The Fall of Civility and The Rise of Les Infants Terrible

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the fiasco this week on the floor of the House of Representatives over the resolution condemning President Donald as a racist.

Here is the column:

On Tuesday at 5 p.m., the United States officially embraced the rule of Les Enfants Terribles.” Chaos broke out in the House of Representatives over a non-binding resolution denouncing President Trump as a racist. In an intentional violation of House rules, Speaker Nancy Pelosi made personal attacks against the president rather than craft a resolution denouncing his Twitter attack on four freshman members of Congress.  

What followed was a demand to strike the House rules and an unprecedented overruling of the House parliamentarian by Democrats—an act that shattered longstanding principles. 

In one week both parties have confirmed that they will forego any semblance of actual governance in favor of made-for-television temper tantrums.

This showdown on the House floor began with President Trump’s disgraceful series of tweets attacking the four freshman congresswomen, telling them to “go back” to the countries they “originally came from,” adding that they “can’t leave fast enough.” Like many observers, I condemned those tweets as shameful for the country and the presidency.

Democrats were right to pounce on the president, and more Republicans should have publicly condemned his remarks. But House Democrats overplayed their hand. Some, such as Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), called for an impeachment vote based on “bigotry”—an ambiguous standard that would gut the Constitution’s impeachment clause and negate other constitutional protections, including the First Amendment.

I think a resolution supporting the four House members was warranted, and a resolution condemning Trump’s remarks could have been worded to satisfy House rules. But Pelosi wanted a resolution that would denounce Trump as a racist and force Republicans to sign on or to trigger a floor fight.

House rules prohibit disparaging comments about a president or House members. The rule traces back to Thomas Jefferson; it allows for criticism of the government or a president but bars “personally offensive” remarks. Jefferson’s manual stipulates that this prohibition extends to any “racial or other discrimination on the Part of the President.” Indeed, the manual’s first page emphasizes this principle of “order” and “decency” in legislative debates. House Rule XXII, Clause 1(B) reflects this rule from the earliest days of the republic and requires that remarks on the floor “be confined to the question under debate, avoiding personality.”

Pelosi reportedly warned Democratic members that she intended to blastthe president and that they should be ready for a floor fight over the violation of Rule XXII.

When she was challenged by Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), she told all of the members that she had “cleared my remarks with the parliamentarian before I read them.” That seems odd, sincParliamentarian Tom Wickham proceeded to rule that the remarks clearly violated the House rule and had to be “taken down.”And House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) declared that “the words should not be used in debate.”

The House has consistently (if grudgingly) yielded to such decisions by the parliamentarian, viewed by both parties as the unchallengeable keeper of House rules. The last time that a House speaker faced such a ruling was Tip O’Neill (D-Mass.) in 1985.

Yet, Democrats proceeded to shatter that precedent and overrule the parliamentarian’s conclusion. Some 232 Democrats voted to dispense with the longstanding rule, then nullified the standard penalty of barring Pelosi from speaking on the floor for that day.

With this ill-considered action, Democrats enabled Trump to argue that they were not only violating House rules with insults on the floor but also refusing to follow the rules of their own institution. Indeed, Democrats showed the same disregard for rules and decorum that they accuse Trump of displaying in the White House.

It is perhaps fitting that a rule enforcing order and decorum should be the subject of this meltdown in Congress. There is no room for civility in today’s politics. Various liberal groups have denounced calls for civility and even supported attacks on conservatives in restaurants and on streets. Former Vice President Joe Biden was recently denounced for saying he tried to serve in the Senate with civility, even toward segregationist senators, to get things done; he was forced by the left to make a rather pathetic apology.

There is a reason why the House has enforced this rule, and it was readily obvious when Pelosi discarded it: Members shouted at each other as the presiding officer pounded the gavel, like a cadence for chaos. At one point, the presiding chair, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), threw down the gavel and declared: “I abandon the chair.” The empty chair perfectly embodied a House now guided only by soundbites and a process that has become little more than a low-rated cable news dogfight. With only seven legislative days left, the House spent a day tearing its rules and its institution apart for instant political gratification.Such conduct may be thrilling to many in our “age of rage,” but it is a disgrace to the House of Representatives.

Decades ago, I arrived in the House as a 15-year-old page from Chicago. I watched in awe as members debated some of the most important issues of that day, from nuclear arms treaties to civil rights legislation. I came to love the House as an institution, a love that continues to this day. One of my greatest honors was, years later, to represent the House in federal court.

Years ago I was lead counsel in the last impeachment trial in the Senate, arguing the case for accused judge Thomas Porteous on the Senate floor. There came a moment when the Senate had to break to vote on an arms treaty. In the lull, I stood in the well of the Senate and the presiding officer for the impeachment trial, the late Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), asked how I felt the trial was going. 

I had long admired Inouye, and I told him that memories from my pageship flooded back as I argued before the 100 senators—but I couldn’t shake how small in public stature those senators seemed. My page days, I said, were a time when political giants roamed Congress, from Hubert Humphrey (D-Minn.) to William Fulbright (D-Ark.) to Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.). They fought great fights but remained united in their civility to each other and their fealty to Congress. Now, I said, they had been replaced by petty, small people. Sen. Inouye looked sad and said he often thought about those lost times, too, when he entered the chamber.

I often think of my chat with him when I see today’s members dragging both houses of Congress into a race to the bottom. What was chilling this week is that it was the House speaker who knowingly abandoned House rules and forced a muscle-vote to override the House’s professional staff. What followed was a legislative debate that perfectly captures our rabid political times.  

Of course, that is not what the Framers wanted in creating a “representative democracy.” Their idea was of reasoned, thoughtful leaders creating a buffer between the passions of politics and the work of the legislature. That buffer is now gone, along with any semblance of order and decorum, thanks to the rise of Les Enfants Terribles.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley. 

372 thoughts on “The Fall of Civility and The Rise of Les Infants Terrible”

  1. Trump has been stirring the pot for years; it’s what he does. In doing so, he’s drummed up plenty of hatred in his base. We see it in the comments to your blog articles, Jonathan. Whatever happens, it’s on him.

    1. So says the poster who completely ignores the last 60% of the above article.

      Did Trump use force or threat of same to cause Speaker Pelosi to clearly break long standing House Rules?

  2. The literal “manifest tenor” and “original intent” of the American Founders is readily available for all to read in the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the thrice iterated (they meant it) Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1802.

    The fundamental law of the American Founders was written to stand in perpetuity without “injurious” amendment. The Ten Commandments have suffered no unnecessary and injurious amendment in over three millennia.

    Everything “Crazy Abe” Lincoln and his successors did was tyrannical, corrupt, unconstitutional and imposed at gunpoint under the duress and intimidation of postwar military occupation; it is as illegitimate and unconstitutional as Obamacare is to this day.
    ______________________________________________________________________

    Federal naturalization laws (1790, 1795, 1802).

    United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof

  3. I thought it comical that the group filing the charges were the number one through number four racists in Congress.

  4. Let’s see now: on the one hand you have a fake POTUS who cheated with the help of Russia to steal the White House, and who attacked 4 female members of Congress of color by suggesting that they return to their countries of origin and who also lied about statements made by these Congresswomen to stir up his racist crowd of supporters. Even though he instigated a “Send her back chant”, after blowback by Republicans who secretly, but not on the record, condemned it, he claimed he didn’t agree with it and tried to stop it quickly. That was a total lie told in the presence of fugly Karen Pence, second only to the Hypocrite-in-Chief to Mikey Pence. Where are these wonderful people of faith in this matter? Fugly was standing there, next to fake POTUS, smiling like the dunce she is while he lied about his racism.

    Then, on the other hand, you have the Speaker of the House denouncing the fake POTUS for bigotry, and refusing to knuckle under to a fake POTUS Republican supporter who tried to shut her up because House rules don’t allow ad hominem attacks. According to Turley, it would have been OK to attack the content of Fatty’s remarks, but not Fatty himself. According to Turley, the big, big threat to dignity and decorum in American government was the latter, and that both parties are guilty for causing this affront to the honor that should be accorded the House of Representatives. Nancy Pelosi was supposed to mince words: condemn the racism, but not the racist.

    Trump has broken down any façade of decency for the Office of POTUS. He was not an honorable person to begin with, and hasn’t grown with the Office. Everything he stands for is contrary to American values, whether it is his overt racism, his abuse of migrants and especially children, his endless lying about everything, rolling back environmental and consumer protection regulations, appointing insiders with conflicts of interest to head agencies, taking away health insurance for over 20 million Americans, and trying to undo everything Barak Obama accomplished because of jealousy over his superior abilities. Now he faces removal from office, so it’s no holds barred. It’s going to get much, much worse, because there is nothing so desperate as a malignant narcissist about to lose a battle. Now we know that America cannot depend on Republicans, but we do have Turley defending the decorum of the House.

    1. “Donald Trump…he gave us space at 40 Wall St…..in terms of reaching out and being inclusive, he’s done that too….addresses challenges and opportunities to embrace the underserved communities….” — Jesse Jackson

      1. You mean many various American entities were “shaken down” by the “Justice Brothers” et al. who fed off the false constructs and support of unconstitutional taxation for generational welfare, affirmative action privilege, quotas, food stamps, social services, public housing, utility subsidies, “Fair Housing,” “Non-Discrimination,” etc., whereas, left to their own devices and competence, they would have posed a threat to no individual or organization and would have merited and achieved nothing. It’s the communism, stupid!

        1. What is the DNC’s answer on aborting a 7 pound baby? We haven’t yet heard an official answer. Trump doesn’t have strong feelings on this issue but he doesn’t want the abortionists provided with a license to kill. I don’t think this should be a federal issue so since the DNC can’t answer I’ll give Trump the same pass given to the DNC.

  5. Mr. Turley, It is dispositive that you don’t attribute ANY of what is happening now to the behavior of our erstwhile CIC. I know your image is one of equanimity, but you DO have a bent. And, more than not, it is toward this president and his apologists. Nor do you have any perspective on the fact that the rule in question is from 1812, when racism was an open practice. And to call someone such wasn’t nearly what I means now. Would that you spent a little time more time on the legality of trump’s actions. Maybe a piece on why the president should be prosecuted connected to the Cohen case?

  6. Who would have ever thought?Sarc/off!

    Jul 1, 2019 Democrat Calls On Tech Giants To Censor Conservatives Over Kamala Harris Debate

    Elizabeth Warren Calls On Big Tech To Censor Conservatives Over Kamala Harris Debate.

    https://youtu.be/uq1n1kEst58

  7. The Plan-to weaken and destroy.
    1 Do it from the outside with the force of the MSM.
    2 Do it from the inside by establishing a fighting force within.
    3 Use talking-points to discredit anyone who points out the two forces.

  8. The Democrats’ War Has Only Begun
    – Ted Rall, WSJ

    Still smarting from the strong-arm tactics the Democratic National Committee used to quash Mr. Sanders’s 2016 campaign, progressives see a repeat in the DNC’s recruitment of Joe Biden.

    The schism in today’s Democratic Party may be ideologically irreconcilable. Neoliberals in the Clinton-Obama-Biden vein aren’t merely less progressive than real progressives—they are not progressive at all. Democratic centrism and progressivism are discrete movements with little but identity politics in common.

    Progressives subject most social and economic problems to a Marxist class analysis that calls for redistribution of wealth from the rich to the less-rich. Whether the issue is poverty, climate change, health care or the cost of college, progressives turn to government regulations and the tax code.

    Democratic centrists of recent decades share a faith in free markets with their Republican counterparts. Presidents Clinton and Obama, representatives of their party’s centrist faction, didn’t push for a higher minimum wage, free four-year college tuition, or a steeply progressive tax regime. ObamaCare not only preserved private insurance companies but gave them subsidies. Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren support a Medicare for All scheme that would abolish private insurers; Joe Biden opposes it and Kamala Harris has equivocated.

    Progressives don’t want fewer wars of choice; they want none at all. Add that fundamental divide to the Democratic establishment’s stubborn refusal to pivot toward the left, or even respect it, and it’s possible to imagine a not-so-distant future in which progressive voters leave the Democrats to form a new party—or stop voting entirely.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-democrats-war-has-only-begun-11563490811

  9. PROFESSOR TURLEY MISSES THE PRE-CABLE NEWS ERA

    JT remembers when civility was considered noble:

    “They fought great fights but remained united in their civility to each other and their fealty to Congress. Now, I said, they had been replaced by petty, small people. Sen. Inouye looked sad and said he often thought about those lost times, too, when he entered the chamber”.

    What happened to civility? Cable news networks reduced American politics to nasty little soundbites. Consequently politicians are sounding more and more like pundits from cable news networks. Donald Trump reflects this more than anyone.

    Trump is, for all practical purposes, a creation of Fox News. According to insiders, Trump watches Fox around the clock and most of his initiatives are related in some way to something he saw on Fox. So when Trump ignites huge controversies, like he did this week, Trump is simply reacting from a Fox News perspective.

    The same dynamics apply to Pelosi and the four congresswomen so widely discussed this week. They have come to view events from a cable news perspective. One must realize that cable news is in the business of promoting culture wars. That’s not in the country’s interest. The culture wars only benefit overpaid cable news hosts. For America at large, the culture wars are essentially a cancer.

  10. President Trump is not racist. Surely you guys can come up with something that could actually be documented.
    He is overweight. Go with that.

  11. Somehow, the Trump lapdog Jonathon Turley found a way to defend Trump’s ugly racism by criticizing some obscure House rule that Republicans break on a daily basis. Lapdog Turley has no problem with the lies exacted on the four House members who dared exercise free speech. Lapdog Turley remains silent on Trump’s incitement of violence. Lapdog Turley is now one of Trump’s most reliable enablers. He’s fine with ignoring subpoenas. While the country tries to clean the Trump excrement off of its soul, Turley watches Fox News and cheers for Sean Hannity. A fraud constitutional lawyer who has turned his back on the Bill of Rights.

    1. Define racism. Oh wait, I’ll help you. As Thomas Sowell said, it’s like ketchup. If you are a Democrat, you can pour it on anything you like when it suits you.

      1. Sowell is absolutely correct. I had posted this on the MAGA Hat story as well.

        This claim of racism and so many others have made the actual definition something of an unknown. The Left loves to appropriate and redefine terms as necessary. So I am certain if we were able to compile every allegation of racism and look for the common denominator, the definition would look nothing like we’d find in the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary.

        So what is the new definition of racist/racism?

        Photo: Donald Trump and any supporter of Donald Trump
        Political Party: Republican
        Symbols: MAGA hat; American Flag; Constitution; DoI; National Anthem; Founding Fathers; Betsy Ross Flag; Gadsden Flag; American Exceptionalism; any municipality, county, district, state and territory with a Republican majority. Anyone that supports anything on this list of accomplishments. https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/

        If that’s what the Left sees as racism, then own it.

        1. To prove this point further, the Left has no compunction in pursuing the revocation of someone’s naturalized US citizenship if that individual doesn’t toe the party line:

          So, let me get this straight: Democrats want to use government power to threaten new U.S. citizens if they have right-leaning political ideologies, but we should let every foreign citizen who illegally enters the United States in and give them voting rights, no questions asked? This is political hypocrisy at its finest.

          Omar’s anti-Semitic tweets are legitimate proof of her horrific ideology. All Democrats had on Gorka was a poorly written article. Yet Democrats will not condemn Omar for her anti-Semitic rhetoric, while his association with the Trump administration is enough to trigger calls for deporting a U.S. citizen. The American people see through Democrats’ obvious and ridiculous double-standard on race-related rhetoric.
          https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/18/democrats-threatened-deport-top-trump-aide-media-yawned/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=c504d488e4-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-c504d488e4-79248369

  12. Who said that he was “sick and tired of political correctness?” Trump and his followers are typical “snowflakes.” They think America is a “safe zone” in which the politically incorrect Squad must shut-up or leave. Ho, ho, ho!

    1. Jeffrey, that is not so. Trump capitalized on the rhetoric of the squad causing Nancy to abruptly move to stand behind the squad. In that way the President elevated the squad to become the face of the Democratic Party. Brilliant.

  13. Trump’s original tweet did not mention race. It did not mention names or gender. He talked about progressive members of Congress. Now, if you want to argue that progressives are racist, you may have a point. Woodrow Wilson issued an executive order requiring all applicants for a government job to attach a photo. Guess what happened to the applications of non-white candidates. He also felt that the Constitution should be scrapped. That sentiment was echoed by Barack Obama who said during an NPR interview that the problem with the Constitution was that it told the government what it could not do. If you want to live in a country where the government can do whatever it wants, I’m sure Cuba or China would be happy to have you.

    The MSM jumping on Trump’s original tweet as racist if right of Goebel’s playbook. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.,

    1. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. Yes, that is the agenda and the game plan. Everyone is a racist now.

      Oh wait, sorry, not “everyone” — just all Trump supporters and all Republicans are racists. Democrats? They ain’t racists; no they are cool. They are the superheroes out to save America from those big bad racist Republicans and Trump supporters who don’t care about people, rules, laws, integrity, or anything else.

      I’m sorry, but can these Trump haters hear themselves and what they are saying??? My God.

      1. It was Justice Holmes adding “or anything else” to his rant that just tipped it over the edge of sane thinking. My God Holmes. Get a grip, man.

        1. Oh, I am “sorry”. They do care about their big donors! By the way that came directly from Susan COLLINS and Lindsey Graham.

      2. My God.

        We would do well to include Him back into our society but….meh….why bother when throwing cement laden milkshakes, threatening bodily harm and blowing up ICE centers will do just dandy

      3. Easy answer. The Collective does what it’s told t do and says what it’s told to speak. Rote. Understanding is not only not required it’s forbidden by the Ruling Class of the classless society and sane thinking? Never happen in the Slave Party North or South version or their not so new camo job. They are still as Ocasios real last name suggests Socialists either International, National or Progressive so to keep it east Ocasio Von Castro. Take heart she could have modeled herself after Jackbot Janet Vn Flamethrower Reno.

  14. When Republicans and Trump, in particular, whine about people breaking the rules, I wonder if they ever listen to themselves but then I realize they don’t care about rules, laws, integrity or anything else.

    Republicans have said things on the House floor that were untrue and vile so I’m wondering when they became so circumspect.

    1. “they don’t care about rules, laws, integrity or anything else.”

      Wow. No, you are not brainwashed. No siree.

    2. …I’m wondering when they became so circumspect.

      The word you are seeking is introspective not circumspect and your error speaks all too well to our cultural rot

      Mea culpa vs tua culpa

  15. spent a day tearing its rules and its institution apart for instant political gratification.

    Instant gratification (aka appetites and free will by St Thomas Aquinas) is the norm today.
    It is neither conservative nor liberal…just man at his finest or worse…

    Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 83. Free-will

    On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 3) that choice is “the desire of those things which are in us.” But desire is an act of the appetitive power: therefore choice is also. But free-will is that by which we choose. Therefore free-will is an appetitive power.

    I answer that, The proper act of free-will is choice: for we say that we have a free-will because we can take one thing while refusing another; and this is to choose. Therefore we must consider the nature of free-will, by considering the nature of choice. Now two things concur in choice: one on the part of the cognitive power, the other on the part of the appetitive power. On the part of the cognitive power, counsel is required, by which we judge one thing to be preferred to another: and on the part of the appetitive power, it is required that the appetite should accept the judgment of counsel. Therefore Aristotle (Ethic. vi, 2) leaves it in doubt whether choice belongs principally to the appetitive or the cognitive power: since he says that choice is either “an appetitive intellect or an intellectual appetite.” But (Ethic. iii, 3) he inclines to its being an intellectual appetite when he describes choice as “a desire proceeding from counsel.” And the reason of this is because the proper object of choice is the means to the end: and this, as such, is in the nature of that good which is called useful: wherefore since good, as such, is the object of the appetite, it follows that choice is principally an act of the appetitive power. And thus free-will is an appetitive power.

    http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1083.htm

  16. “With this ill-considered action, Democrats enabled Trump to argue that they were not only violating House rules with insults on the floor but also refusing to follow the rules of their own institution. Indeed, Democrats showed the same disregard for rules and decorum that they accuse Trump of displaying in the White House.”
    ***********************
    Civility is now used as a bludgeon by dishonorable people against honorable ones. It only works among honorable folks. You may have noticed the word “honorable” a few times. That means civility is a vestige of an honor society the Left threw out in favor the rights society. Under the honor system, there is a hierarchy of values with excellence in personal conduct being the highest and base self-interest at the lowest. I don’t suppose I need to tell you where our society fits along the continuum. So while civility works at the higher end of the scale, it fails miserably at the bottom. Classic thinkers have always known this. Take the master of political philosophy, Hobbes, who explained exactly what happens in a “state of nature” or the bottom rung of the honor society. Life becomes “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Think Bleak House. You want a return to civility? Bring back honor. You want to bring back honor? You bring back standards of decency, hierarchy of virtue and societal rules with across the board application.

    1. “So while civility works at the higher end of the scale, it fails miserably at the bottom. Classic thinkers have always known this.”

      Yes! Great post.

    2. Excellent Mark! I believe James Garfield would agree.

      Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.

    3. Mespo,
      Well said.

      “Under the honor system, there is a hierarchy of values with excellence in personal conduct being the highest and base self-interest at the lowest.”

      Too many on the Left, in particular, the radical left, argue against hierarchies, hence moral relativism, equity, eliminating grading systems, etc.

  17. Thanks to a creature that would be a fascist king, certainly not the cowardly Democrats. He is a racist and so is anybody that supports him or refuses to call him what he is, a fascist racist. What he is doing is what Hitler did in his early rise to power. That bloated fascist is a danger to what remains of America before it completely becomes Amerika and to the world. His rallies bear striking resemblance to Hitler’s and so do the rally goers.

    Hopefully after a Nuremberg type trial he will face justice, until then, keep GitMo open for him, his crime family and all their enablers.

      1. I fought for this country in Vietnam, USMC Sgt-Vietnam 66/67, and you tell me I don’t love my country? I went to jail to stop that illegal, immoral war for speaking truth to the power until released by the then Supreme Court, unlike todays gang of 5 right wingers. I took an oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and I have done my best to uphold it. That bloated fascist is the enemy of the Constitution. Trump es una racista. Verdad. Comprende’ esa cabrona?

        1. Pendejo! You think you’re a hero for being drafted and refusing to defend your country in a war conjured up for the Kratz political gain? Your “oath” is obviously worth nothing.

          1. Pinche pendejo, I wasn’t drafted, I volunteered and volunteered for Vietnam. When I went in the Marine Corps didn’t draft, comprede’ pendejo! You obviously don’t know shit from shinola. The only heroes are those that didn’t come back alive. I also volunteered when I came back to follow my oath to defend the Constitution by speaking truth to the power about what was really going on in Vietnam. What did you do cabrona miedoso ? Have bone spurs?

            Oh and yes necisdad de insultos. You deserve it.

            I will never forget, nor will I ever forget what people like you have done to destroy America.

        2. That bloated fascist is the enemy of the Constitution.
          **************************
          Define fascist. It must kill you to know that Trump is a direct creation of the Constitution. And like I said, you hate the country or maybe just democracy.

        3. I took an oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and I have done my best to uphold it.

          I know many Marines that exemplify the Once a Marine, Always a Marine mindset They live by a code for life, whether they are active duty, retired, reserve or veteran. I’m not surprised you see your commitment to the oath as a past tense endeavor. Here’s a refresher course in those values.

          WHAT ARE THE MARINE CORPS VALUES?

          Honor This is the bedrock of our character. It is the quality that empowers Marines to exemplify the ultimate in ethical and moral behavior: to never lie, cheat, or steal; to abide by an uncompromising code of integrity; to respect human dignity; and to have respect and concern for each other. It represents the maturity, dedication, trust, and dependability that commit Marines to act responsibly, be accountable for their actions, fulfill their obligations, and hold others accountable for their actions.

          Courage The heart of our Core Values, courage is the mental, moral, and physical strength ingrained in Marines that sees them through the challenges of combat and the mastery of fear, and to do what is right, to adhere to a higher standard of personal conduct, to lead by example, and to make tough decisions under stress and pressure. It is the inner strength that enables a Marine to take that extra step.

          Commitment This is the spirit of determination and dedication within members of a force of arms that leads to professionalism and mastery of the art of war. It promotes the highest order of discipline for unit and self and is the ingredient that instills dedication to Corps and country 24 hours a day, pride, concern for others, and an unrelenting determination to achieve a standard of excellence in every endeavor. Commitment is the value that establishes the Marine as the warrior and citizen others strive to emulate.

    1. You are being brainwashed by the Democrat talking points, their narrative, their seek and destroy agenda, and of course the fake news media and its daily catastrophizing. The agenda? They want you to believe things are far worse than they are. Calling Trump a racist (he is not) and a fascist is all they’ve got.

      1. Someone has been “brainwashed” but I don’t think it’s SGT! Although “brainwashed” for a Trump supporter seems a misnomer.

            1. Anonymous says: July 19, 2019 at 12:00 PM: “You always add so much to the discourse.”

              True of most of ‘the regulars’: a hateful, divisive lot — taking their cues from Donald Trump.

    2. “He is a racist and so is anybody that supports him…”

      Please read your words, sir, and you tell us who sounds like a “danger to what remains of America”??

      I support Trump and I reject your accusations and your brainwashed nonsense. What a pity to witness what the Democrats and their garbage talk– dished out daily by the media morons– has done to people like you. This is your brain. This is your brain on Democrat talking points. It saddens and sickens to read your twisted thinking right here on this page. Get a grip, man.

Leave a Reply