Today Trump announced he has fired Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and replaced him with CIA director Mike Pompeo. This should not shock you.

Tillerson and Trump have been at odds practically from day one. Tilleson even went so far as to call the president a moron.

It was silly to think you could put two power brokers like this together and not have problems.

Tillerson is the former CEO of Exxon Mobile. And he didn’t start at the top. He began his carrier as a civil engineer and worked his way up. The guy is a winner and a leader with a massive amount of experience dealing with countries all over the world. He was the perfect fit to fill the role of Secretary of State.

There’s just one problem.

Trump isn’t used to having a peer as a subordinate and Tillerson isn’t used to taking orders. A conflict of opinion was bound to happen. Frankly, I’m surprised it took this long for things to come to a head.

A new study is attempting to make us all a little gayer. The study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (which I can only assume is some third-rate psychological rag) says that there is no such thing as a “straight” man or woman. Instead, we all sit on a sliding scale of gayness.

So let me just say this…As a man who is completely comfortable with his sexuality and apparently cannot call himself “straight” anymore let me tell you where I fall on the scale of not-gayness.

On a scale of not-gay from 0-100, I am 100% not gay. You throw as many flags symbols and gay porn you want at me (this is how the study was conducted apparently), and you won’t move me off the 100% not-gay mark.

I just don’t understand why some people can be gay, but there can’t be some of us who aren’t. We could have framed the study to say there’s no such thing as gay. Why didn’t we frame the study that way? If it’s all a sliding scale why can’t we say there’s no such thing as gay?

I’ll tell you why. It’s because the goal is not to conduct scientific research it’s to seek evidence to reinforce a predetermined opinion.

Well, that’s it. See you tomorrow


Become a JSP member today

See More See Less


Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts


  • I recently ran across a document published by the United States Institute of Peace (which I take to be a CIA front — here’s the wiki). It’s called, “Non-Violent Struggle: 50 Crucial Points,” and it appears to be targeted at young people abroad who are unhappy with the governments they live under. (I wonder how much this document has been used in Egypt, Syria or Ukraine?) But my question is, is there anything good that libertarians could learn from this? Could the tactics be used not just to cause unrest or vote in different rulers, but perhaps in thwarting the advances of government or spreading the ideas of liberty to a broader audience? Specifically, is there value in treating political activism as a project, or adopting Sharp’s methods of nonviolent action, or of using the model of multi-level marketing to expand the network? What are your thoughts on this kind of activism?

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply