Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 9.15.2025 3:00 AM
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
NEXT: Barry Strauss Guest-Blogging About "Jews vs. Rome: Two Centuries of Rebellion Against the World's Mightiest Empire"
Hide Comments (142)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
What will today bring?
So far a bunch of 504 messages; gateway timed out.
I've been getting a ton of those, only at the VC, for the past week or so. Happened also to me about 4-5 months ago, lasted a week or two, and then went back to working normally.
I blame Obama, naturally. 😉
So if you are a dude and you date a pre-op trans woman…does that mean you are gay?? And are the people that date trans individuals also crazy?? Btw, Republicans insist they have no problem with trans people so long as they aren’t in the military and aren’t playing girls sports and aren’t transitioning as minors…so what is the problem with an adult dating a trans adult??
Nothing in your example unless something about the relationship caused the gay guy to murder someone.
I wonder if they had the chance to have a conversation in those 30 hours afterwards.
"I did it for you!"
"I didn't ask for this."
Given that his room mate is cooperating with the police, and helped turn him in, that does sound plausible.
Yes, you're gay.
But I'll have to re-watch It's Always Sunny. IIRC they had a whole storyline on this.
I think a world full of social constraints is on the whole a wiser world than the one exampled by the typical anonymous internet commenter. Of course social constraints ought to remain open for critique. But if a question for focus is whether the quality of internet commentary would improve or degrade if commenters published under their actual names, I think it would be the former.
I think attention to that issue is a pretty ready source of an answer to those who profess to be baffled about how social media have so degraded the public life of the nation.
I think a fair number of us actually do use our real names.
You can count me In! (Out) on that one (HT Lenin/McCartney)
If you are referring to the song performed by Gary Lewis & the Playboys, that is not a Lennon/McCartney composition. It was written by Glen Hardin.
If you want money for people with minds that hate All I can tell you is, brother, you have to wait
Congrats to Stephen Colbert.
"Sometimes, you only know how much you love something when you get a sense you might be losing it. ... I have never loved my country more desperately. God bless America."
"Stay strong and be brave, and if the elevator tries to bring you down, go crazy and punch a higher floor," Colbert added, paraphrasing the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy."
https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/-late-show-stephen-colbert-wins-emmy-cbs-cancellation-rcna231276
The times do look bleak. For instance, the Trump Administration continues to be able to lie with impunity.
I guess they will just continue to lie to the courts with abandon. After all, in the Trump administration, when you don’t face accountability for one misdeed, you keep doing that same misdeed over and over again.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/09/trump-doj-lies-drew-ensign-deportations.html
Among other things. It is hard to believe, perhaps, but it has not even been nine months. Sunday, September 15, 1963, was the date of a bombing of a church. Justice took a while to come.
https://substack.com/inbox/post/173629882
Horse hockey.
Sniff, sniff. Joe needs a hanky.
Yes. I'd imagine it must be quite sad for a patriotic American to see their country go to hell in a handbasket.
As Rush Limbo used to say, we can't even go to Hell in a Handbasket because Hillary bought them all to put her "Deplorables" in! OK, if he didn't say that, it's something he could have said.
Frink
New York football fans are not big fans of kickers.
The Jets lost a game on a 60-yard field goal last week. This week, the Giants wound up losing a game in significant part thanks to a 64-yard field goal. One horrible thrown ball later helped, too.
In this week's NFL craziness, there was also a successful late onside kick. The team, though their opponent kept on giving them chances via penalty, couldn't do anything to advance the ball. And lost anyhow. I didn't watch the game on television.
You can keep track of games online, which will also be something baseball fans will be doing.
Tennessee Volunteers share your pain!
Yes. The loss to Georgia on a missed field goal in the final seconds of regulation play hurts.
That's what Tennessee does, lose to Georgia. And yes, my Auburn Tigers also (Want to gloat you H8-ers?? My Extended Fambily is 97% UGA fans) OK, except the German 1/2, they don't really follow the College Foo-Bawl, they're Energie Cottbuss fans, playing this season in the "3 Liga" which as I understand it, is like Single A Baseball (See, In Soccer, the shitty teams get sent to the next lowest league, not sure what happens to the shitty teams in the lowest leagues) Doing pretty good so far, 2-1-2 (2 Ties in 5 games? how Exciting!) which is good for 7th place out of 20 teams.
Fraink
Field Goals have gotten longer and longer over the last several years in the NFL. For the Giants game, a 64-yard field goal was "well within" the Dallas kicker's range. Even 67-68 was considered reasonable. Which meant Dallas didn't even need to be past midfield.
I think moving the field goal posts back another 5 yards on each side is something that should realistically be considered in the NFL.
Just make them kick from wherever the ball goes dead, like in rugby. Letting them kick from the middle of the field is what makes it easy (easier, anyway).
Into the stands? that would be sort of cool actually. First few years I watched NFL Goalposts were on the Goal Line (Yes, I'm old) and served as extra Linemen for plays close to the End Zone.
Frank "Illegal Pick on the Falcon's Goal Post! Penalty is 1/2 the distance to the Goal, this is the Goal Post's first Penalty of the game!" (Love to see them eject the Goal Post)
... Or narrow the uprights, which is probably logistically easier.
But yeah, it really changes the game if you only need to get a couple of first downs to score.
Really, you can follow games "Online", can I use my Compuserve Account to do that??? Jeesh, "Man-splain" much??
Frank
Yesterday there were municipal elections in Nordrhein-Westfalen, an election that briefly captured Trumpists' attention when they spread a conspiracy theory that even the AfD thought was too silly to encourage (i.e. that seven AfD candidates had been murdered).
What you make of the elections depends on how you look at it.
The results: - CDU: 33.3% (-1.0%) - SPD: 22.1% (-2.2%) - AfD: 14.5% (+9.4%) - Greens: 13.5% (-6.5%) - Left: 5.6% (+1.8%) - FDP: 3.7% (-1.9%) - Other: 7.4% (+0.4%)
(Between brackets is the difference compared to four years ago.)
So the government parties lose, and both get their worst municipal election result in NRW since the Land was founded in 1946. The AfD wins, if you compare it to four years ago, but lose 2.3%-points since the Bundestag election earlier this year. So on the one hand this re-affirms the position of the AfD as a stable force on the far right of German politics, on the other hand they didn't really win since the current federal government took office (and the conservatives went from opposition to government).
https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/wahlen/kommunalwahlen-2025/ergebnisse-kommunalwahlen-2025-nrw-100.html
"...Trumpists' attention when they spread a conspiracy theory that even the AfD thought was too silly to encourage (i.e. that seven AfD candidates had been murdered)." Source? Which "Trumpists"?
Several on this blog, for one. Feel free to click through some open threads a few weeks back.
Well at least you’re not spitting out nazi labels against supporters of President Trump, some improvement at least. I had to look this up myself. Statistically, it does seem safer for your health not to be an AfD candidate. As to other matters though, I think it should be concerning to anyone in a free society when state intelligence services target popular political movements for negative reports because those movements favor policies the state doesn’t support. In my opinion, Germany would do better for itself focusing on dismantling its self destructive green energy nonsense, but it’s their call if they want to sacrifice their economy to promote the climate grifters.
A TV commercial -- Joe Sixpack working on his car and you see black graffitti on the white garage doors of the adjacent house. Woman comes out, tries to hurry child into car saying "we have to go."
Woman returns and you see pristine white garage doors. Joe Sixpack still working on car, then you see his workboots that have white paint spilled on them. Woman mouths "thank you" to him.
My thought: he just destroyed evidence.
Having the right shade of white paint, and the right kind that isn't going to screw up the doors isn't likely, but a lot of graffitti can be removed with detergent and scrubbing. And while I would be inclined to do that -- particularly if it could do it before the victim even saw it -- isn't that going to get me into trouble with the cops?
Or is there still a "you did a good thing so we'll overlook this" exception?
After all these years we shouldn't be surprised but its always eyeopening how grotesquely progs can act when they get riled up.
From dancing and celebrating
https://youtu.be/mL5bFBVLepI?feature=shared&t=6
https://1819news.com/news/item/one-down-more-deserving-threatening-banner-hung-next-to-one-honoring-charlie-kirk-on-cullman-bridge
to turning around and claiming the guy who did the thing they were celebrating and cheering 10 seconds ago was right wing hardcore Trump MAGA because he wore a costume where he rode trump like a donkey
https://x.com/MyLordBebo/status/1966572448767217971
Its unreal. They have questioned, mocked, misdirected, undermined, and generally have acted in bad faith in every way as much as they thought they could get away with it. That a guy died for speaking out didn't matter. It was simply an obstacle to overcome by any means possible. This should be game over for any lingering hope that the Left as a culture is any better than the boogeyman they claim to fight and a cause for real introspection if you truly think you are one of the few honest sensible people among their ranks. But we all know thats not going to happen.
Those people are no better than the palestinians who were dancing on 9/11; utter moral reprobates with few redeeming characteristics.
How many of them were dancing on 10/7?
So cancel culture is good now?
Are you going to cancel Brian Kilmeade too? https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/14/business/brian-kilmeade-fox-news-apology-homeless
One Republican said something bad! That totally makes up for the legions of leftists celebrating and probably a majority of active leftists engaging in some form of damage control as a priority.
PS If you don't like cancel culture maybe stop being the foremost champions of it?
I think people who say terrible things should suffer social ostracism as a result. The fact that that never happened to Charlie Kirk speaks volumes about how toxic a society the US has become.
It speaks volumes about how warped your notion of what terrible things are has become, actually.
Seriously? How long do I have to make this list before you accept that Kirk was an extremist, even by Trumpist standards?
- Gay people should be stoned to death - Most people are scared when they see a black pilot flying a plane - Taylor Swift should reject feminism and submit to her husband - No one should be allowed to retire - Leftists should not be allowed to move to red states - British Colonialism was what "made the world decent" - The guy who assaulted the Pelosi's should be bailed out - Religious freedom should be terminated - Multiple black politicians "stole white people's spots" - MLK Jr was "an awful person" - The Great Replacement Theory is reality - Hydroxychloroquine cures COVID - Vaccine requirements are "medical apartheid" - Guns deaths are acceptable in order to have a 2nd amendment - Women's natural place is under their husband's control - Parents should prevent their daughters from taking birth control - George Floyd had it coming, the Jan 6th protestors didn’t - The 1964 Civil Rights Act was a "huge mistake" - Encouraged parents to protest mask mandates - Mamdani winning in NY is a travesty because Muslims did 9/11 - Muslims only come to America to destabilize Western Civilization - Palestine "doesn't exist" and those who support it are like the KKK
Ok, you "Showed me I'm Wrong", guess he deserved that 30:06 through the Neck. Preparing my list of similar statements for Mullah Ill-hand Omar, Priapism Slap-a-Jap, and Hakeem "the (Bad) Dream)" Jefferson. But please, nobody shoot any of them with a 30:06, 8mm Mauser, 7.62 NATO....
and am I the only one who finds it "Ironic" (Dontcha Think?) that an "Anti-Fascist" shoots a Non-Fascist (whatever Charlie Kirk was, he wasn't a Fascist) with a Rifle designed/manufactured/deployed by actual Fascists.
Frunk
Why do those who genuflect to Clarence Toady continue to give Frank Drackman a pass?
IOKIYAR today? IOKIYAR tomorrow? IOKIYAR fo'evah??
Weird, pathetic nuts are crucial to their coalition I guess.
Hey, don't be so hard on "Not Guilty" (Is calling yourself "Not Guilty" evidence of "Consciousness of Guilt"?? I mean we're all "Guilty" of something (me for being so Awesome)
Frnk
Didn't Stephen King apologize after making the first claim on your list? And given that, why should anybody read further?
Here is good article on how leftists distort and misrepresent Kirks actual statement.
https://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2025/09/14/the-actual-charlie-kirk-2nd-amend-quote-lefties-lie-about-n4943699
Seriously, even if you drop the false claims about what Kirk said, the stuff that remains is still the sort of thing that no self-respecting person should endorse.
https://www.factcheck.org/2025/09/viral-claims-about-charlie-kirks-words/
Well, you would not expect a self-respecting left-winger to endorse right wing views, any more than you would expect a self-respecting right winger to endorse left wing views. Wisdom is realizing that one's own views are not the definition of what it is respectable to say.
Bellmore, on the basis of that reasoning, you are poised to put genocide into the Overton window. Charlie Kirk chose on purpose to use overt racist bigotry as a political organizing principle. You are worse than unwise if you insist that is a, "respectable," right-wing view.
Maybe no self-respecting person should endorse the false claims in the first place?
The death penalty goes too far.
Charlie Kirk's murderer (I refuse to name him) will be clammering to "Transition" himself once he gets into General Population (where at least he can perhaps buy some protection from the other prisoners, in his "Special Housing Quarters" he's at the mercy of the Guards, most of whom (who? help a Brutha out Queenie!) are devout Mormans, which doesn't prevent them from engaging in some Man-Love ("Broke Back, Mounting" style)
Looks like the short bus has dropped off Francis (“Special Housing Quarters” indeed).
“They have questioned, mocked, misdirected, undermined, and generally have acted in bad faith in every way as much as they thought they could get away with it.”
Republican officials sent mixed messages on the attack, prompting criticism from Democrats.[106] Many Republicans denounced the attack,[107][108] though others spread conspiracy theories about it.[108] Some Republicans who condemned the attack issued statements criticizing "both sides" for violent rhetoric and political violence.[107] Few Republicans spoke out against colleagues who spread conspiracy theories before the attack on Pelosi, or who promoted conspiracy theories about the attack itself.[109][110] Top Republican officials, such as Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel and National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Tom Emmer, rejected assertions that inflammatory Republican rhetoric, including vilification of Nancy Pelosi, contributed to an atmosphere that risked violence. A week before the attack, Emmer posted a video of himself firing a gun with the hashtag #FirePelosi; after the attack, he deflected a question asking if he should have used a gun in the ad.[111] Some Republicans made jokes about the attack.[104][112] When taunting Nancy Pelosi, Donald Trump, the 45th and 47th president of the United States, sarcastically asked, “How's her husband doing?” He then remarked, “She's against building a wall in our border, even though she has a wall around her house—which obviously didn't do a very good job.”[113]
Nutpicking.
You are mad at a phantom left you made up.
You are hardly alone around here. It is funny watching people who have posted for years steeped in hate for the left pretend now it’s different.
According to Wikipedia, the rifle used to murder Charlie Kirk, with a scope, is 1000 meters -- that's over 3/5 of a mile.
Is this the end of outdoor events on college campi? Even commencements -- Governors, businessmen -- these are people that someone might want to shoot.
It was a bolt action hunting rifle. The kind that even strict gun banning countries have the most trouble getting rid of. So essentially the 'common sense' gun control is to repeal the 2nd Amendment entirely and a complete ban and immediate confiscation of all guns across the entire nation. And they say 'thoughts and prayers' is a useless gesture.
Why not go all the way and enact Singapore-style justice?
The kind that even strict gun banning countries have the most trouble getting rid of.
How do you figure? It's not like it's easy to hide.
Huh? Maybe it's not easy to conceal while walking down the street, but hiding it somewhere at home is pathetically easy.
Still harder than hiding a handgun.
Trivially easy is trivially easy, even if you can rank things in terms of HOW trivially easy they are to hide.
When the police come to do a search of your house, tell me which one they might not find.
LOL! I live in South Carolina, I don't need to hide squat, the state government isn't the slightest bit interested in knowing what I own.
But I recommend The Big Book of Secret Hiding Places; I bought my paperback edition from Loompanics Unlimited years ago, but you can get the kindle version really cheap off Amazon, or find PDFs in multiple places if you don't want to be recorded as owning a copy.
Let me qualify that: The state is not interested in knowing if I own anything I have any interest in owning.
Back in the 80's I bought a cheap book at a Second hand Book Store (remember Second hand Book Stores?? remember Books??) Seems it was a directory of Legal Firms in Indianapolis, maybe Evansville, some midwest city, I bought it only because it was 50 cents and (after some "Surgery") the perfect size to conceal a 25 Automatic (Raven Arms) Put it on the bookshelf of my Bachelor Pad (unlike Hobie-Stank, I lived in a real "Hood") my plan was to use it in case of a Home Invasion (Unrealistic I know, "Hey guys, I need to look up a legal firm, mind if I get this book from the bookcase??") And for some reason, the book attracted more attention, as it stood out from my Medical Texts, visitors (yes, I had visitors, even women occasionally) were constantly pulling it from the shelf to read it, boy were they surprised! (My Mom for one (Yes, my most frequent woman "visitor") But she understood why I needed it, she grew up in E. Germany after all. Still have it (the Book, and the Raven, and my Mom)
That book? What does it have to say about hiding expensive stuff from your pissed-off spouse or girlfriend?
Makes me wonder if when President Clinton spoke at MIT, agents were stationed in the row of buildings along Beacon Street and Back Street across the river in Boston. They are just about 1,000 meters away and have a sight line to the courtyard where events are held.
In Vietnam, USMC Sniper Carlos Hathcock took out an NVA General from 2,460 yards, Supposedly a You-Crane Sniper took out a Roosh-un General from 4,400 yards last month.
The Rifle is 1000 meters?? Jeez, that's 2/3 of a mile (Frankie Don't Do Metric!) How did he ever conceal it? Jeez-Us, for a supposed Educator you mangle the language way more than a Simple Country Doctor like Moi'. and he fired from 120 yards, I've hit targets at that distance with my .357 revolver (OK, not consistently)
Frenk
And now, a walk on the macabre side of the aisle....
Political assassination as a tool of influence (terror) is now entrenched in America. Whether it is gunning down Christians in churches, schools; or murdering speakers at a political rally...It is real, and it is happening in front of our eyes.
Who should now worry about the assassins bullet?
Obviously, POTUS Trump and his Cabinet There have been two assassination attempts on POTUS Trump's life in the last year. A USSS agent was just suspended for glorifying Kirk's assassination. Can the USSS be trusted? That there are even questions about the USSS is horrifying.
There are many 'political firebrands' on the Left; Omar, Tlaib, Khanna, Jayapal, Murphy (just to name a few). Should they be concerned? I think, perhaps they should. We already know there are homicidal crazies on the Left, btw, the Right is not immune to this. The crazies on the Right have guns, too.
American society is untethered from the Judeo-Christian values that made us the greatest nation history has ever known. Our civic behavior is a reflection of this.
As for Tyler Robinson, he gets the needle, gas or firing squad.
According to an assassination expert, assassinations come in waves.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/analysis-why-charlie-kirks-killing-could-embolden-more-political-violence
The wave will probably end. I am more worried about the rise of AI meaning we never know what's real.
No, we've had plenty of assassination when we were bible thumping to the max.
Amazing to see Commenter morph into an evangelical scold.
I'm a Christian, and I further think faith has amazing potential to bring out the best in an individual, as well as act as a balm in their lowest moments. It can also bring out the worst in someone - smothering their moral impulses in righteousness. And twist a dark time into a cause to inflict that misery on others.
America's Great Awakenings have plenty of both sides of the coin in them. But these days the rhetoric of revival is more purely partisan than anything else. It comes from the subset of churches that have embraced political power, and twisted their faith accordingly.
If anyone needs to return to our judeo-Christian values, it's those places; and leave their theocracy behind.
So where are we on women voting? For or against?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/conservative-influencer-maga-son-says-162428178.html
Another question in the news today: Is the US Regime going to punish Brazil for the criminal verdict against an accused insurrectionist?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3yxkkdlkvo
In Ireland people are still jostling to get the necessary nominations to get on the Presidential ballot. This morning the news came in that Conor McGregor has withdrawn from the election. (I.e. he accepts that he won't be able to get the necessary nominations, and is going to stop trying.)
https://www.rte.ie/news/presidential-election/2025/0915/1533497-presidential-race-ireland/
To be eligible to run, a candidate must be nominated either by 20 members of the Oireachtas or four local authorities. They must also be an Irish citizen over the age of 35.
The main political parties of Ireland (Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, and Sinn Féin) either have a nominee already, or are in the process of agreeing one.
Former government minister Heather Humphreys is running for Fine Gael in the 24 October election while ex-Dublin Gaelic football manager Jim Gavin is the Fianna Fáil candidate. Mr Gavin is due to attend a parliamentary party meeting in Cork today. Yesterday, Independent presidential candidate Catherine Connolly said she would be "delighted" if Sinn Féin backed her campaign, when it clarifies its position next Saturday. Ms Connolly currently has the backing of the Social Democrats, Labour, People Before Profit-Solidarity and some Independents.
Former government minister Heather Humphreys is running for Fine Gael in the 24 October election while ex-Dublin Gaelic football manager Jim Gavin is the Fianna Fáil candidate. Mr Gavin is due to attend a parliamentary party meeting in Cork today.
Yesterday, Independent presidential candidate Catherine Connolly said she would be "delighted" if Sinn Féin backed her campaign, when it clarifies its position next Saturday.
Ms Connolly currently has the backing of the Social Democrats, Labour, People Before Profit-Solidarity and some Independents.
Since 1990, when Mary Robinson was elected to the office, Ireland has had an extraordinary string of Presidents. Mary Robinson, Mary McAleese, and now Michael D. Higgins, have been widely beloved by the people, in part because all three had an exemplary record of civic virtue. Of course not being part of day-to-day politics helps with that, but these presidents didn't just talk the talk (which is rare enough already), but they also walked the walk.
It barely registers as worthy of coverage by the corporate press, but there's a burgeoning separatist movement growing in Alberta, Canada. The independence movement seems pretty serious, with a proposed government structure, a proposed budget, and an upcoming referendum. Given the heavy restrictions placed on Alberta's economic development by the federal government -- Pacific ocean ports closed to gas and oil shipments; cancellations of oil pipelines; targeted emissions restrictions on oil and gas producers, but not on other extraction industries -- I think the province might get a plurality of voters to choose independence, but likely not a majority.
Sources:
- Alberta Prosperity Project: https://albertaprosperity.com - Alberta's New Separatists, Maclean's Magazine: https://macleans.ca/longforms/albertas-new-separatists/
The Trump administration has unveiled a pilot program to accelerate the use of electric air taxis, a move aimed at establishing U.S. dominance in airspace technology.
The Department of Transportation on Friday said the Federal Aviation Administration's Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing Integration Pilot Program (eIPP) will develop "new frameworks and regulations for enabling safe operations" and form partnerships with private sector companies as well as with state and local governments.
https://www.npr.org/2025/09/13/nx-s1-5540722/faa-air-taxi-pilot-program
I have been trying to figure out whether, based on what information is publicly available so far, the assassination of Charlie Kirk constitutes a federal crime. To this point I haven't thought of a federal criminal statute that would apply.
The murder did not occur within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, so 18 U.S.C. § 1111 would not apply.
I haven't seen evidence that the assassin targeted Mr. Kirk because of his actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin, so 18 U.S.C. § 249 would not apply.
The assassin did not travel in interstate or foreign commerce, so 18 U.S.C. § 2261A would not apply. (This is one of the federal statutes under which Luigi Mangione is being prosecuted.)
The site of the shooting was not a school which provides elementary or secondary education per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(27), so 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(3)(A) would not apply.
Does anyone else have any thoughts here?
Targeting Kirk because of his religious beliefs about transgender individuals is targeting him because of his religion.
That is horseshit.
I don't agree. I think it makes total sense. He was a religious figure, and he was assassinated for espousing his religious views.
I assume a petition to make him a saint is already underway?
He was a religious figure
TP continues to deliver, folks!
He was religious, and he was a public figure. That does not make him a religious figure.
The damage some are willing to do to their ostensible religion to push their politics is amazing. Part of why the Founders were no fans of theocracy was the damage political power does to religious institutions.
So, you have some defintion of "religious figure" that negates what I said? Care to share that definition?
A religious figure is one holding a position of *spiritual* leadership. People didn't look to Kirk to tell them how to pray or whatnot, they looked to him for political arguments and positions.
Though I know some are working hard to elide the distinction, it's really important to tell the difference between politics and religion!
"A religious figure is an individual or entity holding significant importance or authority within a faith community, often characterized by leadership, guidance, and the performance of religious duties. Examples include priests, ministers, and spiritual leaders who provide guidance and support to followers and are sometimes recognized for their profound spiritual knowledge or connection to the divine. Key aspects of a religious figure Leadership and Authority: They often hold positions of authority within a religious organization or community, such as a priest, rabbi, imam, or guru. Guidance and Care: Religious figures are responsible for guiding and caring for their followers, providing spiritual direction and support. Religious Duties: They are authorized to perform religious duties and make judgments, playing a crucial role in the practice and interpretation of their faith. Spiritual Importance: Figures like prophets or influential teachers are recognized for their significant contributions, impactful messages, or deep spiritual insight. Community Role: They serve as vital sources of information and direction, especially during times of uncertainty, highlighting the role of religion in providing societal guidance. Examples: Common titles include priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, imam, prophet, spiritual leader, and monk, all of whom embody religious authority and devotion."
Charlie Kirk was a Christian Nationalist community of faith leader. That makes him a religious figure.
You think he was equivalent to a priest, rabbi, iman or guru? Come on. Like Sarc said he was a religious guy and a public figure. I guess you think Trump is a religious figure? Mike Johnson? MTG?
He was an evangelical Christian Nationalist. I don't see him as a political figure; he never ran for office, and as far as I know never expressed an interest in running for office. Do you think all this Christian Nationalist stuff and all that praying was just a side gig? Geez. Is the Rev. Al Sharpton a religious figure or a political figure? Was the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King a religious figure or a political figure? (Hint: check their titles.) For that matter, are political figure and religious figure mutually exclusive?
Here's a pertinent article, excerpted here:
"In 2021, he launched TPUSA Faith, in partnership with California pastor Rob McCoy. The initiative promised to “push back against secular totalitarianism in America, eradicate wokeism from the church, inspire the rise of strong churches, and wake up believers to their biblical responsibility to fight for freedom.”"
https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/news/charlie-kirk-from-secular-activist-to-christian-nationalist-icon/
Hint: check their titles. They were all reverends. I guess that’s why you elided my question.
Mark Wahlberg created a religious organization, do you think he’s a religious figure? Come on, give it up.
Christian nationalism, apart from being profoundly anti-American and corrosive to our pluralistic republic, is not a unified faith.
It describes a particular ideological aspect to a whole bunch of institutions, some secular some religious.
Or a peek into how Michael views his Trumpism...
A stretch worthy of Plastic Man.
Even beyond the trying to shoehorn faith into this, we don't have the shooter's motives yet. This is what, the third attempt by the conservatives to push a motive?
My prediction (warning: vibes coming!) is that in a week or so this will all end up with an inchoate 'the tone on the left made this happen' and the right will pretend they always thought that.
The state of Utah seems unlikely to go easy on the killer, and there is a death penalty in Utah, so the motive for a federal prosecution seems somewhat lacking.
But, if they really wanted to, why not Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights? It seems likely the killer had at least SOME help, from accounts, so conspiracy, and the motive was to go after Kirk for protected speech, so it was a conspiracy against rights.
Who do you posit were Tyler Robinson's co-conspirators, if any? Section 241 is not a mere aiding and abetting statute. A conviction thereunder would require that all conspirators had the specific intent to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate Mr. Kirk in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised such right(s).
A specific intent to interfere with the federal right must be proved. United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 760 (1966), citing Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 106-107 (1945). The predominant purpose of such a conspiracy must be to impede or prevent the exercise of a federal constitutional right, or to oppress a person because of his exercise of that right. Id., at 360.
IOW, "It seems likely the killer had at least SOME help" doesn't feed the bulldog.
I would not know their names, but news reports have him communicating with somebody else on Discord in planning the assassination. That was the basis of my remark.
It would, of course, have to be proven in court to obtain a conviction, but that's enough of a hook for the feds to base an investigation on.
There was an obvious rush to get the assassination tagged as terrorism. I assumed that was intended to give the feds a hook to hang a federal prosecution on.
A recent Redfin survey asked people who were planning to buy a home in the next year what they required in a home and what they’d be “willing to trade off.” More than one in five respondents (22 percent) said they were willing to sacrifice personal safety, while nearly 30 percent said they were willing to compromise on living in an area with a low crime rate.
But even if a fifth of buyers said they were willing to overlook it, safety still topped the list of new home must-haves, the survey found, with 78 percent of respondents saying it was nonnegotiable, and 74 percent saying that buying in a low-crime area was nonnegotiable. Living in an area with low risk for natural disaster was the third most popular must-have, though about a third of respondents said they were willing to compromise on that, too. Coming in fourth, with 67 percent of respondents unwilling to sacrifice it: access to grocery stores.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/realestate/buying-homes-must-have-features.html
Interestingly being in a good school district ranked rather low, surprised by that (but perhaps a methodology thing).
We had 4 criteria, which thankfully did not conflict:
1. Good school district 2. Low crime rate 3. Fire place 4. Tree with tree house potential
Of course, 1 and 2 traded off, because we weren't about to move into some hellhole just to get a slightly better school.
In the end, we found a house that checked all our boxes, 3 fireplaces, a little rural pocket where we could have livestock, nice school district. Then it rained heavily a couple weeks before the closing, and a week before we did our walk through... And the house had flooded, just a couple inches in the basement, but black mold throughout. So we bailed, and got no argument about it.
Only by then our apartment had been promised to somebody else, and we had a hard deadline for moving out, and had to settle on someplace else really fast. Still, it did check all the boxes, and was actually a bit cheaper. Just needed a bit of work before we moved in.
Yes, I think 1 and 2 are bound to intermix. As we’re both commuters we also wanted to be somewhat, but not too close, to the interstate. Luckily we got that.
We would have loved to have bought a stone house, both I and my wife admire them, but the one we found in our price range... When we checked the crime map, the screen was nothing but flags, you couldn't see anything else.
Our present house is in a quiet old residential neighborhood, a few blocks from a police station, very low crime rate, no through traffic. An overgrown utility corridor behind us, and a flood zone lot next to us, we have a very private backyard. I wouldn't have minded more room for a garden, but as I said, we picked it out in a rush.
It is now clear that in its rush to find an excuse to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, the Trump Administration fell totally on its face, finding entries made by her banks in a federal database and falsely representing them, without so much as even bothering to check, to be statements made by her to the banks.
Despite being aware of its negligence, the Trump Administration is doubling down and persisting in its efforts to pretend there is cause to fire her.
It seems to me that separately from whether there should be sanctions for representing the existence of cause without having conducted the most basic of fact-checking in the first place, lawyers who persist in the charade from here on, now that it’s clear the claimed misconduct is totally bogus, really need to be heavily sanctioned. They are filing frivolous papers in the complete absence of any merit in the hopes they can delay the case past this week’s Open Market Committee meeting. Whether or not New York real estate developers should be permitted such tactics with impunity, lawyers representing the President of the United States should not be.
I would impose very heavy, send-them-a-lesson sanctions here - Ms. Cook should get the equivalent of her salary for her entire remaining term as a monetary sanction, her lawyers ahould get all their legal fees, and the lawyers who persisted after it became clear the administration’s claim she committed fraud was completely bogus should be barred from practicing before federal courts for years.
This kind of behavior cannot be countenanced. Lawyers who assist the administration in attempts to defraud the courts for illegitimate purposes need to be made to understand that they will have to find another line of work other than law.
A precedent has to be set that this behavior absolutely will not be tolerated. The courts need to come down very, very hard.
Frankly, things have reached a point where licensed attorneys should not be permitted to accept the government’s word without conducting their own investigation. There has to be a CREDIBLE basis for representations a lawyer makes in court.
The appalling conduct of DOJ attorneys brought in by this administration is, quite frankly, beyond the pale. Anyone who has had experience litigating against the DOJ in the past (or who has worked for the the DOJ) understands that there are strong institutional norms that have taken scores of decades to develop- institutional integrity.
And, honestly, it is shocking to see how quickly they have been demolished. Courts react slowly, but they are catching up. But yes- it is heartbreaking to realize that not only can you not trust the representations made by a DOJ attorney- it is, in fact, likely that they might simply be lying to the court.
The sheer number of cases in just a few months show that this isn't just the case of a few bad apples, but complete institutional rot. And in a matter of months. I have to admit- the utter destruction of the DOJ this quickly? I didn't think it could happen.
I was wrong.
What’s happening now is even worse. The administration’s lawyers are now claiming that the President has the unfettered right to fabricate bogus ‘cause’ and that it doesn’t matter if he lies through his teeth about what the supposed cause is, because his decisions are unreviewable.
Frankly, if I were Ms. Cook’s lawyers, I would subpoena that government database as well as the bank personnel who supplied information for it and see if there is evidence that its records were tampered with. I wouldn’t put it past them.
Her lawyers are handling this in a milqetoast way, as if this were some sort of ordinary genteel intergovernmental dispute. We are not dealing with any such thing.
We are dealing with mafiosi, people who are openly arguing to the courts that their boss is not in any way a constitutional president but is instead a kind of mafia godfather who is entitled to trump up charges because he’s the boss. Frankly, I doubt people willing to do that would hesitate to fabricate evidence if the boss asks them to.
It’s pretty easy when everyone who says no gets fired and replaced by people whose only loyalty is to the boss. I’m not sure the transformation has gone slower than Germany’s own attempt to drain the swamp. Even those efforts were somewhat uneven. As late as 1934 a Nazi-appointed prosecutor still had the nerve to attempt to prosecute a group of storm troopers for killing a socialist.
https://commons.stmarytx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&context=lmej
The Lisa Cook argument shows us why the constitution prefers a hearing before removing somebody for cause. Her opponents point to accusations of misconduct which her supporters offer a defense to. Due process means notice and an opportunity to be heard. She is supposed to be told what the problem is (notice) and be allowed to tell her side of the story (opportunity to be heard).
Imagine if she could actually sue people for libelling her!
(Well, she can sue of course. But she can't win.)
Perhaps some of you find Tyler Cowen more persuasive than me:
One of the most dangerous collectivist arguments in the wake of Kirk’s murder is to blame the “trans community.” Some have reported that Robinson lived with a transgender romantic partner. Regardless of whether this proves to be true, there is no good evidence that trans individuals are especially likely to commit murder (try asking Grok). There is also no evidence that this particular trans individual contributed to the murder plot; rather, reports indicate the person in question is cooperating with the authorities. If there is generalized evidence for anything, it is that trans individuals are likely to be the victims of violent attacks. And yet, Elon Musk is approvingly reposting the following: “It’s time for a complete and total ban on cross-sex hormones. They cannot change your sex. They turn men with perverse fetishes into deranged bioweapons, and women trying to escape sexual trauma into androgynous osteoporotic goblins. These people need to spend a long time in an asylum—some of them, indefinitely.” Constitutional rights, anyone? The right for peaceful individuals to avoid involuntary incarceration? How about basic toleration? Musk is an individualist in many other contexts, but it appears not this one. As a strategy matter, why go out of your way to make left-wing charges against the right seem plausible?
One of the most dangerous collectivist arguments in the wake of Kirk’s murder is to blame the “trans community.” Some have reported that Robinson lived with a transgender romantic partner. Regardless of whether this proves to be true, there is no good evidence that trans individuals are especially likely to commit murder (try asking Grok). There is also no evidence that this particular trans individual contributed to the murder plot; rather, reports indicate the person in question is cooperating with the authorities.
If there is generalized evidence for anything, it is that trans individuals are likely to be the victims of violent attacks.
And yet, Elon Musk is approvingly reposting the following: “It’s time for a complete and total ban on cross-sex hormones. They cannot change your sex. They turn men with perverse fetishes into deranged bioweapons, and women trying to escape sexual trauma into androgynous osteoporotic goblins. These people need to spend a long time in an asylum—some of them, indefinitely.”
Constitutional rights, anyone? The right for peaceful individuals to avoid involuntary incarceration? How about basic toleration? Musk is an individualist in many other contexts, but it appears not this one. As a strategy matter, why go out of your way to make left-wing charges against the right seem plausible?
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/09/stop-blaming-them.html
“And yet, Elon Musk is approvingly reposting the following: “It’s time for a complete and total ban on cross-sex hormones. They cannot change your sex. They turn men with perverse fetishes into deranged bioweapons, and women trying to escape sexual trauma into androgynous osteoporotic goblins. These people need to spend a long time in an asylum—some of them, indefinitel”
Another example of a very weird man awfully upset at those “weirdo trannys.”
Imagine thinking that cross dressers who chemically and surgically mutilate themselves aren't weirdos...
Imagine being a weird eccentric autistic ketamine user with over a dozen kids (with names like Xi) who dwells on that….
The “mutilation” thing is quite dumb. It’s like the unc who goes on about how the waiter with gauges, piercings, etc., has “mutilated” themselves. People have been altering their physical form for forever.
Good news people! It looks like there are some vacancies about to open up in the Trump cabinet: https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-cabinet-mortgage-fraud
Don't you have some boring documents to read? You've made 17 posts so far today, or 27% of the posts in this thread.
Listened to a podcast that interviewed Prof. Brian Keating about what he's learned from interviewing a bunch of Nobel prize winners. I think he's taken a bad lesson from his discussions, though an understandable one.
He says one thing that came out from his discussions was that the key is focus. Don' cast about for what field speaks to you. Instead pick one early, and then work at it until you have a depth of expertise that hardly anyone can emulate. That's where the discoveries are. And the younger you get there, the more likely you are to intuit something golden.
1. I'm sure a lot of the Laureates he's interviewed have a story like that. But that's sample bias - the ones that focused on something they weren't passionate about never made it to that status.
2. It also neglects the rise of crosscutting science in the past 30 or so years. Depth of expertise used to be the low-hanging fruit. But we've plucked a lot of that. There's still plenty around there, but the insights from mixing the perspectives of 2 fields has proven fertile ground recently.
3. Youth isn't required for scientific discovery. If you blindly look at when people make their seminal discovery, youth seems to check out. But I read a book whose name alas escapes me, which noted that you publish a lot of papers when you're young just naturally. And when you compensate for publication frequency, the age of discovery turns out to have no strong statistical push.
It also apparently neglects the political aspect of the prizes; e.g., Obama, who did nothing but was awarded one, on speculation, or perhaps adulation.
The Obama one was uncommonly silly.
...but he grew into it. Oh, wait he didn't. Never mind.
Wow, that's actually a reasonable honest statement.
Not a Reasonably honest Statement( ?
Riva-like posting detected.
This is not about that kind of Nobel Prize winner, chief.
Again with the "Chief"?? Just put a big "L" on your forehead
Francis like a big L, like he likes all capital letters!
Oh, so you know something about the OP that's not in evidence? Or are you just being your typical snarky self?
Really? To point out the obvious-
1. Yes, the Nobel PEACE Prize, unlike the other ones, does have a political aspect to it. I wonder why? What could possibly make the Nobel PEACE Prize different than that Nobel Prizes in other areas- you know ... Physics? Chemistry? Medicine? Even Literature?
2. As I noted in another thread, the Nobel Peace Prize has had a number of uncommonly silly (or tragic) recipients. Generally, the best ones (in hindsight) are the ones given to organizations or to non-political figures who have done humanitarian work.
3. That said, the Obama one is definitely one of the silly ones. Which is why he didn't want it, and inquired about not accepting it (I went through this before). I recommend reading his acceptance speech. Anyway, it is a silly prize- it's almost like it would be really silly for someone to actively campaign for it, don't you think?
In fact, why would someone campaign for a Nobel Peace Prize? It's a silly award. Unless ... do you think someone might have had their ego bruised at some point, and every thing since then has been some way to compensate for that?
Naw. That level of immaturity, childishness, and spite would be crazy. No one would possibly be that narcissistic and self-centered to do that. I mean, if I had a fictional character do that, you wouldn't believe it, so it obviously isn't the case that it's actually happening.
To reiterate a point I made in yesterday's open thread, Charlie Kirk's execrable comments about the Second Amendment deserves further discussion. Mr. Kirk glibly claimed: "I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational." https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs
If and to the extent that Mr. Kirk was referring to protecting the rights guaranteed elsewhere in the Bill of Rights, the right to keep and bear arms does not achieve that. (Except perhaps the right to worship firearms.)
Shooting an assailant or intruder does not protect the shooter's free expression rights. It does not protect the shooter against unreasonable searches or seizures by the government. It does not protect the shooter against government deprivations of life, liberty or property without due process of law. It does not protect the shooter's right to a fundamentally fair trial by an impartial jury. And so forth.
Even if you subscribe to the collective view of the 2nd I don’t think it’s disputable that the Framers hoped state militias would be a bulwark against a potentially tyrannical federal government.
Wow, another reasonable comment, are you the Bizarro Queenie??
same Old( francis
How about their right to life or property?
He doesn't believe in those, natch.
Brett, the Bill of Rights does not guarantee a right to life or property. It protects against governmental deprivations of life, liberty or property without due process of law and against takings for public use without just compensation.
It would be nice if you had even a passing acquaintance with history in connection with the Second Amendment. The Founders knew well how governments with standing armies behave.
? The US has had a standing army since basically the Founding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_Army_(United_States)
Obviously US history was another of the many subjects you failed.
Even as someone generally in favor of gun control, I find the left's obsession with this quote fairly lame.
Imagine instead of guns we were talking about cars and someone said "I think it's worth it to have a few (tens of thousands) car deaths a year so that we can get around and have a modern society". That's doesn't seem like an outrageous statement, and it's absolutely the overall deal that we've made as a society. Same goes for electricity or swimming pools. We tolerate some number of deaths because the thing killing people brings value to society.
The reason I favor gun control is with most of these things we try to minimize the number of deaths. We don't let you drive a car without a license, and we make manufacturers install airbags. With guns for some reason a bunch of people think that because the founders wanted some well regulated militias, we're not allowed to have any regulations on guns and it makes the whole discussion pretty dumb.
"...shall not be infringed."
Am I the only one who finds it "Ironic" (Dontcha Think?) that an "Anti-Fascist" shoots a Non-Fascist (whatever Charlie Kirk was, he wasn't a Fascist) with a Rifle designed/manufactured/deployed by actual Fascists.
Hard to say. Did the shooter drive there in a Volkswagen?
Dodge Challenger I think, the preferred transport of the deprived working class
For the "Follow. The. Law." crowd on the recent Korean immigration raid in Georgia, it looks like the Trump a administration has had to apologize to South Korea:
https://m.koreaherald.com/article/10575176
Trump said that he wants foreigners to be able to come in and help set up factories (and may even have paused the deportation of the Koreans to find out if they were willing to stay and finish the factory; they weren't), but it seems like a lot of foreign businesses will now be more skeptical of setting up shop in the US:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly0e4k750go
First Trump was bankrupting the farmers, now he's cancelling the new manufacturing jobs in red states. The libs sure are being owned!
NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani in an interview to the NY Times last week reiterated that he would direct the NYPD to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu if he were to enter NYC, based on the ICC warrant.
This would violate federal law, specifically 18 USC 7423, which forbids any government entity in the US from cooperating with the ICC, or extraditing anyone to the ICC. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/7423#:~:text=Notwithstanding%20any%20other%20provision%20of%20law%2C%20no%20funds%20appropriated%20under,by%20the%20International%20Criminal%20Court.
Apparently, rule of law does not apply where socialists deem it important to ignore it.
Please log in to post comments
Mute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?
J.D. Tuccille | 9.15.2025 7:00 AM
Ronald Bailey | From the October 2025 issue
Charles Oliver | 9.15.2025 4:00 AM
Steven Kurtz | 9.14.2025 6:00 AM
C.J. Ciaramella | 9.13.2025 7:00 AM
