One could similarly hypothesize that universes are created at random, and we were the lucky one where life could exist. Prager's argument reminds me of what the Church said about Galileo or Corernicus. They didn't like what the scientists, because it didn't fit within their religious beliefs. If cosmic constants were different, how can Prager claim any life, including the possibility of a different form of life won't arise? He can't. Just as one cannot prove God exists or doesn't exist.

Sowell has been fooled by the government promise of technology, where "data mining" can find terror plots in process and prevent them. It's not so simple to do, and is easily thwarted by terrorists. Consider the Boston bombers, where all this information didn't help. We found out later the government didn't realize they traveled to a terrorist state, because they used a misspelled name. Relying on the technology was a failure, and any searches of their emails, phone calls, etc. yielded nothing incriminating. But such a database is a treasure trove for those looking to blackmail political opponents (Christy and Brewer come to mind), or find out inside information to make huge profits in the markets. One simply plugs in the target's name, finds out who they've been talking to, and what their emails say. Wouldn't that be a treasure trove of information about our Congressmen, people involved in high finance, and other powerful people? When tipped off by the Russians, the FBI could have obtained all the information necessary via a regular search warrant, and no multi-billion dollar database was required.

The way to put an end to this, is to charge teachers who call the cops for things like this, with "disturbing the education process." Then after teachers learn that telling children to not wear political statements is a road to jail for them, we next need to charge police officers who do this kind of thing with violating the free speech rights of an individual, and fine/jail them as well. And for those who don't want kids wearing political T-shirts, then you should support eliminating the government school monopoly, so parents can choose to send their kid to an apolitical school, rather than into a statist indoctrination school jail where they fail to teach students, indoctrinate their statist beliefs into your children, and get paid anyway.

It must have started with the government employed teacher calling the cops, and "disturbing the education process." Shouldn't she be arrested and charged instead?

I haven't heard any liberals calling for revoking fake charities non-profit licenses. That's because, many of these organizations are simply fronts for Democrats to give government money to them in the name of charity, to only reverse course and be donated to liberal politicians. In other words, it's a front for liberal Democrats to fatten their wallets, and help elect the politicians approving the government "donations" to them. And let's not overlook the tyranny of forcing taxpayers to support causes which they do not support.

"Immigration enforcement is the government's job, not the private sector's. No employer should be punished because of an employee's immigration problems." I couldn't agree more. I'm against illegal immigration, but shouldn't government be the one determining the immigration status, and if the person is here illegally, isn't it government's job to arrest and deport them? What if that person who mows your lawn, cleans your carpet, cleans your home, or takes care of your baby, isn't here legally. How exactly are you to find out without the government letting us all know who's here legally? Do you want to be fined because you didn't determine the status of the person offering the service?

In a desire for "convicted civility" one might start with the fact that all government action is uncivil because it uses force against citizens in everything it does, simply because it starts by uncivilly taking money from citizens via the threat/use of force if citizens don't comply. Thus, if we want to reduce the use of force against citizens we need to limit government to only dealing with situations where someone was harmed by another. At least then the government force will be used to right a wrong, and be a deterrent to other criminal activity. One might also question as to why our government decided to collect our personal communications information, without a search warrant, and without informing us. A clear violation of the 4th amendment. Now that we know, they tell us to trust them. They've already shown they are untrustworthy.

"Many, including me, thought that the result [of concealed carry laws] would be frequent shootouts in the streets." "In today's more libertarian America, the guardrails may be gone." Barone saw his error in supporting "guardrails" regarding gun ownership and disallowing concealed carry. Thankfully he's learned that government "guardrails" limiting our freedom made crime worse. Perhaps he'll learn that government "guardrails" keeping people out of poverty have made "out-of-wedlock births, continuing joblessness, lack of social connectedness and civic involvement" worse as well. But so far he's defending the welfare state, rather than freedom. It's to be expected from a statist such as Barone who's derived much of his income and fame working for politicians who want more government, more power, and more wealth for themselves by selling taxpayers out.

I wouldn't be surprised that Obama blackmailed her - after all, he communicated to her alone on several occasions. And he had all her communication records and emails. I wouldn't be surprised if Brewer had some dirty laundry Obama found out about.

Krugman reminds me of a rabid dog frothing at the mouth, hysterical, attacking, and untrustworthy.