LRC Blog

Tucker on the Covington Catholic High School Students and the Cultural War Dividing America

We are in the midst of a savage Cultural War. The disgraceful Fake News narrative of the unfolding Covington Catholic High School students described above by Tucker Carlson is the latest salvo and dramatically outlines precisely why the majority of people hate and do not trust the mainstream media.

I have done so for almost fifty years, and my detailed study of history over these past five decades only further intensifies my genuine loathing and disgust.

The hypocritical virtue-signaling outrage from CNN and the other regime media presstitutes and pundits, the Twittering Hollywood hate brigades, and the legion of sanctimonious Social Justice Warriors (including those of #NeverTrump Conservative, Inc.) rushed to judgment to condemn this group of Kentucky teenagers who were almost compiled as if from central casting as portraying all the demonic and deplorable enemies of progressivism and all that is stereotypical anti-Trump – young, white, anti-abortion Catholics boys attending a Right to Life March, wearing red MAGA caps, who dared allegedly obstruct and demean a sacred native American elder.

The phony narrative surrounding the Native American activist Nathan Phillips is fast unraveling. Even the WaPo admitted he is not a Vietnam War veteran as put forth earlier by the media but a paid agitprop activist and actor who has been in similar confrontation episodes with students in the past.

Ask yourself: what if these persons were weaponized Antifa thugs dressed in black uniforms or militant feminists with pink pussy hats confronting a white Western Civilization professor on a college campus? How would the media and these assorted SJW groups spin that story? We all know the answer to that question.

12:58 am on January 23, 2019

Children Present Difficulties For ALL Political Philosophies, Not Only For Libertarianism

From: A
Sent: Sun 7/3/2016 3:44 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Pornography for children

Dear Walter,

A question just occurred to me, which, I understand, you may not prefer to answer directly now that I am going to be a graduate student. But any advice that could stimulate my reasoning on this topic would be most appreciated:

Should people be allowed to sell pornographic material to children? More broadly, should there be any legal measure to prevent children from being exposed to pornographic material? For example, should a private road owner be allowed to put up a huge pornographic sign on his road that everybody in the vicinity can see?

Thanks a lot!



12:50 am on January 23, 2019

Actress Ashley Bratcher: “I Was Seconds From Being Aborted”

Unplanned, an upcoming film about Planned Parenthood, the org that the GOP can’t stop giving millions of dollars to.

8:52 pm on January 22, 2019

Big Pharma: How the Sackler Family Earned $13 Billion Hooking the U.S. on Oxycontin

And here is Business Insider’s take on the family.

8:29 pm on January 22, 2019

That Drum-Banging Indian is Not a Vietnam Veteran After All

More fake news in the service of cultural Marxist political correctness.  The Indian is just another leftist loudmouth who beats on drums while his compatriots chant “White People Go Back to Europe Where You Came From.” “And take Western civilization, Christianity, markets, all your charities, and the highest standard of living in human history with you,” they must be thinking.

4:26 pm on January 22, 2019

Is Voting in U.S. Elections Incompatible With Libertarianism? No.

From: DJ
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 5:48 PM
Subject: Libertarians for Trump

re: (

Dear Walter,

Very disappointing to hear you argue so strongly for the continuing existence of the political government of the state by urging participation in the electoral process.  I don’t understand why you wouldn’t prefer to simply let it fall by withholding support rather than to perpetuate its health by giving the system legitimacy through participation.  I’ll have to say it was also just a bit disturbing to hear you repeating the thread-worn “don’t throw away your vote on someone unelectable.”  Back a statist “winner” rather than a principled libertarian “loser”?  What happened to principle as a guide to one’s actions?  Or was that only when Ron Paul was running?

I can understand (and excuse to a degree) “defensive voting” but can’t do so myself as I consider it immoral to seek to control the political shakedown racket–the machinery of violent domination by which those who disagree are robbed and coerced into compliance and submission–just as I would consider it to be immoral to attempt to control the Mafia as an insider in order to “reform” it.  I don’t consider the state as having any more legitimacy than the Mafia, differing significantly only in size and the illusion of legitimacy with the public.

I guess I’m wondering at what point in your ideal reduction of the political state you would consider it finally necessary to confront the choice of either declaring a state based on force altogether illegitimate and withdraw your support entirely or maintaining a minarchy through violent domination of your neighbors as is now the case via the electoral process of periodically choosing between criminal A and criminal B.  I’m not at all clear on that.

Regards, DJ


2:28 pm on January 22, 2019

Neocon Chameleons Return As Progressives

1:29 pm on January 22, 2019

1:28 pm on January 22, 2019

Increase Taxes?

The socialists among us promise higher taxes to finance their Deals and wealth leveling schemes. Suppose higher taxes were possible, not saying that they are possible, because they require economic and political conditions to be present that may not be there. But suppose they are enacted, whether by higher rates or other methods of confiscating wealth and income. What will be the effects?

For that analysis, done to a tee, read this article by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Higher taxes shift goods from productive uses to consumption. Higher taxation “…reduces the present incentive for future production of valuable assets,” and “…raises the effective rate of time preference, i.e., the rate of originary interest and, accordingly, leads to a shortening of the period of production and provision and so exerts an inexorable influence of pushing mankind into the direction of an existence of living from hand to mouth. Just increase taxation enough, and you will have mankind reduced to the level of barbaric animal beasts.”

If the U.S. government increases its tax take, interest rates will rise. The government’s cost of servicing its huge debt will rise, and so will everyone else’s. The depressing effects will not be offset by the government spending, since that will be used up in once-and-for-all consumption, while the production loss will be permanent. The price level will also rise due to the higher consumption and the loss of supply coming from production.

Higher taxes will greatly harm the poorer people that the socialists claim to be helping. If government gave the poor every penny it extracted, they could have a party for a limited period of time, after which they’d starve because producers had closed up shop. Only if the poor became a new set of producers might this situation be averted. How likely is it that people who were not producing enough to become wealthy suddenly become profitable producers? What happens to the knowledge and skills of the wealth-producing companies, the top ones being very large, when their capital is used up and not replaced? The party ends. That’s Hoppe’s message.

In increased taxation, the socialists have no solution to the social ills they identify and want to fix; nor will they find answers in any number of their other schemes such as price controls, green new deals, government banks, doing away with banks, collective or citizen ownership of production, single-payer health care, planned economies, democratization, humanization, worker ownership of companies, equalization of opportunity, solidarity, central planning, participatory planning, decentralized planning, zero interest rates, etc.

1:12 pm on January 22, 2019

A Unilaterial Declaration of Free Trade With Everyone

From: R
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 4:22 PM
Subject: Free Trade question
Dear Professor Block,

I have listened to you for many years now.  I understand the arguments against tariffs and how tariffs can harm the economy. My question is this; how can we truly have free trade with other nations when our trading partners place high tariffs on our exports?  As you know the Chinese do this very thing in addition to devaluing their currency so as to make their already cheap labor even cheaper on the manufactured goods they export to us.

Is this by definition unbalanced trade with other nations ??  Can unbalanced trade still be free trade? Thanks so much R

Dear R: We can’t have full free trade without their cooperation. But, we can have a unilaterial declaration of free trade with everyone. The U.S. can state that we will not have any tariffs on incoming goods, no matter what our trading partners do in this regard. This was for a long time the policy of Hong Kong. Even so fair weather a friend of free enterprise as Milton Friedman supported this policy.

Best regards,


1:37 am on January 22, 2019

“White People, Go Back to Europe Where You Came From”

That’s what the leftist “native Americans” were chanting as they beat loud drums in the faces of those Catholic school kids visiting D.C. while aggressively confronting them and getting in their faces with their drums and shouting and yelling.  The Lying Media Scum (LMS) lied through its teeth once again, as usual, by falsely claiming that it was the teenagers who “confronted” these seasoned, old, left-wing D.C. rabble rousers.  Exactly the opposite of what actually happened. Poor little Indians.

8:22 pm on January 21, 2019

Bernie Calls Trump a Racist

Lacking restraint, Bernie Sanders (Senator (VT)) today enunciated an extreme view, calling Trump a racist: “Today we talk about justice and today we talk about racism, and I must tell you it gives me no pleasure to tell you that we now have a president of the United States who is a racist.”

A year ago, Newsweek published “Trump’s Full List of ‘Racist’ Comments About Immigrants, Muslims and Others”.

There were 14 comments listed.

In #14, Trump “…said that many African-Americans were ‘living in hell,’ in reference to conditions in inner cities…” Is telling the truth supposed to be racist?

In #12, “Trump pointed to a black man and said, ‘Look at my African-American over there.'” I do not understand why this is racist. Isn’t African-American still a kosher way to indicate a black person?

8:04 pm on January 21, 2019

Martin Luther King’s Murder – Conspiracy Or Coincidence?

12:35 pm on January 21, 2019

Extreme Views and the Loss of Restraint Among the Losers

Yesterday, it was Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) saying Trump is an agent of a foreign power: “He’s working on behalf of the Russians, yes.”

“MATTHEWS: You’re a member of the Judiciary, do you believe the president, right now, has been an agent of the Russians?

“REP. SWALWELL: Yes. I think there’s more evidence that he is—


“REP. SWALWELL: Yes. I think all the arrows point in that direction, and I haven’t seen a single piece of evidence that he’s not.

“MATTHEWS: An agent like in the 1940s where you had people who were ‘Reds,’ to use an old term, like that? In other words, working for a foreign power?

“REP. SWALWELL: He’s working on behalf of the Russians, yes.”

Now we learn this: “House Budget Committee chair Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) called Sunday for a ban on teenagers wearing ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA) hats…” In his words:

“I am calling for a total and complete shutdown of teenagers wearing MAGA hats until we can figure out what is going on. They seem to be poisoning young minds.

“…This is a direct result of the racist hatred displayed daily by the President of the United States who, sadly, some mistake for a role model.”

Swalwell, who wants to be president, has been very negative on Trump for a long time. He’s now reached an extreme judgment that is highly unlikely, unsupported by evidence, and inconsistent with Trump’s treatment of Russia in office. Yarmuth’s extreme is to throw out the First Amendment for anyone aged 13 to 19. A fine lesson that teaches. Prior to these extreme views being publicly aired by prominent political figures, hundreds of extreme views have been expressed by celebrities and others.

The expression of views like these, which are obviously extreme and unreasonable, signals a society-wide political problem of great depth. The problem is sour grapes among losers. The problem is that those who didn’t see their candidate for president elected in 2016, which includes Democrats and many Republicans too, have not been behaving as the losers or minority in a constitutional anarchy are supposed to behave and must behave in order to make the system work.

For an understanding of constitutional anarchy and the conditions required for it to work, see Alfred G. Cuzán’s article “Revisiting ‘Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?'”

One pertinent passage reads

“Within the legislature, the majority faction, party or coalition must not shut out the minority but share power with it, suffering patiently as the latter tries to block, delay, or amend bills perceived to be deeply prejudicial to its rights, to its vision of the public good, or to its interests. Neither should it pursue a relentlessly confrontational course vis-à-vis an executive whenever this is controlled by a different faction or party for any but the most serious reasons. For its part, the minority needs to yield to the majority most of the time, seeking concessions at the margins of legislation and not habitually engage in obstructionist tactics. They have to accept defeat, at least temporarily. In the meantime, if the stakes are high enough, they can and should involve others in the dispute, the courts or the public, hoping that enough of them can be brought to its side on the issue.”

This is preceded by this analysis:

“In sum, borrowing from Locke, in a constitutional anarchy those who occupy positions of authority, lacking ‘a common superior on earth,’ must strive to ‘liv[e] together according to reason,’ not force. This requires that they all practice restraint…”

What we are seeing in our politics at this time is a severe loss of restraint among those who were defeated, not that much in the physical sphere of direct action although some already has occurred in marches, sit-ins, demonstrations and riots, but mainly boiling over into the verbal, visual, emotional and legal spheres of behavior. Instead of settling down in the past two years, tempers and extremism are rising, egged on by irresponsible media and political figures.

8:50 am on January 21, 2019

The Common Core Math for “Racism”

This morning’s headlines.

I predicted, yesterday, that this had to happen, given the level of blowback from this story.

Yesterday, no less than 4 or 5 of Detroit’s major media outlets had reported the same sound bites with the same victim story, with the same photo and/or video. As late as 11pm last night, both local and national media were still reporting the same shitshow, a full 18 (or more) hours after (a) the availability of several videos showing the opposite of earlier reported (fake) headlines, as well as (b) corrections to the “official” narrative from folks who were there, witnessing the actual fracas. At 11pm, local news stations were still running editorials rehashing the fake news. Not one of the MSM punks went to any lengths whatsoever to untangle the truth.

In a time not too long ago, in my youth, an editorial would have been much more likely to include some level of scrutiny and journalistic integrity. But not in the era of full-on political correctness as a cradle for the underlying victimology.
And this all happened because these kids were white and they were wearing hats that reflected support for Trump. White + Trump = privileged + “racist.” That’s the common core math.

Trump Derangement Syndrome triggered a huge swath of human cholesterol into an immediate frenzy. Well, let the blowback begin. Say what you want about Trump folks, but they fight back with both guns drawn, and are relentless in engaging the lies of their vicious and psychotic enemies on the Left. We could use some of that spirit in the libertarian camp.

It is almost shocking to note how easy it is, nowadays, to trigger a rush of disinformation that builds and builds, in spite of mounds of evidence to the contrary. As a friend of mine stated, “The agenda promotion usually isn’t this blatant. I guess it doesn’t even matter anymore. Folks don’t want to be informed; they want their worldview stroked.”

7:13 am on January 21, 2019

A Great Day in History

On this day in 1977, President Carter pardoned “draft dodgers”; those who refused to bomb, maim, and kill for the US government in Vietnam. They are the real heroes of Vietnam.

6:47 am on January 21, 2019

Justified Murder? No!

From: N
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 8:50 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: Murder

We never know how much Russian roulette will scare somebody, but if we follow Rothbard we should use the case of the ordinary man as a starting point, and if the ordinary man lives to 75 then we should use 75.

Say I am five minutes away from death when I’m murdered, do you really believe my murderer should be executed? 

On Friday, March 11, 2016, Walter Block < wrote:

Dear N:

Yes, every life, every second of it, is precious. If someone murders a victim who has only 5 minutes to live (arguendo), he is just as much a murderer as someone who murders a child victim with, oh, 90 years to live.  I don’t say murderers should necessarily be executed. Rather, the heirs of the victim should decide that, but, execution should be one of their options. As for the government executing anyone, that’s highly problematic, given how inept they are.

Best regards,



2:17 am on January 21, 2019

Failure of the European Union

The European Union has not formed a stable political amalgam or federation out of the component European countries, states and peoples. It won’t be able to do that, at least peacefully, for a very good reason, which is that it cannot create one European people out of many peoples, each of which has its own cultural, economic and political aspirations.

Independent peoples have formed and disappeared in Europe for 3,000 years. Some idea of that shows up in the dynamic map of Europe (see here). It takes 5 minutes of your time to see the changing borders.

The intent of the EU is what its name suggests, a union of states, although its Treaty suggests otherwise. That had been attempted in the past by the Roman Empire and by the Third Reich, among others. It could not be done by force of arms. Could it be done by other means? That’s what the powers behind the EU had planned.

The recorded history of each country also depicts how powers attempted to extend realms and absorb peoples in places beyond their current reach. The EU’s attempt is as old as the hills, although its method was on a grand scale. Leaders with power almost always attempt to extend the territory under their control. They also always have a vital interest in further amalgamating the people under their control under the states they lead.

History also shows that within countries, within empires, and within aggregations of lands and peoples, there are always peoples who would like to separate and form their own states. Peoples form states under their leaders; leaders always arise who want to form them and who will make every effort to do so. A majority of interested people, often far less than an outright majority of the whole people, legitimizes a state or lines up behind leaders because one’s state is viewed as the instrument linked to one’s particular culture, economy and politics. The EU ignores or hopes to overcome both these inter-state and intra-state centrifugal forces.

The EU attempted to erase the differences in peoples and lead them into becoming Europeans, rather than Brits, French, Hungarians, Germans, Spaniards, Greeks, etc. The Treaty on European Union (unamended; Maastricht 1992) may be read here, in all its 250-page glory. Its eventual failure is as clear as its unrealistic or utopian goals. It simply ignores the political, economic and cultural striving of individual peoples that has marked Europe for thousands of years.

3:32 pm on January 20, 2019

A Dagger Aimed and Thrust into the Dark Clotted Heart of the Deep State

Since 1947, the National Security State has waged a savage, brutal, and unrelenting war against the American people. On the occasion of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a group of over 60 prominent American citizens who call themselves the Truth and Reconciliation Committee, are calling upon Congress to reopen the investigations into the assassinations of President John F. KennedyMalcolm XMartin Luther King Jr., and Senator Robert F. Kennedy. This investigatory action is absolutely imperative to uncovering and revealing to the world the full extent of the extra-constitutional seizure of control and covert implementation of the deep state Coup d’état’s manipulation of the mechanism of governance in America.

2:32 pm on January 20, 2019

Ex-FBI Director: How U.S. Government Became Fully Controlled by Big Tech

Terrific interview (on the planned topic) with good insights toward the end.

2:18 pm on January 20, 2019

Rejecting Theft is the New “Theft”

My husband made this meme and posted it on his Facebook page, where it gained some traction. Someone responded with a comment: “Actually, taking advantage of society’s benefits without contributing your fair share of the costs is theft, Piglet.”

Surely, those advantageous “benefits” being forced upon me without my consent are the government’s murderous wars and occupation of some 100+ countries while enriching the war profiteers; its punishing police state tasering, beating up, and murdering citizens and shooting dogs to ‘protect and serve’ me; the establishment of a drug warrior industry and incarceration nation; the regulation and licensure requirements of everything; a total, give-away welfare state; a Federal Reserve that presides over a monetary redistribution mechanism that continually makes the average American poorer; a Spy State that has obliterated privacy and individual rights; a Security State that brands me a terrorist should I resist its dominance; etc., etc. And all while holding a gun to my head.

But the left-wing, pro-tax warrior considers the rejection of confiscation for these purposes + the desire to hold onto one’s own wealth to be “theft.” If it is so virtuous to be a taxpayer feeding the politicians and their public trough, why aren’t these folks “donating” above and beyond their required payment? Hell, they can put it on their credit card.

10:35 am on January 20, 2019

Making America Stupid Again

This script of the native American drummer “being harassed” has gone overboard.

I cannot believe how many people believe every false narrative they see on social media, especially when it is one of those well-edited videos accompanied by a graphic overlay of “what happened” that is meant to indict one party while drawing sympathy for the other party that is deemed to be the “victim.” These videos, always, are designed to lock you into the point of view of the presenter without daring to question it, because to do so would be so politically incorrect that you’d be too ashamed and too intimidated to be the one non-believing outlier that stands out in front of your friends on social media. Opining on the side of the so-called “victim” without having an understanding of the framework and context is virtue-signaling for the sake of winning approvals.

The “what happened” should immediately be objectively questioned rather than forming a spontaneous emotional reaction and making an uninformed comment. What happened with the native American drummer is not what the MSM has presented to us. Folks should have suspected that without ever having to see this full-footage video. What all happened is still up for grabs, but what is known is that the MAGA youths were approached and/or harassed by the drummer and others in the crowd because of they way they looked, and what they were wearing. And here’s another video showing the MAGA youths being approached.

Questions, people, ask the questions first. Howard Stern was right when he said social media is going to kill all of us.

7:38 am on January 20, 2019

Dan Bongino: Bogus Buzzfeed Story Was Likely a “Canary Trap”

Meanwhile, the e-zine (which specializes in goofy cat videos) doubles down on the original story.

9:17 pm on January 19, 2019

Denationalization of Money’s confutation

From: N
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:55 AM
Subject: Denationalization of Money’s confutation

Dear Professor Walter Block,

I’m writing to you because I’m looking for the best confutation available on the market of the Hayek’s monetary proposal exposed in his 1976 book “Denationalization of Money”.

I’ve read Rothbard’s beautiful, and Hoppe’s , but I’m wondering if there are some other articles that you consider just as much effective that I’m missing direct on Hayek’s theory of “ducats”.

Thank you very much for any of your advice.

My best regards,



3:15 pm on January 19, 2019

“Social Justice” = Slavery

Reading about all the young ignorant, uneducated, “millennials” who proudly label themselves “socialists” or “social justice warriors” (same thing) reminded me of a question posed by my old friend Professor Walter E. Williams in a speech he gave at my university several years ago.  The question is:  What would you call a system that used force, violence, coercion, and intimidation to compel one person to work for the benefit of another person or persons?  Whenever I ask this of one of my undergraduate classes it usually takes about five seconds for someone to blurt out, “slavery!”  Exactly.  The class then becomes very uncomfortable and unhappy looking when I ask if there is any different between this and the welfare state or the “social justice” that so many of them have been indoctrinated into celebrating.

11:28 am on January 19, 2019

Breaking: Mueller Shoots Down “Rock Solid” Buzzfeed Report Claiming Trump Ordered Cohen to Commit Perjury

Hilarious.  Buzzfeed reporter Jason Leopold never actually saw the documents supposedly proving the crime.  All day today CNN and NBC had Trump all but resigning in disgrace by Monday.  It’s a wonder how any of these outlets have any viewers/readers left.

Clarification (10:30 ET): Leopold claims that he saw some documents.  However, his co-author Anthony Cormier claims that neither he nor Leopold ever saw any texts, e-mails, or other documents.

8:32 pm on January 18, 2019

Ocasio-Cortez Delivers A Message: Should We Care?

3:02 pm on January 18, 2019

Thoughts on the Farmer Dilemma

From: R
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:41 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the Farmer Dilemma


Thank you so much for tackling this with us!  I’d be interested in a discussion of another part of this dilemma- one that I hope will help clarify a few things:  

Bionic includes a quote from Rothbard involving a very similar situation of a merchant who is seeking the death penalty for the crime of bubble gum theft.  But, there are a few differences:–He refers to the assailant as being “convicted” of the crime.  This means the shop owner is out a piece of bubblegum which the assailant stole- these are established facts of history.  Rothbard’s analysis of proportionality in punishment of crimes is presented as being considered as someone analyzing a historical event.

However, the landowner at the time of trespass is in a different situation altogether.  There is no way the landowner can look into the future to see what is to occur for certain.  This is supported by your analysis regarding the libertarian “flagpole dilemma” when you say that “The owner of the flagpole is totally within his rights to defend his property, both the flagpole and his apartment.”1.  Do you see a distinction between the Rothbardian scenario of shoplifting and the Blockian flagpole scenario?

2.  Although you said children “must be treated differently than adults, in terms not only of punishment theory after the fact, but even in defense of property during this criminal behavior.”, you have also defended the absolute right of the homeowner to use lethal force in defense of property from trespass.  Can you explain why the libertarian qua libertarian is to “treat children differently than adults…”?  If it is a child on the flagpole, is the apartment owner required to acquiesce to the child?

–Another difference between the Rothbardian shoplifter and the trespasser is the scene of the crime(s).  The bubble gum monger is inviting people onto the property- as many as he can possibly receive, whereas the orchard owner is excluding all except those who are contributing to production of apples.  Have you written or lectured on that concept of exclusion vs. eager inclusion of outsiders (strangers) on private property?

Thanks again, Dr. Block!


12:33 pm on January 18, 2019

GIs Freed North America from Nazis? Pompeo

The Haaretz transcript of Pompeo’s speech at the American University that I used read “In World War II, American GIs helped free North America from Nazi occupation.”

Two sharp observers noticed this. One thought Pompeo erred. Another suggested it may be a typo. Double-checking the U.S. Department of State transcript, we find this: “In World War II, American GIs helped free North America[i] from Nazi occupation.”

The footnote [i] reads “North Africa”. This makes sense because Pompeo gave the speech in Egypt. However, he must have said “America” instead of Africa in delivering his remarks. Interpret that error as you may.

I will quote additional incisive remarks by one of these correspondents.

“Other than that [error], where does one begin with this jackass, and how is it possible that such a complete idiot wields significant political power, in the U.S. or anywhere on Earth?

“Pompeo says, ‘I keep a Bible open on my desk to remind me of God and His Word, and The Truth.’

“Here’s a tip, MP [Mike Pompeo]: be sure to take your Bible next time you visit your buddy MoBS [Mohammed bin Salman] in Riyadh.

“Quote it profusely at every opportunity, and brandish it for every photo op. You might consider a crucifix tie tack for better effect.

“Good luck with that in the KSA [Kingdom of Saudi Arabia], although you could likely do it without repercussion in Tehran, since the IRA [Republic of Iran] tolerates all religions which predate the Prophet.

“In the KSA, displaying symbols of any religion except Islam is apostasy.

“The penalty for apostasy in the KSA is death by decapitation, and very swiftly.

“Iran, Islamic Republic of

(which has an elected Parliament)

Saudi Arabia, KINGDOM of

(where the KING wields absolute power)

“Now tell us, MP, which nation is ‘tyrannical?'”

8:57 am on January 18, 2019

Men: Don’t Shave. Buy a Watch.

A response to Gillette from Egard watches.

8:12 am on January 18, 2019