a non-delegation amendment to the Constitution to force Congress to do their job. Until then this is how it works. Do you want Democratic presidents to maliciously comply in the manner you describe when Republicans pass laws? Probably not. Remember that when Democrats take power back, and they will, they're going to be saying "It's ok, Trump did it first."

                  1. Randy Sax   2 months ago

                    Do you want Democratic presidents to maliciously comply in the manner you describe when Republicans pass laws? Probably not.

                    I don't consider myself a republican, not even a conservative. Both sides of the isle have been acting with what you call malicious compliance for a long time now. When the Biden ATF decides to "execute it's mission" by declaring various gun parts as firearms in and of themselves, it is the same game Biden and Trump are both playing.

                    Do I like the system? No. Is it illegal? Also no.

                    1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

                      No, the games are different. Trump's game is refusing to execute laws he doesn't like. That's not a game I've seen Democrats play. They tend to stretch the law in ways that make Mr. Fantastic blush. But after this presidency you can count on the next Democratic president ignoring laws that Republicans pass. And when Republicans howl about how the president isn't doing their duty and so on and so forth, the response will be "Trump did it first, that makes it ok. Ha ha fuck you."

                    2. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

                      Where’s your evidence and citation that Trump isn’t enforcing laws he doesn’t like? You do realize that for years, the previous administration refused to enforce immigration laws?

                    3. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

                      I remember when sarc pretended yo agree that the executive has been expanding their powers like under Chevron doctrine.

                      Now he is again minimal compliance because of Trump lol.

                      And sarc, I'd be just fine with a Democrat president being minimally compliant.

                    4. sarcasmic   2 months ago

                      And sarc, I'd be just fine with a Democrat president being minimally compliant.

                      No you wouldn't you liar. You have no principles and judge everything based upon who, not what. So if a Democratic president refused to comply with laws that you like, or laws written by Republicans, you'd be screaming for impeachment. Because of who, not what.

                    5. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

                      No you wouldn't you liar. You have no principles and judge everything based upon who, not what.

                      And here we can observe Sarc projecting yet again. He was fine with all Biden did, but heaven forbid Trump do anything to change the office from what Biden did.

                    6. Marshal   2 months ago

                      You have no principles and judge everything based upon who, not what.

                      I love that sarc is so outraged by the prospect that other people might be just like him. We all read Reason for the information, but you can't ignore the humor.

                    7. Bertram Guilfoyle   2 months ago

                      Because of who, not what.

                      Remember when you spent post after post defending Biden's holding of classified documents?

                    8. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

                      Sarc, unlike you I want the federal government to do as little as possible. You're the big government trust the institution democrat, not me.

              2. Commenter_XY   2 months ago

                sarcasmic, The POTUS is invested with all of the Executive power, under the Constitution. He is the only official elected by the whole of the people.

                Because he embodies the power of the executive, under the constitution, he gets to decide who will work for him.

                That is where SCOTUS will net out.

              3. Bertram Guilfoyle   2 months ago

                I'm fine with getting rid of USAID. I just want it done in a way that's going to stick.

                What did your congressmen say when you communicated this to them?

                1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

                  Sarc doesn't understand that congress can resurrect usaid if a prior congress removes it.

                  His entire argument is known bloviatijg bullshit to attack someone seeking to reduce government.

                  1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

                    I understand that EOs are much easier to undo than legislation you lying sack of shit.

                    1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

                      Yet you seem not to understand that the systems and structures the establishment built over decades cannot just be rebuilt after four years of Trump, and maybe longer if the Republicans hold the Presidency after that. The people responsible for maintaining them will be gone, as will the connections they relied upon. This is damage that will take years, if not decades to rebuild.

                    2. Bertram Guilfoyle   2 months ago

                      You forgot to answer about how your congressmen feel about it.

          3. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

            Presidents do need to faithfully execute the duties of the office. They also swear an oath to uphold the Constitution as part of their job. That supercedes an law passed by Congress. He can refuse to execute any law that violates the constitution, same as any executive branch employee can. If Congress doesn't find that acceptable, they can impeach and remove him.

            1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

              First off that's not what Trump is doing. He's cutting things based upon whims, not the Constitution. Second, do you really want to give any president, including Democrats, the power to say "I'm going to ignore all laws passed by Republicans because I deem them unconstitutional"?

              1. Commenter_XY   2 months ago

                Whim? Says who? That isn't what POTUS Trump is saying, or doing.

                Every action has been preceded by an EO that details and explains the legal rationale. The documents exist, do you deny that?

                What whim?

                1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

                  "I don't like this. I want to get rid of it. Get the lawyers to write up a justification."

                  1. Commenter_XY   2 months ago

                    That is not a whim. That is a specific request to draft a legal justification.

                    1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

                      Sarc argues purely from ignorance. We've linked and told him every EO has both constitutional or legal justification attached to it.

                      He just knows what MSNBC says.

                    2. sarcasmic   2 months ago

                      That is not a whim. That is a specific request to draft a legal justification.

                      Based upon what? Constitutional principles? Ha. I highly doubt either Trump or Elon have ever read the thing. No, all the cuts are based upon whims. Whim first, then retcon some excuse.

                    3. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

                      And more projection from Sarc. Sarc probably hasn’t read the Constitution once in his life.

                    4. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

                      To be fair. Sarc never reads much of anything.

                  2. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

                    That’s not a whim, dingbat. That’s asking for a legal way to do something, if it is indeed possible. That’s staying within the realm of the law and the Constitution, much unlike your buddy Biden.

                  3. Don't get eliminated   2 months ago

                    Poor sarc. So stupid.

              2. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

                Yes, I'd prefer a president ignore pretty much every law Congress has passed. Now the president making his own laws that cost money, that's different.

              3. DesigNate   2 months ago

                US Aid is plainly unconstitutional, whether he wants to get rid of it on a whim or not.

                Same goes for most of the alphabet agencies if you really want to get down to it.

          4. Marshal   2 months ago

            The job of the executive is to execute the will of the people in the form of laws passed by elected representatives, even if the laws are dumb. It's not to pick and choose which laws to uphold and which ones to openly defy. If you want to get rid of agencies created by laws, you need to change the laws. Not ignore them.

            In fact courts have ruled this reasoning false.

      3. JFree   2 months ago

        Not a surprise that your ilk doesn't understand the concept of time.

        Which comes first - September 4, 1961 or November 3, 1961?

        So difficult.

    2. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

      The ruling isn’t even valid as it gets several important details wrong. Therefore, no one could possibly comply with it.

  3. Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)   2 months ago

    Don't worry the hamas lover from Syria will soon be back in Syria.

    1. Anomalous   2 months ago

      Where he belongs.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

        But forcing people to live as they preach is racist!

    2. Marshal   2 months ago

      Even though he was born in Syria he actually a citizen of Algeria.

  4. Sarah Palin's Buttplug - Jan 6 = 9/11 (same motive)   2 months ago

    Trump administration's unilateral dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) likely violated the U.S. Constitution.

    Those old-timey Republicans (before Dumbya) used to respect the Constitution.

    1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

      turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
      If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
      turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

    2. Commenter_XY   2 months ago

      What do you mean? POTUS gets to decide who works for him, not some dick judge in DC.

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        Pedo is on board with unelected judges running the government.

    3. Mother's Lament - (Here's your attention, Sarckles)   2 months ago

      "Those old-timey Republicans (before Dumbya) used to respect the Constitution."

      This something I'm really curious about is why Shrike always tries to conflate the GWB administration with Trump, when the Bush Republicans loathe MAGA and vice versa.
      I mean Trump's whole 2016 campaign was about being anti-neocon and anti-Bush.
      And in 2024 the entire Bush Iraq war cabinet very publicly joined team Kamala along with Pluggo.

      I can only think of three reasons Buttplug does this.
      1. He's trolling but also lazy.
      2. He's retarded.
      3. He's retarded but also a lazy troll.

      1. Don't get eliminated   2 months ago

        4. He’s a retarded lying troll that had his original account banned for posting a link to child porn.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

          5. He’s a lazy, lying retarded troll that had his original account permabanned for posting a link to hardcore child porn and then decided to use a new account to circumvent the ban.

  5. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

    Hopefully Eric's column was so terrible this morning he got fired which is why britches had to rush to get this out an hour late.

    Elon:

    “It’s really come as quite a shock to me that there is this level of, really, hatred and violence from the left,” he said. “I always thought that the left, you know, Democrats were supposed to be the party of empathy, the party of caring, and yet they’re burning down cars, firebombing dealerships, they’re firing bullets into dealerships, they’re smashing up Teslas. Tesla is a peaceful company. We’ve never done anything harmful.”

    “I think there are larger forces at work as well. I mean, who’s funding and who’s coordinating it — because this is crazy. I’ve never seen anything like this.”

    “It turns out when you take away people’s, you know, the money that they’re receiving fraudulently, they get very upset,” Musk added. “And they basically want to kill me because I’m stopping their fraud, and they want to hurt Tesla because we’re stopping the terrible waste and corruption in the government. And, well, I guess they’re bad people. Bad people do bad things.”

    1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug - Jan 6 = 9/11 (same motive)   2 months ago

      Leftists have always targeted property as a means of protest - go all the way back to the Monkey-Wrench Gang.

      The right prefers murder - see El Paso, Buffalo, Charleston, Oklahoma City, and hundreds of other attacks over the years.

      1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

        turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
        If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
        turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

      2. Overt   2 months ago

        Riiiiight. All those right wing Communists that murdered hundreds of millions of people. All those weather underground people building bombs to kill people in ROTC buildings.

        Guys, this is simple:
        A few years back SPB posted kiddy porn to this site, and his initial handle was banned. The link below details all the evidence surrounding that ban. A decent person would honor that ban and stay away from Reason. Instead SPB keeps showing up, acting as if all people should just be ok with a kiddy-porn-posting asshole hanging around. Since I cannot get him to stay away, the only thing I can do is post this boilerplate, and link to the evidence of his wrongdoing.

        https://reason.com/2022/08/06/biden-comforts-the-comfortable/?comments=true#comment-9635836

        Don't respond to SPB, just shun him.

      3. Mother's Lament - (Here's your attention, Sarckles)   2 months ago

        "The right prefers murder"

        Every single violent and deadly political attack in the last ten years has been blue on red. No exceptions.

        Shooting at congressional ballgames, running over MAGA with cars, ATVs, and SUVs, shooting up Christian Schools and shopping malls, assassination attempts on Republican candidates, burning and looting shops, historic churches, and government buildings.

        All of it has been Democrats every single time.

        There is now an interactive website that lists the name and address of thousands of Tesla owners. People can click on names and addresses and read about how to make a Molotov cocktail and/or commit other acts of terror.

        "The site, called “Dogequest,” reportedly reveals the names, addresses and phone numbers of Tesla owners throughout the US using an interactive map — and uses an image of a Molotov cocktail as a cursor.

        The site’s operators, who also posted the exact locations of Tesla dealerships, said that they will remove identifying information about Tesla drivers only if they provide proof that they sold their electric vehicles..."

        This isn't targeting some amorphous institution, but real people solely for the crime that they bought a car.

        Buttplug knows his party has long been hijacked by evil with his blessing, but he's still going to lie about it.

        1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug - Jan 6 = 9/11 (same motive)   2 months ago

          Post 9/11 political terrorist murders:


          134 Far Right Wing
          121 Jihadist
          17 Ideological Misogyny/Incel Ideology
          13 Black Separatist/Nationalist/Supremacist
          1 Far Left Wing

          https://www.newamerica.org/future-security/reports/terrorism-in-america/what-is-the-threat-to-the-united-states-today/

          You anti-Semitic wingnuts are the real problem.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

            In 2002, Newsweek's Howard Fineman called New America a "hive of state-of-the-art policy entrepreneurship". New America has been characterized as "liberal" by the Pacific Standard online magazine, "left-leaning" by The Washington Post, and "left-of-center" by the Capital Research Center organization.

            Your source is a far leftist piece of shit pushing propaganda.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      From what I have read, the angry transsexual crew is over-represented in anti-Tesla "action". Maybe they have some secret vendetta.

      1. Don't get eliminated   2 months ago

        They’re just the most unhinged of the foot soldiers.

    3. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

      We should only be so lucky that Eric Boehm was reluctantly and strategically downsized.

    4. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

      https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1902076567754567972

      TESLA OWNERS DOXED: SELL YOUR CAR OR STAY ON THE LIST

      A website called “Dogequest” has reportedly published the names, addresses, and phone numbers of Tesla owners across the U.S., complete with an interactive map and a Molotov cocktail cursor.

      The site claims it will only remove personal data if owners prove they've sold their Teslas, in an apparent backlash to Elon’s ties with the Trump administration.

      This comes as Tesla dealerships face gunfire, arson attempts, and Cybertruck owners report harassment, while anti-Tesla protests ramp up nationwide.

      1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

        Peaceful protest - jeffsarc

        1. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

          It's at least "fiery, but mostly peaceful protest".

      2. VinniUSMC   2 months ago

        Totally not terrorism. -sarcjeff

      3. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

        Doxxing is an essential press freedom. - Reason Staff Writer

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

          Who lives at...

    5. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

      https://x.com/LucyRiles/status/1901404129894813781

      Imagine brainwashing your young adult children to think Trump and Elon are “literally Hitler” only to have them turn into little entitled activists who go out and vandalize Tesla vehicles, charging stations and dealerships which results in felony domestic terrorism charges holding up to 20 year prison sentences.

      TDS is a leftist super spreader with very real, lifelong consequences.

      Re: reddit/legaladvice

      Hello. I made a throwaway account to post here.

      My daughter (African American, 18 year old) was involved in a protest at a Tesla dealership. After the protest, she apparently vandalized (spray paint + physical damage/breaning a Tesla and a cyber truck and was caught on Sentry mode (how clear are these cameras??). She told her lawyer and I that that she was coaxed by friends to do it.

      I’m scared for her and want her to have the best possible future. But I’m afraid that she is going to get a harsh sentence if found guilty, which her lawyer sajd is highly likely given the evidence. Will she be expelled from school? Will she be able to get a job? Anyone have any advice for me or her?

      1. Don't get eliminated   2 months ago

        Hilarious.

      2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

        Advice? Move to Gaza.

      3. Super Scary   2 months ago

        "Anyone have any advice for me or her?"

        This is the best legal advice I can think of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnMdI_NiZvA

      4. Fats of Fury   2 months ago

        Get the right judge and jury (D.C) and not only will she get off scot-free but the jury will order Tesla to pay her a billion in damages

    6. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      "Democrats Say Fire At Tesla Facility Likely Caused By Climate Change"

      The Bee still has it, even in this era where reality makes satire almost impossible.

      1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

        Political climate is a type of climate.

    7. Marshal   2 months ago

      “It’s really come as quite a shock to me that there is this level of, really, hatred and violence from the left,”

      Dems have been the party of demagoguery and hatred as long as they have existed. As jews are finding out every now and then Dems change targets, but the tactics have always been the same.

      1. mamabug   2 months ago

        It really shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has studied history. Violence is the most typical response of an elite when they realize they are losing power (US South in Civil War) or of a wannabe elite seeking to gain it (US Revolutionaries, Germany/Italy in WW2, etc.).

        In this case, the dems and their associated GOPe buddies have been the defacto power in charge since roughly the Clinton years (if not earlier with Bush Sr.) An empire never goes gently into that good night.

  6. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

    We are still living in the nightmare of tariffs!

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/gas-prices-are-plummeting-under-donald-trump/ar-AA1Badua?cvid=9deb6cb1f6924495edfeff6d1c42841f&ei=36

    1. Stupid Government Tricks   2 months ago

      And Donald Trump's fantasy world of tariffs is still living in your head, rent-free as Britches would say.

      Discussion is a two-way process. You see fit to never answer my two basic questions about tariffs and trade balances. At most you wander off into national security, 4D chess, environmental and labor laws, and other material irrelevant to my two basic questions. Sometimes you ask loaded questions in turn, then scoff that you have refuted me and I won't answer your questions.

      That is not discussion. That is speechifying to the crowd. That is refusing to admit that your golden-headed idol is an economic ignoramus. Why, I don't know, and don't care; that is your business, but the world notices, bub. You are earning your reputation.

      So once again, here are my two basic Econ 101 questions. If you answer these, I will answer your questions, because that is how discussion works. Don't bafflegarb with national security environmental labor laws — don't quibble with weird little corner cases which only happen in ivory tower PhD theses — this is Econ 101 basics, not 4D chess. It's a sorry general who doesn't understand the most basic aspects of his weapons. Trump has proven he doesn't. Prove you do. Dare to differ.

      1. Trade deficits are the same as foreign investment. If one grows, so does the other, and ditto for shrinking. The name change doesn't magically reverse one of them. How can Trump claim he wants to grow foreign investments while reducing the trade deficit?

      2. Tariffs are taxes on imports. Taxes raise revenue for the government from higher prices paid by importers and passed on to consumers like all other business expenses. If tariffs did not raise prices, they would be pointless, because the entire point of protective tariffs is to raise prices so high that domestic producer prices are suddenly relatively cheaper — not because they became more efficient, but because the government raised import taxes. This is protective tariffs, not revenue tariffs — the purpose is to discourage imports, not collect more revenue. 2024 imports were worth $3 trillion. 2024 income taxes raised $5.1 trillion in revenue. Import tariffs would have to be 170% to match income taxes. How could they do this, when that level of tariffs would cut imports drastically?

      1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

        One of my favorite parts of watching true believers of a religious idea is that no matter how many times your predictions and analysis turn out to be wrong, you maintain your religious beliefs. You'll refuse any and all evidence that goes against your true beliefs. Rejecting any information or learning that could maybe mature and evolve your believes. God bless.

        Lol.

        1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

          Great post. You totally refuted him. What time are you going to the Church of Trump to pray to Saint Babbitt? All the guys said they're going to meet you there, they just need to know what time.

          1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

            Whats to refute? So far he is 0% with his predictions while ignoring all counter arguments.

            By the way. Did you ever find your "It Sucks" comment about Rittenhouse yesterday. I can provide it if you need.

            Glad you're still applauding the death of an unarmed citizen while crying about the deportation of an immigrant whi supports terrorism by the way.

            1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

              You haven't made a single counter-argument. Just your usual ad hominems.

              1. Spiritus Mundi   2 months ago

                Still don't know ad hominen =/= insult. Poor sarc.

                1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

                  Saying someone is wrong because they're a "true believer" is not refuting what they say, it's refuting them. That's what an ad hominem is you feeble gaslighter.

                  1. Don't get eliminated   2 months ago

                    Poor sarc. So stupid.

                  2. Spiritus Mundi   2 months ago

                    So far he is 0% with his predictions while ignoring all counter arguments.

                    This was his counter. You can agree with it or not, but it is in now way an ad hominen you drunk wife beater.

                    1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

                      What predictions and what counter arguments? Jesse is just making stuff up, as always. And attacking someone as a "true believer" and saying that they as a person are wrong is indeed an ad hominem. "Ha ha look at this true believer. Everything he says is wrong." So it's a combination of a strawman and an ad hominem.

                      But keep on defending Jesse. You just just love your fallacies.

                    2. Spiritus Mundi   2 months ago

                      Nope.
                      Poor sarc.

            2. Stupid Government Tricks   2 months ago

              I make no predictions. These are definitions, not theories. Can yee not tell the difference? Do yee not know what definitions are?

              You have made no counter arguments. That's what's so fun about posting this over and over and calling you out over and over; giving you all the chances in the world to counter these definitions which you never do.

              You are good at sniffing out news. You do counter some arguments some people make. Yet here you do not. I believe that's because you are deathly afraid that if you ever admit Trump is wrong about anything, even things as simple as the definitions of tariffs and trade deficits, that you will lose face. So much easier to just parrot Trump than actually think about what he says.

              So you go ahead and be a nice loyal little parrot, keep riding Trump's shoulder, and I will continue goading you into thinking for a change. You are capable of thinking, unlike a certain other parrot around here, so I have hope for you.

              1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

                I believe that's because you are deathly afraid that if you ever admit Trump is wrong about anything, even things as simple as the definitions of tariffs and trade deficits, that you will lose face.

                There's more to it than that. If he admitted those things then he'd have to admit that I'm right. He'd rather chop off his own dick than admit that I'm right about something. That's how childish and petty he is.

      2. sarcasmic   2 months ago

        He read a book about game theory so now he knows more about economics than economists. That and Econ 101 is for stupid people who think in bumper sticker slogans. He's smarter than that because he read a book about game theory. The other thing that's wrong with Econ 101 is that leftists are criticizing Trump with economics. That makes economics wrong because leftists are saying it, and it makes you a leftist for saying the same thing as leftists.

        There. Your entire post is refuted.

        1. Mother's Lament - (Here's your attention, Sarckles)   2 months ago

          You know how you try an insist that people are ascribing opinions you didn't say? (even though you totally did)

          Yeah.

          You're such a fucking hypocrite, Sarckles.

      3. Commenter_XY   2 months ago

        Your premise for 1 is just wrong. Trade Deficit =/= Foreign Investment.

        Because your starting premise is erroneous, there is no need to address 2.

        1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

          Almost all his premises and assumptions are wrong. It is consistent.

          Not worth debating.

          It is like when you debate Jeff. Jeff attempts to set the assumptions and premise floor. Any deviation from that Jeff calls invalid. He does this because his argument doesn't work if presented with reality.

          It is one of the main argumentative styles of post modernist ironically. Assume the structure of the argument so your arguments are buttressed by the terms of the discussion, even if the premises are wrong.

          Hoppe actually has a pretty good essay about this style of argumentation and how libertarians should not accept those terms of a debate.

          In summary, STGs views continue to fail in predictive quality and in reality. So he retreats continuously to "theory. " it is the same as climate alarmist.

        2. sarcasmic   2 months ago

          He's right dude. That or every economist out there is wrong.

          Here's how it works. When we buy imports, we give them dollars and they give us stuff. If they don't buy as much stuff from us, then that's what's erroneously referred to as a "trade deficit". They're sitting on all these dollars while all we've got is stuff. They then take those dollars and invest in American businesses. That's foreign investment. If there was no "trade deficit" then they wouldn't have all those dollars to invest. Can't have one without the other.

          1. Commenter_XY   2 months ago

            I said the premise was wrong, sarcasmic. And it is. The two are not the same.

            1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

              How do you get foreign investment without a capital surplus caused by "trade deficits"?

              1. Commenter_XY   2 months ago

                sarcasmic, I will be patient. Rather unusual for me, so be impressed.

                A foreign company deciding to make an investment in the US does so for many, many different reasons and none of those reasons have dick to do with tariffs. They don't care about a trade deficit at a country level, they care about their bottom line.

                1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

                  That has nothing at all to do with what I said. I never said anything about tariffs or whether or not they care about trade deficits. I'm talking about Trump and his defenders wanting to eliminate the "trade deficit" while keeping foreign investment. It doesn't work that way.

                  A "trade deficit" happens when we import less than we export. That means we buy more of their stuff than they buy of our stuff. The result is them having all these dollars that they can't really do anything with because they're US currency. So they use those dollars to invest in our economy. That means there is a direct relationship between "trade deficits" aka capital surpluses, and foreign investment. Eliminate "trade deficits" and there will be much less foreign investment, because they won't have dollars to invest with.

                  1. See.More   2 months ago

                    . . . The result is them having all these dollars that they can't really do anything with because they're US currency. . .

                    You do realize that currencies are converted all the fucking time, right?

      4. Overt   2 months ago

        "1. Trade deficits are the same as foreign investment."

        This is demonstrably untrue. If I buy services or goods from another country, there is a deficit, and no foreign investment has occurred. You can note that the deficit may have been good- I sent $100,000 to Germany and received a $100,000 widgit-maker in return. There was no foreign investment.

        What you are describing is the fact that our Trade Deficit is offset by the Capital & Financial Account Balance. They must net to close to zero. But the thing is, you can't just label that "Foreign Investment". Because it represents a lot of stuff that people would not consider investment like you are implying.

        Let's take 2023 for example:
        Total Net Account Surplus: $946 Billion*
        Other Investments (US Loans, Deposits outflows): -$80B (8%)
        Long Term Government Debt: $243 Billion (26%)
        Currency Hedges (T-Bills, Money Markets): $72B + $50B = $122B (13%)
        Stocks: $201B (21%)
        Corporate Bonds: $76B (8%)
        Direct Investment: $350B (37%)

        So when we talk about actual INVESTMENT, only about 43% of the total deficit was new investment into companies via bond purchases or direct investment in corporations. The rest- stocks, tbills and other government debt- this is all just purchasing assets in the country, (Owning growth assets like stocks may be an investment for the owner, but it is not an investment in the company- giving it cash to fund new operations).

        This is all variable. If the US doesn't run massive deficits and sell Treasury securities to offset, then by necessity, to maintain the deficit, they will have to invest more directly or through purchase of private instruments (Stock, money market, etc). The point is that there are many levers here, and it is untrue that "Deficits are the same as foreign investment".

        2. Tariffs are taxes on imports, True. And the laws of economics are clear- the more expensive you make something, the less that will be consumed. This results in a slowdown in the amount of goods purchased, often with them switching to domestic producers. Much of the rest of the analysis is subjective and nonsense. There is no reason a punitive Tariff can't also be a revenue raiser. As with any tax, there are diminishing returns, elasticity concerns, and other variables that can limit or even eliminate revenue gains.

        All that can be true and someone can still make an argument for Tariffs. Everything has a tradeoff. Those tradeoffs could be justified given the expected result. Buying my car cost a lot of money. If all we did was point out the $60,000 debit to my bank account, we would not realize that in return for that expenditure, I received a machine that I use in my daily life.

        I find that people on both sides of the aisle regularly do this. There is a world where the cost of Tariffs may be justified to achieve some other end- revenue or whatever. On the other side, it is often just glossed over that deficits are bad, when they can represent people exporting money in return for stuff that makes our internal economy grow.

        * A careful review will see that the totals make 97% because some numbers are rounded. Some of the breakouts- which are bonds vs stocks are extrapolated. But they should be accurate to 1 - 2%

        1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

          "1. Trade deficits are the same as foreign investment."

          What he should have said is that another term for trade deficit is capital surplus. And those capital surpluses come back in the form of foreign investment.

          1. Overt   2 months ago

            But this is also not true. The fact that the Financial and Capital Account offsets the Trade Deficit is not the same as saying they are the same thing.

            "And those capital surpluses come back in the form of foreign investment."

            No, they don't. Read my description above. The problem is that you people are literally interpreting an accounting identity as "Investment". When you buy a car from Japan, your dollars go to a foreign company. They then must do one of these four things:

            1) Hold onto the dollars- this can be anything from short term or long term treasuries, money market, or putting the money in a bank. You COULD consider the latter an investment, but buying tbills is not investing...it's jut subsidizing our government deficit.

            2) Buy US Assets, (e.g., buy U.S. stocks, bonds, or real estate, which counts as a capital account surplus because it’s foreign investment into the U.S.).

            3) Actually invest in US companies giving them new cash to operate (Direct investment, or Corporate Bonds).

            4) Exchange them for their own currency (e.g., yen), in which case the dollars flow back to the U.S.

            In the case of Most of #1, all of #2 and #4, this really isn't foreign "investment". It is a capital flow, but it is not taking money applying it to a process, in hopes of increasing productivity and generating wealth.

            It is noteworthy that when #4 goes higher, you get devaluation of the dollar (as more and more people sell the dollar to get their local currency). This will close the deficit over time by devaluing our outgoing cash compared to our outgoing goods. But this isn't investment.

            This is just accounting...the idea that when you connect a battery, you need electrons going out and coming in. But the fact that SOME of the options for those electrons is productive, doesn't mean they ALL are.

    2. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

      So signs of a slowing economy, possibly. Cause unless we built out our capacity and just have a glut of oil in just 3 months of Trump admin, arguably demand for energy is falling which may not be the greatest thing.

      1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

        Keep the hope up man. Refuse to learn the pricing of oil includes the future market.

        1. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

          Hope? Read your linked article, they make the same observation. Are you suggesting that falling energy couldn't in anyway be a result of a shrinking market?

          1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

            It can. But more so it is the expected supply of future exploration. Or does supply not factor into the supply demand curves anymore.

            I posted that citation solely for the facts in it, not the presumptive opinion of MSN. You know, the important part?

            1. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

              Sure future supplies could be the issue. Just don't remember prices at the pump dropping fast based on future exploration alone. Usually takes awhile for them to fall. Then again, Biden energy policy being gone is a big plus.

              And I don't presume to know why anyone posts a link unless stated. I don't know, maybe your a fan of Giulia Carbonaro. I just read links and comment on them.

  7. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

    One of the board members of company that owns Politico calls out Politico for Hamas propaganda.

    Martin Varsavsky
    @martinvars
    I am on the board of Axel Springer that owns Político. I consider this article one sided Hamas support. It fails to mention that the airstrikes were aimed at eliminating top Hamas military and thar Israel was successful at doing so. It also quotes casualty figures given by Hamas that are not believed to be accurate.

    https://x.com/martinvars/status/1901895051510272183

  8. Stupid Government Tricks   2 months ago

    Good God Britches, could you get even worse?

    Reason reports yesterday on a Rhode Island town ...

    No, Britches, you reported. This false humility looks even worse on someone who's 51 minutes late and can't even strip his rent blog template from his roundup post.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      Give Chrissy a break. He is the product of our modern academic system.

    2. Longtobefree   2 months ago

      "Good God Britches, could you get even worse?"

      His response"
      "Challenge accepted. Hold my beer".

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

        Beer?

        1. VinniUSMC   2 months ago

          Cocktail, hold the tail.

          1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

            Not like that! Pinky out.

  9. Spiritus Mundi   2 months ago

    Last night, demonstrators gathered outside the White House to protest Israel's renewed assault on Gaza.

    They sure are good at getting those nice printed protest signs out quickly.

  10. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

    Schumer had a hell of a day yesterday.

    That’s a long time away. I am focused on bringing Trump’s numbers down, his popularity down, exposing what he has done to America and what he will do. That’s my focus right now. You know, three years from now is a long way to speculate. I believe that my hard work against Trump will pay off.

    "I am hopeful that our Republican colleagues will resume working with us and I talk to them. One of the places is in the gym, when you're on that bike, in your shorts, panting away next to a Republican. A lot of the inhibitions come off."

    "You know what their attitude is, 'I made my money all by myself. How dare your government take my money from me?' ... They hate government, government is a barrier to people. A barrier to stop them from doing things."

    Schumer has the exact same viewpoints as jeffsarc it seems. Even the gay innuendo.

    1. Don't get eliminated   2 months ago

      It’s pretty funny the top Democrat in the Senate admitted his top priority is to lower Trump’s poll numbers.

      Wonder if any journalists will question him in that? Haha, I’m just kidding, of course they won’t.

      1. Anomalous   2 months ago

        It's because they also believe that should be Schumer's top priority.

    2. Super Scary   2 months ago

      "panting away next to a Republican. A lot of the inhibitions come off."

      Gross.

      1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   2 months ago

        Chuckie did say how “aroused” he was a couple weeks ago. Don’t kink shame the guy!

  11. Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)   2 months ago

    https://x.com/ThePatriotOasis/status/1901825662404513944

    Chick pilot scrapes wing on landing

    Don't fly with female pilots

    1. Zeb   2 months ago

      What are you going to do, get off the plane when you hear a female voice say "this is your captain speaking"?
      Thing is, I have no idea how common incidents like this are, and whether there is any correlation to the sex of the pilot. Could very easily be a case of confirmation bias.

      1. Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)   2 months ago

        When the company in question said their decision making process for new hires is
        1 gender
        2 race
        3 skill

        You have every right to question it

        1. Zeb   2 months ago

          Oh, of course you have the right, and reasons, to question it. I'm just saying I'd like to know the context better before I decide if avoiding planes with female pilots is a sensible thing.

        2. Mother's Lament - (Here's your attention, Sarckles)   2 months ago

          You are absolutely right to always question, but I have a female cousin who is a bush pilot and a water bomber and she can fly a DHC-515 through the eye of a needle, and never loses a game of slapsies. Some women are gifted for it. Not as many as men, but there are some.

          1. Jefferson Paul   2 months ago

            I don't think any of us are saying that a pilot being female means, no matter what, she can't be a good (or even great) pilot. The point is if a company is actively trying to boost its DEI category numbers, it will inevitably lead to selecting pilots from a much smaller pool of applicants (those who check the boxes desired), which will LIKELY result in less-qualified or skilled pilots.

            Whether this crash is a result of that, I don't know. I agree with Zeb that more information is needed to make that conclusion.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      Was she backing up?

      1. Its_Not_Inevitable   2 months ago

        Trying to parallel park.

  12. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

    Liz is usually pretty prompt with her submissions.

    1. Randy Sax   2 months ago

      Not Liz.

      1. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

        Yes, I know. I was jabbing Christian on his tardiness. The fact that is was about 1 hour late told me it wasn't Liz, but had to be one of the less-capable staff.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      Check the byline.

    3. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

      Yes, Liz is. Britches doesn’t seem to be so prompt.

  13. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

    "What if an all-powerful god, er, government created itself in such a form that even god, er, government could not undo itself?"

    1. Jefferson Paul   2 months ago

      Can an all-powerful government microwave a burrito so hot that even it can't eat it?

  14. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

    "...Chuang's ruling is consequential by finding that Musk is in charge of DOGE and that his role in running the agency is constitutionally dubious..."

    So the judge invents a position for Musk (which he does not hold) and then finds his invented position unconstitutional?
    Is this guy sitting on the 9th Circuit bench?

    1. Commenter_XY   2 months ago

      No, even worse, he is a fed dist ct judge out of DC.

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        Another reason to shove the DC citizenry into MD and do away with DC. Then do away with that court entirely.

        1. Eeyore   2 months ago

          DC should not exist.

    2. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

      I don’t even know how one could follow the order due to the inaccuracies in it.

      1. Eeyore   2 months ago

        Brick the computer systems, so nobody can access them (oops).
        Rehire everyone, but set their annual salary to $1.
        Let them work from home.

  15. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

    His order instructs the Trump administration to return USAID employees and contractors' access to all electronic systems within a week.

    It also prohibits Musk, DOGE staffers, and anyone designated as part of a DOGE team within the federal government from taking further action to wind down the USAID, including terminating contracts, firing employees, or placing anyone on administrative leave.

    So when will any of the writers even question the courts over ruling article 2 powers.

    This judge is an example of the constitutional issues being created by inferior Courts.

    First DOGE isn't firing anyone or canceling contracts, secretaries over those agencies are. So this order, aside from forcing the rehire, is meaningless and they will be fired again.

    This is the problem Roberts continues to allow and defend. Unconstitutional actions by inferior judges who are seemingly misinformed and retarded.

    If this spending is not appropriated on a line item, the executive retains entire control of the decision making process with conditions of the take care clause. That decision is in the executives per view.

    But the idiots at reason only see Trump bad. They claim to want cuts, but refuse to criticize the judicial branch.

    Trump is operating in scope of minimal compliance. That is fully within the powers of article 2. It is not a power of the courts to determine the means and manner, including staffing and spending, outside of minimal compliance.

    1. Commenter_XY   2 months ago

      Chuang's decision will be overturned on appeal.

      You're right: Ultimately, the POTUS makes the call on hiring and firing. A fed dist ct judge doesn't get to just re-hire 20K people because 'feelz'.

      I don't think the employees should break out the champagne and tape measures (for their desks) quite yet.

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        The problem is SCOTUS is not stepping in. They are allowing this nonsense to continue and Trump needs to now ignore them.

    2. Zeb   2 months ago

      Yeah, unless the legislation is very specific about how USAID is to be staffed, I don't see how they have a leg to stand on.

    3. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

      The judge that said they couldn't ban transgender in military seemed to base it on "animus". Didn't even question whether it was a valid application of authority, just the feelz.

      https://www.ibtimes.com/federal-judge-blocks-trumps-transgender-military-ban-calls-it-soaked-animus-3766825

      Judge Ana Reyes, from Washington, D.C., and an appointee of former President Joe Biden, said Trump's ban likely went against the constitutional rights of transgender troops.

      Reyes noted that this ban "is soaked in animus and dripping with pretext. Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact," CNN reported.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

        You know, there is an entire doctrine of constitutional law centered around the concept of 'animus'. So it is not just 'feelz'. It is actually a part of case law.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animus_(law)

        In the jurisprudence of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, animus ("intent") designates an improper government purpose in passing legislation. According to Dale Carpenter, the animus doctrine involves "scrutinizing the reasons for government action."[11] If the legislature exhibits bias toward a protected class, the law is unconstitutional regardless whether the law might be justifiable on other grounds.[11] The Supreme Court of the United States defined the concept for the first time in Department of Agriculture v. Moreno (1973),[12] holding that (italics in original):

        … if the constitutional conception of "equal protection of the laws" means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.[13]

        1. damikesc   2 months ago

          No, it was feelz. She also cited her individual research into disorders of sexual development.

          Which, mind you, is not part of any record and the judge is not permitted to do it.

          The President is in charge of the military. Period. There is zero right to serve. None whatsoever.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

            Jeffy is a liberal-tarian for more bureaucracy.

            1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

              And rights for Minor-attracted Persons.

        2. Don't get eliminated   2 months ago

          Hey Lying Jeffy, does the president have the authority to revoke a law firm’s security clearance?

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

            Well I guess you didn't like my previous answer to your question. Here is my updated response:

            https://tinyurl.com/2zez374p

            1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

              Not a valid answer, dingbat.

            2. Don't get eliminated   2 months ago

              That didn’t answer the question.

              Does the president have the authority to revoke a law firm’s security clearance?

        3. EISTAU Gree-Vance   2 months ago

          “….. bias toward a protected class.”

          “..,. Equal protection of the laws…”

          Lol. Ignore the contradiction, Jeff.

          Idiot.

      2. Eeyore   2 months ago

        It's odd. It is an entire movement based on admitting you have a recognized mental disorder.

      3. Zeb   2 months ago

        Where is the constitutional right to serve in the military? How does the same argument not apply to people with physical abnormalities?

      4. See.More   2 months ago

        . . . said Trump's ban likely went against the constitutional rights of transgender troops. . .

        There is no constitutional right to serve in the military. In fact, the military has a number of exclusion factors, including age, weight, deformity, etcetera, from service.

  16. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

    'Who's in charge?'

    Besides the WEF-DNC-security state-Davos crowd-Obama Star Chamber?

  17. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

    Earlier this week, Manuel Klausner, a co-founder of the Reason Foundation and early editor for Reason, died at the age of 85.

    He has gone from shaking his head at the editors the last decade to now spinning in his grave.

    1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

      At least we could hook up some leads to him and power a small city.

  18. Commenter_XY   2 months ago

    This is a damnable lie = Israel broke the ceasefire.

    Britschgi, you should be ashamed of yourself.

    hamas repeatedly violated the ceasefire from the inception. If one party violates the terms of the ceasefire, then there is no agreement.

    1. Bertram Guilfoyle   2 months ago

      Yeah, Ctrl-F "hostages" yielded nothing from Britches.

      1. Commenter_XY   2 months ago

        I don't like calling out people like that, but this was egregious.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

          Also, retarded.

          1. Chupacabra   2 months ago

            Retardegious?

  19. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

    Scenes from Hollywood: Gal Gadot’s Hollywood Walk of Fame ceremony was disrupted by pro-Israel and pro-Palestinan protesters on Tuesday. The unveiling of the Israeli actress’s star was delayed for 15 minutes while police worked to disperse them.

    Interviewed by Variety, Gadot made no apology for her support for Israel.

    “When people were abducted from their homes, from their beds, men, women, children, elderly, Holocaust survivors were going through the horrors of what happened that day, I could not be silent,” she said.

    The war in Gaza has created a schism in Hollywood.

    Thelma & Louise actress Susan Sarandon, 78, was dropped by her agency after she said American Jews were getting a “taste of what it feels like to be a Muslim” at a pro-Palestinian rally.

    Stranger Things actor Noah Schnapp, 19, faced a torrent of social media abuse after posing with stickers reading “Zionism is sexy” and “Hamas is Isis”.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/protesters-disrupt-gal-gadot-s-hollywood-walk-of-fame-star-unveiling/ar-AA1BbUkG

    1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

      Gal has said nothing about her pro Palestine coworker from snow white. How she isn't raging at that shows a lot of restraint.

      1. Don't get eliminated   2 months ago

        I bet she regrets taking that role.

    2. Zeb   2 months ago

      Thelma & Louise actress Susan Sarandon, 78, was dropped by her agency after she said American Jews were getting a “taste of what it feels like to be a Muslim” at a pro-Palestinian rally.

      What a disgusting take. And how does she suppose it feels to be a Jew surrounded by Muslims?

      1. Anomalous   2 months ago

        I would call her a cunt, but she lacks warmth and depth.

        1. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

          She does seem to be dried up, shriveled, and crusty.

        2. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

          “Asshole” would be a better term. She’s dry, crusty, and full of shit.

      2. Don't get eliminated   2 months ago

        She’s been a nasty bitch for decades.

    3. I, Woodchipper   2 months ago

      she is the perfect combination of dumb and hot. She's magnificent

      1. Jefferson Paul   2 months ago

        I don't get it. Sarandan was never hot, to me at least. Now, at 78, I don't think anyone thinks she's "hot," but even as a younger woman, I don't see what you saw in her. To each his own, I guess.

  20. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

    'As Chuang notes in his ruling, President Donald Trump has very publicly undermined that stance by repeatedly referring to Musk, in interviews, cabinet meetings, and a joint address to Congress, as the head of DOGE with wide powers to fire employees and make cuts.'

    Meh. Biden had a corps of interns running an auto-pen. Trump has Musk.

  21. Overt   2 months ago

    "That could lend support to the many other anti-DOGE lawsuits accusing Musk of acting as a principal officer without congressional authorization."

    Not every principle officer is a cabinet position and requires senate approval. It is interesting how shallow the reporting has been from the Reasonistas. They take the first legal analysis they find, which is often a publicized opinion from an opposition lawyer, and just repeat it as if it were truth.

    In any case, I really wonder what the fuck is going on with the Republican congress critters. They have a majority largely because of Trump. Why aren't they just turning around and voting on this bullshit, getting it done?

    Sure, there is a danger of filibuster, but the GOP has the dems on their back feet. They could have dared the Dems to resist what were very popular measures. Now they have waited and the media narrative, shots fired from activist judges, and various other nonsense have given the Dems confidence to resist harder.

    1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

      They added a clause in the CR to make thwse cuts found by DOGE easier to implement within the executive. To bypass the delays from recissions.

      Once the CR is active, almost all of these judicial rulings become moot. None fo the rulings are actually valid, but a second way to stop the activist judges.

    2. Chupacabra   2 months ago

      I'm guessing most Republicans are enriching themselves just as much, and don't want it end.

      1. Overt   2 months ago

        They need to understand that if Trump goes down, their enrichment follows.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

          Oh, the entrenched members of the establishment GOP know very well the threat Trump poses to their cozy system.

          1. Chupacabra   2 months ago

            They probably fear Musk more, since he could fund primary challengers.

  22. Ajsloss   2 months ago

    Anyone else find it funny that Elon was bitching about having to do studies about what would happen if his spaceship hit a shark and then all those dolphins were swimming around the damn thing yesterday?

    1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

      Same thing happens with battle ships. All of their designs include economic impacts if sunk.

      Turns out marine life loves the shells of sunk destroyers and boats.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      Maybe those dolphins were protesting DOGE. Did any have purple hair and nose rings?

  23. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

    Arrested Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil issues a letter from the Louisiana detention center he's being held in by immigration officials. He calls himself a "political prisoner."

    He can be free in Algeria at any time. He is the one causing himself to remain in custody.

    1. Commenter_XY   2 months ago

      Like any progtard, he plays the race card.

      I was offended that Khalil, the hamas homie, accused Pres Biden and POTUS Trump of being racists.

      Ship his ass to Syria. Today.

  24. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

    Egg Prices Plummet to Nearly Five-Month Low

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/egg-prices-plummet-to-nearly-five-month-low/ar-AA1Ba50b

    Egg prices in the U.S. have fallen to $3.45 per dozen, reaching their lowest level in nearly five months, following a period of price volatility fueled by supply chain issues, bird flu outbreaks, and fluctuating consumer demand.

    Egg prices became a key issue in discussions about inflation during the 2024 presidential election, as grocery costs remained a concern for American households. President Donald Trump frequently criticized rising food prices on the campaign trail, linking them to broader economic policies.

    He vowed to tackle the price of eggs on "day one" of his administration but admitted in December 2024 that it was "hard to bring things down once they're up."

    The recent drop in egg prices may signal relief for consumers after months of high costs.

    Egg prices have experienced extreme fluctuations over the past year. On March 3, wholesale egg prices reached a record $8.17 per dozen, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The spike was attributed to tight supplies and seasonal demand.

    Since then, prices have declined more than 57 percent to $3.45 per dozen, the lowest since late October 2024.

    1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

      TARIFFS!!!!!

      1. Commenter_XY   2 months ago

        chemjeff and sarcasmic will be along shortly to 'splain why a price drop isn't actually a price drop, because reasons.

    2. Randy Sax   2 months ago

      I want to hear from all the people that say prices rise from "corporate greed". When the prices go down are those same corporations suddenly less greedy now?

    3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      From the blessed Bee: Federal Judge Orders Price Of Eggs To Go Back Up

      1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

        Lol. The are reusing the joke. But still hilarious.

        1. Stuck in California   2 months ago

          The reuse is getting to be part of the joke:

          Federal Judge Orders Astronauts Be Returned To Space Station

          or Federal Judge Appoints Himself President

  25. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

    'In a 1999 interview, Klausner told Doherty, "On my death bed I'll be proud and happy—I'm positive by nature. We have a free country here in that we can accumulate capital and invest in building frameworks to circulate ideas."'

    I hope nobody told Klausner about Woke America in the 21st century.

    1. Dillinger   2 months ago

      or Robin Hood.

  26. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

    AP: the favored source for "trusted news" for some here...

    Me: Just remember, you can't hate the media enough.

    “The Associated Press has withdrawn its story about U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard saying President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin ‘are very good friends.’ Gabbard was talking about Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The AP will publish a corrected version of the story,” a statement from AP said.

    1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

      Of course, AP will state "we lied", right?

    2. Don't get eliminated   2 months ago

      Meanwhile, when I put that quote into a search yesterday, there were several pages of different news agencies that were repeating the lie.

      The corporate press is the enemy of the people.

      1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

        Surprising that turd hasn't picked it up yet.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

          Probably missing from the retard’s ActBlue morning email.

  27. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

    'In what's being reported...'

    I don't think Britches knows what "reported" means.

  28. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

    'Dems in disarray as Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) criticizes Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) for not blocking Republicans' government funding bill.'

    Slap fight at the Senior Center!

  29. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

    He calls himself a "political prisoner."

    Well hopefully he won't be imprisoned for long. He'll be relaxing on a beach by the Mediterranean soon and can put this whole ordeal behind him, with all travel paid for by the USA.

  30. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

    A reported summary from National Review:

    Illinois public school administrators tried to force a 13-year-old girl to change clothes in front of a biological male, in accordance with the district’s “inclusive” bathroom policy that allows transgender students to use whichever locker room corresponds with their chosen gender, the mother of the girl said at a Deerfield School District 109 School Board meeting...[the] principal reiterated that under direction from the district’s legal counsel, the male student could use whichever bathroom corresponded to his chosen gender. Then, Georgas said, “the situation went from bad to worse.” “A few days later, the male student was present in the girls locker room. Feeling violated, the girls made the choice to not change into their PE clothes with the biological male student present,” Georgas said at the meeting. Administrators then supervised the locker room to ensure that all girls were changing into their physical education clothes without protest, Georgas claimed. District 109 Assistant Superintendent for Student Services Joanna Ford, Assistant Principal Cathy Van Treese, and Director for Student Services Ginger Logemann tried to force the girls to change in front of the male student, Georgas said...

    1. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

      Continuing:

      Georgas’s school board testimony was booed on Thursday evening by a large audience of transgender activists who spoke in support of the district’s bathroom policy. Charlie Friedman, a transgender person and parent of a transgender middle schooler, lauded the Illinois gender-inclusive bathroom policy that “protects trans, non-binary, and gender non-conforming students from the type of bullying that this parent represents,” Charlie said, pointing to Georgas. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has loudly supported gender inclusive bathroom laws in the state. “The discomfort or privacy concerns of other students, teachers, or parents are not valid reasons to deny or limit the full and equal use of those facilities based on a student’s gender related identity,” Charlie added. “Instead any student, teacher or other individuals seeking more privacy should be accommodated by providing that individual with a more private option.” Charlie, the director of operations for Trans Up Front, a non-profit advocacy organization, promised to “dig in to contact our coalition” to pressure the school board to enforce the bathroom policy.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

        I suggest helping all the woke school administrators change into their tar and feather outfits.

      2. Overt   2 months ago

        Let this be a very clear message to anyone who insists that the Right is ginning up a culture war.

        The Trans Activists were absolutely right: This parent's comments represented bullying.And that bullying was School Administrators are forcing cultural gender values on children. They forced 13 year old girls to undress in front of a biological male. This was bullying: the intentional humiliation of girls who do not share the same gender-views as the State Actors running the School. This should be seen in the same context as a school administrator forcing a muslim girl to remove her hijab in class.

        If these activists are right- that gender is just some cultural archetype- then their attempts to force their culture on anyone else should be viewed for what it is: forced indoctrination and an attack on the cultural values of families across the nation. There is ZERO reason why their cultural view of gender should be adopted by anyone else at the school- especially when their cultural gender views are the product of some random queer studies professor out of Washington. They have no moral or even cultural authority to push these changes.

        Your right to express gender in the manner you see fit does not include forcing others to acknowledge those same gender archetypes. We can draw a clear line between tolerating a person's gender expression (letting them do their own thing) and forcing a person to act in a way that conflicts with their gender identity. If you feel that women express their gender by wearing a hijab, then you are free to express gender that way, but you cannot force other girls to do the same. Likewise, if you feel that your gender means you should use a girl's bathroom, that doesn't give you the right to force other girls to share the bathroom with you.

        For too long, the schools have allowed this perversion of "inclusivity" to wage a war on the culture of people around the country. They have done it with the force of law- as state actors. And it needs to be called out far and wide.

        And if you are saying, "What's the big deal? Just change in front of a trans girl", then ask yourself if you would be willing to say, "What's the big deal? Just take off the Hijab."

        1. Don't get eliminated   2 months ago

          “This should be seen in the same context as a school administrator forcing a muslim girl to remove her hijab in class.”

          No, it should be seen as a sex crime.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

            It’s both. The sex crime part is just one part of the larger whole Overt discussed.

        2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

          I think your hijab analogy here is not quite right. It is more like:

          Suppose a girl wears a hijab to class, and the other girls in the class are uncomfortable being around her and complain that she is 'forcing her Muslim values' onto them. No one is forced to wear a hijab however. Would this complaint be valid? Is there a right for the other girls to NOT have to be in the same room with the girl wearing a hijab?

          1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

            Are you really trying to go for a repeat of your infamous bears in trunks episode? Why do you equate a hijab with a fucking penis?

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

              Maybe you should ask Overt that question.

              1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

                You’re the one saying that forcing a girl to remove a hijab is the same as keeping the boy out of the girls’ locker room. Overt is saying that forcing her to remove the hijab is similar to forcing the girls to undress in front of a boy. He’s right, you’re wrong.

              2. Zeb   2 months ago

                Um, no. Overt was not comparing a hijab to a penis. He was comparing wearing a hijab because of your religious beliefs to not wanting to share a changing room with a male because of quite normal and mainstream beliefs about having sex segregated spaces for certain activities.
                The girl in the locker room isn't primarily complaining about having transgender ideology forced on her (which is also a very valid complaint), but about being forced to change clothes in front of a boy.

                1. Mother's Lament - (Here's your attention, Sarckles)   2 months ago

                  Jeff knows. He was being dishonest. It's kind of his thing.

          2. DesigNate   2 months ago

            You’re a real piece of work.

        3. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

          +1

        4. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

          Or they are just a bunch of Marxist cunts.

      3. But SkyNet is a Private Company   2 months ago

        Who is doing the bullying on this scenario?

    2. I, Woodchipper   2 months ago

      eliminate public schools. problem solved

  31. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

    Chuang's injunction applies only to Musk

    Well that will stop, Trump.

  32. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

    Ooof.

    MSNBC host Symone Sanders-Townsend declared that she was quitting the Democratic Party due to Minority Leader Chuck Schumer siding with Republicans on the latest spending bill during a live segment on her show The Weekend.

    1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

      Is she moving to Canada too?

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

        Or Gaza?

  33. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

    the White House to protest Israel's renewed assault on Gaza.

    And looks like, Khalil will gets some company on his Mediterranean vacation.

  34. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

    Chuck Schumer had his own "You didn't build that" moment:

    “The Republican Party is a different kettle of fish than it used to be. That’s why we’re fighting them so hard,” Schumer told “The View” ladies. “They are controlled by a small group of wealthy, greedy people. And you know what their attitude is? ‘I made my money all by myself. How dare your government take my money from me. I don’t want to pay taxes.’ Or, ‘I built my company with my bare hands. How dare your government tell me how I should treat my customers, the land and order that I own, or my employees.”

    “They hate government,” he went on to say before a commercial break. “Government’s a barrier to people — a barrier to stop them from doing things. They want to destroy it. We are not letting them do it and we’re united.”

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      When I hear shit like this I always want to invite these Marxists to either move to Venezuela, set up a commune and detach from evil capitalist society, or both.

    2. Dillinger   2 months ago

      Schumer in the role of Gollum was new and odd

    3. Zeb   2 months ago

      The idea that conservative or libertarian business people think they did everything and made their money all on their own is a nonsense strawman.
      On the other hand, I do hate government and I want to destroy it.

    4. I, Woodchipper   2 months ago

      I thought I hated this guy already but man this kicks him up 10 notches

    5. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      Speaking of Marxist cunts...

  35. Sarah Palin's Buttplug - Jan 6 = 9/11 (same motive)   2 months ago

    Drill Baby Drill Is Dead, Oil Executives Say
    ....
    Despite Trump’s full-throttle push to “unleash” U.S. energy, Permian oil producers are keeping their foot on the brakes. At a Houston conference this week, energy executives made it clear that while production is still growing, the breakneck pace of the past decade is history.
    ....
    In 2025, Permian output is expected to rise by about 250,000 to 300,000 barrels per day (bpd), down from last year’s 380,000-bpd increase. That’s a 25% slowdown, and it’s not just because of market conditions—it’s intentional.
    .....
    On Thursday, Chevron’s Barbara Harrison summed up the mood to Reuters: “We still expect to see growth in the Permian, but we expect to see that moderated.” In other words, U.S. shale is no longer in “drill, baby, drill” mode. Instead of chasing volume, companies are focused on keeping costs in check and delivering returns to investors—a stark contrast to the reckless production boom of the 2010s.

    https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Drill-Baby-Drill-Is-Dead-Oil-Executives-Say.html

    1. Commenter_XY   2 months ago

      ND and AK await. 🙂

      Energy cost is coming down, oil down ~8% YTD.

    2. Dillinger   2 months ago

      does Jon Hamm know?

    3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      WTF is your point? Do you hate the idea that oil company execs can make their own decisions, and make money while serving their investors and customers? Or do you just hate Trump?

      1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug - Jan 6 = 9/11 (same motive)   2 months ago

        I hate that Donnie lied to the greasy MAGA crowd about oil production in the US.

        1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

          turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
          If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental. turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.

        2. damikesc   2 months ago

          My gas prices are lower than they've been since 2021 now.

        3. Don't get eliminated   2 months ago

          You should turn yourself in for your crimes against children pedo.

      2. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

        "WTF is your point?..."
        This is turd; the stupid, steaming pile of TDS-addled shit who never reads his own links.
        Do you imagine he had a point in mind?

    4. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

      turd, the TDS-addled ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
      If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
      turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

    5. Don't get eliminated   2 months ago

      You were banned for posting a link to child porn.

  36. Ska   2 months ago

    That's right. I've killed women and children. I've killed just about everything that walks or crawled at one time or another. And I'm here to kill you, Little Bill, for what you did to Ned.

  37. Dillinger   2 months ago

    >>U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang ordered the administration to return computer and email access to employees of the agency

    everyone to Storage Room B please ...

    1. Ajsloss   2 months ago

      Since you're down here, it would be really great if you could just, sort of, take care of the cockroach problem we've been having in here.

  38. Dillinger   2 months ago

    >>Last night, demonstrators gathered outside the White House to protest Israel's renewed assault on Gaza.

    last night Israelis were held hostage for the 529th consecutive day

  39. Dillinger   2 months ago

    >>Israel broke the ceasefire

    dude leave the retard hackery to Boehm

  40. Dillinger   2 months ago

    >>Chuang's ruling is consequential by finding that Musk is in charge of DOGE

    abolish. their. courts.

  41. Dillinger   2 months ago

    >>Who's in charge?

    at this point the question is begged about Reason.

  42. Dillinger   2 months ago

    >>According to plaintiffs in the USAID lawsuit

    libertarians for theft.

  43. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

    Instead of deporting gang leaders, now it looks like we're importing them on purpose?

    https://nypost.com/2025/03/18/us-news/fbi-extradites-most-wanted-ms-13-leader-from-mexico/

    The FBI extradited one of their “ten most wanted” targets, an MS-13 boss, from Mexico to the US this week.

    The feds believe Francisco Javier Roman-Bardales is “a key senior leader of MS-13” and took him into custody Monday night after Mexican authorities nabbed him.

    The alleged gang leader is now behind bars in the US, where he will face charges.

  44. Dillinger   2 months ago

    >>Russia and Ukraine are accusing each other of violating a partial truce

    tell everyone the double-negative means the war is over.

  45. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

    Let's meet some of the men who were on that flight to El Salvador.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/abyss-family-members-innocents-swept-233505158.html

    First there is Mervin Jose Yamarte Fernandez. He was picked up by ICE at his house after he had come home from his JOB working at a restaurant. He has no criminal record at all.

    Then there is Jose Franco Carballo Tiapa. He is married and has a pending asylum claim. He was *following the law* - checking in at his regularly scheduled ICE appointment - when he was picked up and put on the flight. The only 'proof' that the authorities had of his 'gang activity' were some of his tattoos, which may or may not be actual gang tattoos.

    Then there is Francisco Javier García Casique. Also no criminal record. He actually came to the US because hew as FLEEING Tren de Aragua. Instead he was put on the plane and he's now imprisoned along with a bunch of Tren de Aragua members. Trump likely signed his death warrant when he did that.

    This is what happens when the "because I said so" standard for due process is shown to be insufficient.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      Did any of them have legal US residency?

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

        Ivannoa Sanchez, 22, believes her husband, Jose Franco Carballo Tiapa, 26, is among the men sent to El Salvador.

        The 26-year-old Venezuelan came to the U.S. in November 2023, surrendering to authorities before submitting an asylum claim. The man was released and made regular check-ins with immigration authorities, according to his wife, and had a planned court appearance in March before his arrest.

        "He went to his routine ICE appointment and he didn't come out," Sanchez told ABC News.

        He followed the law. He surrendered himself to the authorities at the border. He filed an asylum claim. He checked in at the ICE office while his claim was pending. He's legally allowed to be here while his claim is pending.

        Are you now going to claim that all asylum claims are invalid?

        1. damikesc   2 months ago

          We should null all of them and force everybody to reapply properly.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

            They did apply properly.

            1. damikesc   2 months ago

              Nah. The policies some intern in the Biden WH decided upon are not valid.

        2. Dillinger   2 months ago

          I'm going to claim Ivannoa Sanchez' "belief" sketchy

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

            Why?

            1. Dillinger   2 months ago

              your sources are ABC News and a 22 year-old with a bias. what did ICE say when you asked?

            2. Don't get eliminated   2 months ago

              Because you and your tribe are pathological liars.

        3. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

          Nope. Only about 90% of them are invalid.

        4. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

          Well, he likely traveled through 7-8 other countries he could have applied for asylum in but NO, he skipped right through all of those, (almost certainly) entered illegally, then made his asylum claim in the US? Nope.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

            One more time:
            The 'safe third country' provision, as a matter of law, only applies if there is a signed bilateral or multilateral treaty with the country in question. And the US only has one such treaty, with Canada. It does not have any 'safe third country' treaties with any Latin American nations.

            That is what the law actually says. I understand that that is not what you want the law to say.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

              The safe third country is the nearest such country, dingbat. It doesn’t mean “cross the Darien Gap, cross several potentially safe countries just to go to the one of your choice”. It means that a Venezuelan should stop in Guyana, Colombia, or Brazil. That’s it, idiot.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

                https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1158&num=0&edition=prelim

                (a) Authority to apply for asylum
                (1) In general
                Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

                (2) Exceptions
                (A) Safe third country
                Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien's nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien's last habitual residence) in which the alien's life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.

                You all LOVE to quote the law which gives Marco Rubio the power to deport anyone he wants based on the "because I said so" standard. Well, this is what the law actually says when it comes to 'safe third country'.

                1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

                  We are under no obligation to accept anyone who just shows up at the border.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

                    This time, with feeling:


                    Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

                    1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

                      Read that word “may”. There’s nothing there saying we “shall” accept them.

                    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

                      "may apply"

                      So, no guaranty that US officials will accept or approve that application? No "right" to asylum, especially for economic reasons?

                  2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

                    Oh, one more thing.

                    I support the provisions of this law not merely because that's what the law says, but because it is the right thing to do. So even if the law said something else, I would advocate for the law to be changed to say something like this.

                2. rbike   2 months ago

                  Take this up with Rubio, dumbass.

            2. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

              It demonstrates that he wanted to come to the US and not simply to find safety from persecution in Venezuela. I mean, okay, if he'd fled from Venezuela and applied for asylum in Columbia and been rejected there, then traveled to Panama, applied for asylum there and been rejected, then traveled to Costa Rica, applied for asylum there and been rejected, then traveled to Nicaragua, applied for asylum there and been rejected, then traveled to Honduras, applied for asylum there and been rejected, then traveled to Guatemala, applied for asylum there and been rejected, then traveled to Mexico, applied for asylum there and been rejected, and THEN entered the US at a legal port-of-entry and immediately applied for asylum here I'd be more willing to consider his plight.

              1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

                Agreed.

              2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

                Or, it means he wanted to come to the US because it offered the BEST protection against the persecution he was facing in Venezuela.

                1. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

                  So beggars CAN be choosers?

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

                    The law permits them to be.

                    1. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

                      It still demonstrates to me that safety was not the most pressing concern.

                2. Zeb   2 months ago

                  So, are we obliged to take in every person in Venezuela who makes it to the border? It's a pretty oppressive place. PRetty much anyone who isn't a Maduro goon could probably claim persecution. Seems like we at least need to reassess the asylum policies. It's definitely being abused. And even if it wasn't, there are a huge number of people in bad situations. It's just not tenable to have a policy that would allow for all those people to come to the US and hang around with government support for years waiting for their case to be heard.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

                    I completely agree that the asylum process ought to be completely revamped, along with the entirety of the immigration system.

                    IF we are going to keep the same restrictive type of immigration system, then the proper resources must be allocated to assess all of the asylum claims. The reason why it takes two years for an asylum claim to be judged is because there are just not enough judges to handle all of them.

                    1. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

                      Another reason is that around 90% of the asylum claim are ultimately rejected as having no grounds, but illegal aliens have been told to lie (commit fraud) and apply anyway. The large numbers of fraudulent claims clog up the system.

    2. damikesc   2 months ago

      They are actual gang tattoos and if he was not a member, the gangs would have, bare minimum, viciously harmed him.

      Keep on lying, son.

      Fuck ALL of them.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

        I've seen some of the supposed 'gang tattoos' that the authorities claim are markers of gang activity. One is the Star of Texas. One is an AR-15. One is the iconic Michael Jordan jump shot tattoo. If your 'due process' means that anyone with a Michael Jordan tattoo is assumed to be a member of Tren de Aragua, then your 'due process' is bullshit.

      2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

        Fuck ALL of them.

        Because they are no better than roaches infesting the nation. I get it.

        1. damikesc   2 months ago

          I would hesitate to insult roaches by comparing them to TdA.

    3. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

      Oh and let's not forget:

      The government paid the El Salvador dictator $6 million to take these individuals off our hands and deposit them in their 'tropical gulag'. That alone should make your stomach turn.

      Imagine if the US government paid Stalin millions of dollars to take people off our hands and send them to the Siberian gulag.

      Maybe a country which claims to stand for some sort of principle of liberty shouldn't be doing things like that.

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        I'm perfectly on board with it. Send more.

      2. Eeyore   2 months ago

        Everyone seemed ok with it when it was Gantanamo. Obama never shut that down like he said he would. None of those people were giving due process. It just repeats.

      3. Nobartium   2 months ago

        Imagine if the US government paid Stalin millions of dollars to take people off our hands and send them to the Siberian gulag.

        Doubtlessly, this happened before the Soviet Union had nukes.

    4. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

      While I've got no real problem with summary deportation of people with no legal right to be here, I actually tend to agree that the people being deported should not be subsequently summarily placed in prison unless they were transported as part of an extradition operation, in which case that's on them and the country charging them with crimes. I'd just as soon not pay millions to el salvador for imprisoning people on our dime if they don't belong in prison. Again, I'm fine with all 3 of these people being removed from the country in the "you don't have to go home but you can't stay here" sense, just not putting them in 3rd-world prison unless that's specifically warranted (pun intended).

      In general, because I don't know the specifics of these named individuals at this time, in some of these cases, the "no criminal record" must be extended to "no criminal records in US".

      OTOH, these sob stories always get trotted out, and often seem to be undermined later.

      E.g., "KUSA Denver's headline about the incident stated, "Man without criminal history detained by ICE on his way to work." The headline and initial story were false. ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations for Denver released a statement explaining that Montanez-Jacquez had illegally entered the United States three times and had pled guilty to driving under the influence in January 2024.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

        Well thank you for that. And maybe you could spare a little bit of your time telling cretins like damikesc who genuinely don't give a shit where they go, that maybe it's wrong to send people to a third-world prison on the basis of the flimsiest, weakest possible 'due process'.

    5. I, Woodchipper   2 months ago

      I seriously doubt it

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

        Seriously doubt what?

  46. damikesc   2 months ago

    "On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang ordered the administration to return computer and email access to employees of the agency, including those who had been placed on administrative leave, reports the Associated Press."

    He is free to enforce his laughable order. Trump should wipe his ass with it.

  47. damikesc   2 months ago

    "Chuang's ruling is the first to support that argument. That could lend support to the many other anti-DOGE lawsuits accusing Musk of acting as a principal officer without congressional authorization."

    Judge makes an order based on a lie. News at 11.

  48. Sarah Palin's Buttplug - Jan 6 = 9/11 (same motive)   2 months ago

    The Unraveling of Trump’s Plan to Detain Thousands of Migrants at Guantanamo
    ....
    About two months after President Trump announced he would send up to 30,000 migrants to Guantanamo Bay, an expansive tent city on the naval base sits vacant. Hundreds of troops are still deployed to the base to guard the facilities and prepare them for use, even though the nearly 300 migrants who were briefly detained on the island in two separate structures are now gone.
    ...
    Mired in operational and legal challenges, the president’s plan to send the “worst criminal illegal aliens” to Guantanamo Bay is unraveling. U.S. Southern Command, which is responsible for military operations at the base, has started making plans to draw down from the roughly 1,000 military personnel deployed there in the coming weeks, a defense official said. The operation has so far cost at least $16 million, according to lawmakers who recently toured the naval base.

    https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/trump-guantanamo-migrant-tents-1d783bab

    Damnit. The one fucking thing I supported Donnie on.

    1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

      turd, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
      If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
      turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.

  49. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

    So based on the discussion around here about the flight to the Salvadoran gulag, and the other immigration related matters, I am starting to finally understand why you all decided to make immigration such a high priority, completely out of proportion to the problems or harms that they cause.

    It's because to many of you, these migrants represent an infestation. They are scum, vermin, roaches scurrying about. If your house has a roach infestation, all other problems become secondary because that is such a disgusting and distressing problem. All efforts are directed to getting the roaches out.

    That's why you don't care if even innocent men are sent to a third-world black site gulag. Because they're all roaches. Does anyone really care if any particular roach is guilty of eating the food? No, they all have to go, by any means necessary, who cares how, they just have to go.

    And you are never worried that you might accidentally be mistaken for a roach at some point, that is just preposterous. YOU are a good person who does good things. THEY are bad people who do bad things. They are so much different than you that it is preposterous to even consider that you and they might be mixed up. Besides, they have brown skin and have Latin American names. You don't.

    1. Randy Sax   2 months ago

      Bruh, I just don't want my tax dollars spent on their welfare. It really is that simple man. Chill.

      1. Brandybuck   2 months ago

        Then stop the welfare to immigrants. Problem solved!

        Actually, Bill Clinton [gasp] did something about that. Trump/Musk/Vance have not. Not even tried. When Clinton is more conservative than the Republicans, then surely Republicans have lost their way.

        1. Randy Sax   2 months ago

          Or deport them. 6 of one half dozen of the other.

        2. Marshal   2 months ago

          Interesting, just a few months ago left wingers claimed there was no welfare going to illegal aliens.

          1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

            Always funny how they forget their denials a few .months later.

    2. Super Scary   2 months ago

      You know the constant "you're just a bunch of racists!" diatribes are a big reason Trump won, right?

    3. Brandybuck   2 months ago

      It's like the lady who burned her house down and half the neighborhood, because... "There was a spider!"

      1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   2 months ago

        Cite?

    4. Marshal   2 months ago

      I'm so old I remember when jeffsarc pretended putting words in other people's mouth was wrong, mocking them as mind-readers. But here we see them maintain their perfect record of violating every single standard they have ever applied to others.

    5. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

      You are a master at the false equivalency, Jeffy.

  50. I, Woodchipper   2 months ago

    A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration's unilateral dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) likely violated the U.S. Constitution.

    It's unconstitutional to spend less money and get rid of employees that work for the executive branch. You can never, ever decrease the size of leviathan, it's right there in the constitution

    1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   2 months ago

      Article Threeve I believe

  51. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

    "Chuang's ruling is the first to support that argument."

    It's okay if Our Democracy [TM] ignores the Constitution for a hundred years by expanding the scope, size and authority of the Federal bureaucracy beyond all express limitations and anyway the Judiciary allowed it by officially ignoring the transgressions and even contributing its own unconstitutional legislations from the bench. But now when the pendulum is finally swinging back the other way, all of a sudden unconstitutional use of that authority is not okay because Trump is evil. The solution, of course, is for Trump to instruct his appointed officials to do what DOGE recommends, making it constitutional! And then fire any official who refuses to obey those constitutional Executive Orders until they start complying.

  52. Brandybuck   2 months ago

    > challenged the constitutionality of the Department of Government Efficiency

    There is no such thing as DOGE. Trump is free to make up new departments, but unless approved by Congress, they are not actual executive departments.

    Don't take my word for it, it's in the Constitution.

    https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-6/ALDE_00000012/

    Yeah, yeah, I know. "It's just damned piece of paper". So enlightened is Trump that he's now channeling the worst of Cheney. I thought he was going to drain the swamp, not fill it.

    1. Marshal   2 months ago

      Obama created Doge.

      Left Winger Mantra: Often Wrong, but Never in Doubt

    2. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

      Never mind that the Judge is completely wrong in his assumptions about the case. DOGE has not issued a single order. DOGE giving Trump and other officials recommendations is not unconstitutional or a violation of any Federal law, so the Judge has to PRETEND that it's the same thing in order to justify issuing an injunction. No surprise here - Federal judges have been doing similar things for a hundred years or more to justify the violations of the Constitution that they approve of ideologically and to cancel actions that they do not approve of personally.

    3. DesigNate   2 months ago

      Except DOGE is just a rebrand of an Obama thing, but nice try.

  53. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

    Yet one more chapter in the never-ending saga of the Leopards Eating People's Faces. This time, voter does not regret his vote for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party, even though the leopards ate his own wife's face.

    https://www.newsweek.com/trump-voter-regret-choice-wife-ice-bradley-bartell-camila-munoz-2046988

    In 2019, Muñoz arrived in Wisconsin Dells on a work-study visa, which expired around the time COVID-19 began and international travel came to a standstill. While working in farming and hospitality, she met Bartell, who gave her his number on a scrap of paper—though she initially threw it away.

    A few days later, they reconnected on Facebook and soon developed a serious relationship. The couple eventually married, but a honeymoon wasn't possible because of the pandemic.

    In February, Muñoz and Bartell traveled to Puerto Rico to finally take their honeymoon, and upon returning to the U.S. mainland, immigration agents stopped Muñoz and asked whether she was an American citizen. When she explained that she wasn't but was in the process of obtaining a green card, they detained her. She is being held in an ICE facility in Louisiana.

    Still, Bartell stood by his vote for Trump. Since sharing his story, he has faced intense public scrutiny. "I've received a lot of hateful messages, plenty of people saying we deserve this. And a lot of other insults," he said, acknowledging the backlash.

    I also found this part quite amusing:

    Regarding Trump, Bartell said: "He didn't create the system, but he does have an opportunity to improve it. Hopefully, all this attention will bring to light how broken it is."

    This is reminiscent of how Stalin would try to explain away the hunger and misery and poverty that Soviet citizens could see for themselves - by blaming everyone else, as enemies of the revolution who let down Stalin. And people actually believed it. Even as they were dragged away to the gulags, they would petition Stalin asking for his help, as to them it was all just a big misunderstanding and Stalin would set things right. They never thought that Stalin himself was the problem.

    1. Mother's Lament - (Here's your attention, Sarckles)   2 months ago

      How much you want to bet that Newsweek made 95% of the story up, Lying Jeffy?

      Making the best of what remains of the USAID propaganda money.

  54. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

    "Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) criticizes Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.)"

    The actual Politico title was "Pelosi shivs Schumer" BWAhahahahahaaaaa!

  55. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

    The radical left-wing progressives at the New York Post Editorial Board agree that deporting people must follow the rule of law.

    https://nypost.com/2025/03/16/opinion/sorry-elon-even-deporting-illegal-gangbangers-must-heed-the-rule-of-law/

    Can the government just declare anyone they want to be "a gang member", based on the sketchiest, flimsiest of evidence, like "he was riding in a car with another guy who had a tattoo which kinda looked gang-ish" and that's good enough to send him to a third world black site prison?

    1. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

      "agree that deporting people must follow the rule of law"

      And I agree. But I also know that due process for deportation is vastly different than due process for criminal proceedings. I am not an immigration lawyer, but many aliens are subject to summary deportation.

      "In 1996, as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), Congress established streamlined deportation procedures that allow the government to deport (or “remove”) certain noncitizens from the United States without a hearing before an immigration judge. Two of these procedures, “expedited removal” and “reinstatement of removal,” allow immigration officers to serve as both prosecutor and judge—often investigating, charging, and making a decision all within the course of one day.

      This IS the law, and following it IS due process.

      This may or may not apply to the people deported on the flights most recently being discussed, I'm not making that statement, just addressing the more general notion that not every deportation requires appeals up to SCOTUS level.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

        Even "expedited removal" and "reinstatement of removal" are not permission for ICE to do whatever they want.

        https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/expedited-removal

        Those who are placed in "expedited removal" still are entitled to request an asylum hearing. As this article states, however, immigration officers frequently ignore this request.

        This process has too few safeguards, is too heavily slanted against the migrant, and it grants the government far too wide of discretion to decide what to do without any meaningful oversight.

        This type of crap is up there with Marco Rubio's "because I said so" standard for deciding who gets to say and who gets to go. FAR too much discretionary authority is handed to the executive branch, and there is no authority to stop them.

        Yes I understand that this is what the law says. It's wrong, and IMO libertarians shouldn't be cheering this stuff on. They should be demanding more protections and safeguards be put in place in order to ensure that the rights and liberties of all people - especially citizens - are duly protected. After all, even the best immigration officers can make honest mistakes and erroneously deport people who don't deserve it.

        1. Marshal   2 months ago

          They should be demanding more protections and safeguards be put in place in order to ensure that the rights and liberties of all people - especially citizens - are duly protected.

          It's an interesting comment from someone who supported the government's censorship campaign just a few month ago. He likes to pretend he has principles, but in his beliefs there's always an exception when left wingers want to violate our rights.

        2. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

          Eliminate the welfare state and I'll stand right there and say the same thing.

    2. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

      Yes, the government can. The Congress gave the government that authority together with over a thousand other unconstitutional authorities. Should they? No. Can they? Yes. You don't get to do unconstitutional things when you have control of the government and then claim that the other party cannot do unconstitutional things when they have control of the government. Good luck trying though - it's certainly very entertaining to watch you sputter incoherently with ineffectual rage ...

    3. Mother's Lament - (Here's your attention, Sarckles)   2 months ago

      "the New York Post Editorial Board agree that deporting people must follow the rule of law."

      And they are right. The fact of the matter here is that you are deliberately lying about what the law is, like the sleazebag politruk you are.

  56. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

    You need to read this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/canadian-detained-us-immigration-jasmine-mooney

    It's from a Canadian who doesn't have gang tattoos, so maybe you will listen to her story about what the ICE detention system is really like.

    1. InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)   2 months ago

      Oh yes, the extreme far left Guardian that never met a socialist or communist cause it couldn’t champion. You really aren’t a libertarian, are you, Jeffy?

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

        What are you afraid of? Just read the article.

        1. Mother's Lament - (Here's your attention, Sarckles)   2 months ago

          I did. Looks part made up, part exaggerated.

          The cherry on top is the bit at the end:

          "Why you can rely on the Guardian not to bow to Trump – or anyone
          I hope you appreciated this article. Before you move on, I wanted to ask whether you could support the Guardian’s journalism as our teams in the United States and around the world cover the second Trump administration.

          As Trump himself observed: “The first term, everybody was fighting me. In this term, everybody wants to be my friend.”

          He’s not entirely wrong. Many US media organizations have begun to capitulate. First, two news outlets pulled election endorsements at the behest of their billionaire owners. Next, prominent reporters bent the knee at Mar-a-Lago. And then a major network – ABC News – rolled over in response to Trump’s legal challenges and agreed to a $16m million settlement in his favor.

          The Guardian is clear: we have no interest in being Donald Trump’s... friend.

          Next time why don't you just get BlueSky to write your propaganda for you?

    2. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

      So immigration law applies to pretty white women from Canada? Hmm, how about that? I thought it only applied to brown people.

      The narrative makes it seem like she was in a gulag for years. It was 12 days.

    3. damikesc   2 months ago

      I did.

      Her story is irrelevant because she is not going to give the full story.

      Of the women she interviewed --- seemed ALL of them overstayed their visa.

      We are not obligated to give anybody a visa. We are not obligated to allow you to renew your visa. They knew they overstayed.

      Why, precisely, should I feel empathy?

    4. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

      Another woman from Canada had been living in the US with her husband who was detained after a traffic stop. She admitted she had overstayed her visa and accepted that she would be deported. But she had been stuck in the system for almost six weeks because she hadn’t had her passport. Who runs casual errands with their passport?

      One woman had a 10-year visa. When it expired, she moved back to her home country, Venezuela. She admitted she had overstayed by one month before leaving. Later, she returned for a vacation and entered the US without issue. But when she took a domestic flight from Miami to Los Angeles, she was picked up by Ice and detained. She couldn’t be deported because Venezuela wasn’t accepting deportees. She didn’t know when she was getting out.

      There was a girl from India who had overstayed her student visa for three days before heading back home. She then came back to the US on a new, valid visa to finish her master’s degree and was handed over to Ice due to the three days she had overstayed on her previous visa.

      1. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

        My BIL once went to court to fight a traffic ticket for speeding (57 in a 35 zone). BIL didn't contest that he was going 57, but he had a whole presentation where he had photographed the speed-limit sign was covered up by tree branches and not visible. The judge complimented him on his presentation, then asked him what he had thought the speed limit was. BIL answered "45 MPH", judge says, "So do you want to plead guilty to going 57 in a 45 now or continue to fight this?"

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

          Part of the point of that article was to describe the Kafka-esque nightmare of the ICE bureaucracy.

          Imagine if your BIL, when he was pulled over for speeding, was instead arrested and thrown into a detention center. He asks how long he will be there but no one can give him an answer. He is there for days, with food that makes him sick and water of questionable purity. He's then transferred to another detention center, and the guards there can't help him because they don't know anything about his case. As far as they're concerned, your BIL might have murdered 20 schoolchildren. So he spends days more there, unable to contact anyone else. When he finally is able to get a message out to his family, they publicize his case and only then is your BIL released and allowed his day in court.

          Oh your BIL was guilty of speeding, but was the ordeal that he went through justified considering the magnitude of his crime?

          1. Jefferson Paul   2 months ago

            Since you are so concerned about the abhorrent conditions in the holding facilities, I'm sure you were loudly criticizing the conditions the J6ers were held in. Oh, wait, that never happened, and you cheered it on.

      2. Zeb   2 months ago

        I think a little leeway on things like that would be pretty reasonable. People like that are not the problem. Sure, "the law is the law". But a lot of discretion is used in enforcing most laws.

    5. Super Scary   2 months ago

      "It's from a Canadian "

      She should just wait for Canada become the 51st state and then she can come and go as she pleases.

  57. I, Woodchipper   2 months ago

    You are so gullible.

  58. Dave Boz   2 months ago

    "Last night, demonstrators gathered outside the White House to protest Israel's renewed assault on Gaza."

    They were protesting in support of Hamas, but whatever. No protests against Hamas' assaults on Israel.
    Can you imagine a time, perhaps far in the distant future, when Hamas will ever be held responsible for anything?

    1. Eeyore   2 months ago

      I think a student exchange program could really be nice here.

    2. damikesc   2 months ago

      I was amazed at the sheer lack of protests over 10/7.

  59. AT   2 months ago

    In this Reason Roundup, LOLerTaRiAns advocate for USAID grift, slush, and fraud, while also celebrating Islamic terrorism.

    You are literally the worst libertarian ever, Christian. Emma and Jake have the excuse of being actual retards. What's your excuse?

  60. Fist of Etiquette   2 months ago

    Back to Work

    But not until 10:30 AM, it appears.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Trump Is Wrong. Cheap Goods Are Awesome.

Emma Camp | 5.9.2025 11:15 AM

Bernie Sanders: American Success Story

Liz Wolfe | 5.9.2025 9:41 AM

The EPA Is a Prime Candidate for Reform by the Trump Administration

J.D. Tuccille | 5.9.2025 7:00 AM

Review: A Doomsday Murder Mystery Set in an Underground Bunker

Jeff Luse | From the June 2025 issue

Review: A Superhero Struggle About the Ethics of Violence

Jack Nicastro | From the June 2025 issue

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!