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. Ilhan Omar Refuses to Apologize For Anti-Semitic Comments

    Ilhan Omar, in an interview on CBS This Morning, insisted she does not regret any of her past anti-Semitic remarks, implying that it’s the interpretation of others that is the problem.

    The Minnesota Representative took part in an interview with the rest of the ‘squad,’ a group of Democrats – She, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley – who have marched in lockstep to an anti-Semitic, anti-American drumbeat since assuming office in January.

    “Oftentimes there are things that you might say might not hold weight for you, but to someone else, the way that we hear and consume information is very different than how the next person might,” Omar claimed.

    Interviewer Gayle King interjected, “So you don’t regret your words either?”

    “I do not,” she replied adding, “but I have gotten the – I’m grateful for the opportunity to really learn how my words made people feel and have taken every single opportunity I’ve gotten to make sure that people understood that I apologize for it.”

    Rough translation – I’m sorry my vile comments offended, but that’s on you America.

    CBS’s Gayle King asks Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) if she regrets her anti-Semitic remarks
    Omar responds: “I do not…”

    — Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) July 17, 2019

    King chimed in once more, giving Omar yet another opportunity to express remorse or possibly apologize. She inquired as to whether or not the lawmaker would like to make it “clear that you’re not anti-Semitic.”

    “Oh certainly not,” Omar smiled.

    “Would you like to make that clear?” King pressed.

    “Yes, nothing I said, at least to me, was meant for that purpose,” Omar replied.

    Again, she’s trying to say it’s those idiot Americans who simply didn’t understand what she was saying.



    Two of our Fox dead-enders, Alan and Estovir, have told me I’m missing the whole picture on the “Go Back To Where You Came From”. Alan and Estovir claim it’s ‘smart’ strategy because Democrats are forced to defend the four congresswomen targeted by Trump. Alan and Estovir presume those four congresswomen are ‘so far to the left’ that Democrats will self-destruct by association. That is certainly Trump’s wish.

    Yet there are many stories in mainstream media questioning Trump’s strategy. Some Republicans fear the party could be writing-off non-White voters for decades to come. That may not be a winning strategy as Whites become an increasingly smaller percentage of the overall population.

    The story below appeared in yesterday’s New York Times. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal carried a similar piece.

    Nervous Republicans, from senior members of Congress to his own daughter Ivanka, urged President Trump on Thursday to repudiate the “send her back” chant directed at a Somali-born congresswoman during his speech the night before at a rally in North Carolina, amid widespread fears that the rally had veered into territory that could hurt their party in 2020.

    In response, Mr. Trump disavowed the behavior of his own supporters in comments to reporters at the White House and claimed that he had tried to contain it, an assertion clearly contradicted by video of the event.

    Mr. Trump said he was “not happy” with the chant directed at Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, a freshman Democrat who is Muslim. At the rally Wednesday evening, he had been in the middle of denouncing her as an anti-American leftist who has spoken in “vicious, anti-Semitic screeds” when the chant was taken up by the crowd.

    Pressed on why he did not stop it, Mr. Trump said, “I think I did — I started speaking very quickly.” In fact, as the crowd roared “send her back,” Mr. Trump paused and looked around silently for more than 10 seconds as the scene unfolded in front of him, doing nothing to halt the chorus. “I didn’t say that,” he added. “They did.”

    Mr. Trump’s cleanup attempt reflected the misgivings of political allies who have warned him privately that however much his hard-core supporters in the arena might have enjoyed the moment, the president was playing with political fire, according to people briefed on the conversations.

    Among them were House Republican leaders, who pleaded with Vice President Mike Pence to distance the party from the message embraced by the crowd in Greenville, N.C. Mr. Pence conveyed that directly to Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the exchange.

    “That does not need to be our campaign call, like we did the ‘lock her up’ last time,” said Representative Mark Walker, Republican of North Carolina, a top official in the party’s messaging arm, referring to the chant that routinely broke out whenever Mr. Trump mentioned Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign. Midway through that race, Mr. Trump told reporters he did not approve of that chant, but he never intervened.

    Mr. Walker, who attended the rally on Wednesday night, later posted on Twitter that he had “struggled” with the chant. “We cannot be defined by this,” he said.

    Mr. Trump’s inner circle immediately appreciated the gravity of the rally scene and quickly urged him to repudiate the chant. Ms. Trump, his elder daughter and senior adviser, spoke to the president about it on Thursday morning, the people familiar with the discussions said.

    Edited from: “Trump Disavows Send Her Back”

    The New York Times, 7/18/19

    1. “Two of our Fox dead-enders, Alan and Estovir, have told me I’m missing the whole picture on the “Go Back To Where You Came From”.”

      It’s not a racist comment and it isn’t actually telling anyone to leave the county. It is more of a challenge something Peter would not understand. The squad are racists and they say all sorts of nasty things. Supporters of Trump might chant ‘go home’ but that is simply a statement of disdain towards these racist Dempcratic women. If it were coming from Democrats I’d watch out for the Antifa crowd with milkshakes, bats, mini flame throwers and the like would be on the attack. Dems use violence Republicans use words.

      1. Allan says: July 19, 2019 at 7:33 PM
        “Two of our Fox dead-enders, Alan and Estovir, have told me I’m missing the whole picture on the “Go Back To Where You Came From”.

        Allan, Peter Shill is an attention seeking MTF crystal meth addict which explains why she lies about me addressing her. I haven’t addressed Grand Mistress Peter Shill ever on this topic. Additionally at home we do not have TV connected to any cable or satellite service. In other words we do not watch any news including Fox News.

        Peter Shill is doing bump after bump of crystal in her hole in Hollywood, CA, as she racks up her wages from David Brock for copying/pasting diarrhea excreted by CNN and NYT

        She’s a mess!

        1. “Allan, Peter Shill is an attention seeking MTF crystal meth addict”

          Crystal meth can do those things to the brain so you could be correct based on Peter’s lame responses. He could also have some sort of disease affecting his body and brain from the rats that are multiplying on the streets of LA. They carry leptospira (Weil’s disease or leptospirosis) It could also be that he was born brain deficient.

        2. Thanks, Estovir. Any random to this site will take one look at your comment and know you’re a total idiot.

  3. I just read somewhere that 90 muslims are running for congress in the next election cycle. Can anyone on this blog tell me if that is true? I’m just curious if this is fact or fiction.

    1. Jake Tapper

      Verified account


      2/ “The president won this one,” said House Dem 1 of the Trump v Squad (AOC, Tlaib, Omar & Pressley) showdown. “What the president has done is politically brilliant. Pelosi was trying to marginalize these folks and the president has now identified the entire party with them.”
      2:38 PM – 17 Jul 2019

  4. Rashida Tlaib’s parents are from the West Bank and West Jerusalem. Geographically, and technically speaking, that makes them Caucasian. Caucasoids have varying degrees of melanin……. but still Caucasian.
    Am I right?

    1. People in Africa have a very high concentration of Melanin where as people with Albinism have little to none. The rest of us fall in between both extremes.
      It’s a pigment synthesized by Melanocytes (Melanin cells) from the Amino Acid Tyrosine and it protects the person from UV radiation. The more Melanin you have the lesser incidence of skin cancer.

    2. No, East Jerusalem. Her mother entered the country due to family preferences (which allow you to import mail-order brides). How her father qualified for admission is a puzzle.

      She got a law degree, but never practiced. She’s been a political functionary her whole adult life. Her mother appears to be a woman of bizarro fertility. Over a period of about 20 years, she popped 14 babies.

  5. Trump winning and once again playing the liberal media as fools.

    Trump Troll Level: Grand Master

    The bet here is most of the country, and not just the Republicans, are very, very tired of the race card being played ad nauseam — to such an extent that one is not allowed to call out demagogues for anti-American rhetoric simply because they might be people of color.

    And the Democrats have cried wolf far too often where Trump the Supposed Racist is concerned. Trump actually has a higher approval rating among black voters than any Republican president in memory.

    So here’s a parting question: how many of those black voters will be swayed by this latest round of Trump the Racist pleadings when the evidence for it is his treatment of Ilhan Omar? Put another way, how many black voters do you really think are itching to line up behind Omar as the avatar for black people in America?

    Or, if you like, AOC as the avatar for Hispanic voters?

    Because that’s what this Trump the Racist meme amounts to.

    Again, none of this bothers the president in the least little bit. He is getting everything he wants out of this imbroglio — and paying absolutely nothing for it.

    That, friends, is how political 3D chess is played.

    1. Please stop with this 3D chess crap. I support Trump and I do not buy into this BS. Please stop pushing this baloney. Trump is doing a great job FOR the country, but he is not playing some 3 steps ahead chess game.

      1. “That, friends, is how political 3D chess is played.”

        That is exactly how it is played. Good article Estovir.

  6. “There is no room for civility in today’s politics.”

    There is always room for civility. It is simply not being used.

    We need to do better when choosing our representation in government. We need to take a good hard look at ourselves, too, and how civilly we each behave.

  7. Trump torments the loony left(along with the establishment) and, yes, we love him for it. Every day he pushes one of your buttons and gets you to do EXACTLY what he wants you to do. You are Pavlov’s dog. Good luck in 2020.



    He once encouraged supporters to attack protesters — then claimed to ensure the safety of all Americans.

    He mused that Russia should seize his competitor’s emails — then said it was just a joke.

    And he whipped his crowd into a frenzy about locking up Hillary Clinton — before insisting post-inauguration that the idea of prosecuting his Democratic opponent is “just not something I feel very strongly about.”

    President Donald Trump returned to a familiar tactic Thursday of blaming others for a problem many believe he created, tossing his own base under the bus to deflect outrage from GOP allies on Capitol Hill and beyond.

    It’s a throwback to a field-tested Trump playbook: push the rhetoric further than some allies can handle, then tiptoe back to shrug off responsibility.

    Days after Trump encouraged four freshman Democrats — Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts — in a pair of tweets to “go back” to other countries, his supporters backed him up Wednesday night by chanting “send her back” about Omar, the only one of the four congresswomen who was born outside the United States.

    Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump reprimanded his supporters who had launched into the racially incendiary chant at a North Carolina campaign rally. Trump, who said he was “not happy” with the episode, claimed that he tried to stop the crowd by “speaking very quickly,” at no point mentioning that the chant began only seconds after he told the crowd that Omar “looks down with contempt on the hardworking American” and “has a history of launching vicious, anti-Semitic screeds.”

    Indeed, the president pushed his adoring audience all the way to the edge and then continued attacking Omar once the chant they started died down. But as more and more Republicans piled onto him Thursday, Trump responded by suggesting it was his audience — not he — who had crossed a line.

    “I disagree with it,” he said of the chant.

    It is hardly the first time the president has denied involvement in a controversial action or comment that, intentionally or not, he provoked.

    Edited from: “Trump’s Field Tested Strategy: Whip Up A Frenzy Then Disavow”

    Today’s Politico

    1. Regarding Above:

      We see the same pattern over and over with Trump. He says or tweets something that offends at least half the country. Then Trump either denies his outburst, or claims no offense intended. Meanwhile Trump supporters take to forums like this to back up his denials. Supporters are also fond of ridiculing those who were offended.

      Another defense is the common “What about?” “What abouts” can get absurdly irrelevant. But that doesn’t matter to Fox News viewers who will reach back to JFK or FDR to assert their “What abouts”. The whole pattern then repeats itself with Trump’s next irrational outburst.

      1. While you are off on another one of your posting dreams Trump has changed the face of the Democratic Party which at the present seems to be headed by the squad. You don’t even know what has happened.

        1. Trump has changed the face of the Democratic Party which at the present seems to be headed by the squad. You don’t even know what has happened.

          Very true, Allan. Peter Shill is so busily copying/pasting talking points from his masters, that he fails to realize the obvious: Trump has painted the DNC with the face of AOC and Ilhan Omar. Blacks, Hispanics, minorities, et al have no desire to be aligned with the Squad. Pelosi is totally screwed given the damage the Squad has done in an election year

          All last week House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was engaged in an aggressive campaign to shut The Squad up before they tore the Democrat caucus apart with their never-ending idiotic and vitriolic remarks. And why would Pelosi want to do that?

          Paul Mirengoff at Power Line pointed out why. AOC and Omar, particularly, are becoming two of the best-known members of Pelosi’s caucus, and they are both becoming absolutely radioactive. To wit …

          A May poll reportedly found that Ocasio-Cortez is profoundly unpopular in congressional districts throughout America. More than 74 percent of those surveyed recognized her name. Only 22 percent had a favorable view of her.

          Ilhan Omar fared even worse. She was recognized by 53 percent, with only 9 percent holding a favorable view. Socialism was viewed favorably by 18 percent and unfavorably by 69 percent.

          Chris White of the Daily Caller says Democratic leaders are concerned that with all the publicity Ocasio-Cortez and Omar generate, the party might lose the House. Ocasio-Cortez “is getting all the news and defining everyone else’s races,” one operative fretted.

          Mirengoff wasn’t convinced that AOC and Omar would have that kind of effect on House races in swing districts. The guess here is that Trump and his brain trust shared that view. But on Sunday, an internal Democrat poll of swing districts leaked that shows Mirengoff, and perhaps Trump, might be wrong …

          The poll showed that socialist Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) are extremely unpopular and that they may cost the Democratic Party the presidency and the House in 2020.

          “Ocasio-Cortez was recognized by 74% of voters in the poll; 22% had a favorable view,” Axios reported. “Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota — another member of The Squad — was recognized by 53% of the voters; 9% (not a typo) had a favorable view. …

          “Socialism was viewed favorably by 18% of the voters and unfavorably by 69%,” Axios added, whereas “capitalism was 56% favorable; 32% unfavorable.”

          The firm that conducted the poll gave the results to Axios on the condition that it not be named because it works “with all parts of the party.”

          A top Democrat involved in the 2020 congressional races told Axios, “If all voters hear about is AOC, it could put the [House] majority at risk. [S]he’s getting all the news and defining everyone else’s races. Socialism is toxic to these voters.”

          So what do you do if you want to ensure Omar and AOC poison those so-called moderate Democrats who won those swing House districts last year?

          You force Pelosi into bed with them.

          Which is precisely what Trump has done.

          1. ” Shill is so busily copying/pasting talking points from his masters, that he fails to realize the obvious: Trump has painted the DNC with the face of AOC and Ilhan Omar. ”

            Estovir, Peter is so ignorant he doesn’t realize Democrats have already conceded that Trumps move was a winner.

            1. see above my copy/paste of Twitter account of Jake Tapper of CNN. He agrees. Trump won this round and Pelosi lost bigly

  9. Al Green voted against (Trump’s ) First Step Act, as did Sheila Jackson Lee.

    But Trump is the racist? That is beyond hypocrisy.

    1. Truth, from the Tribune posting:

      “It was chilling. An angry mob wanting an American citizen whose views they disagree with run out of the country. It’s the kind of thing that gets out of hand. It’s the kind of thing that gets people killed.”

      Thanks for posting the Trib piece, laudyms.

      1. Sorry, watch the video from the rally — it was not an “angry mob” by any stretch of the imagination. Democrats and their media and their Antifa terrorists — they know “angry mob” — the Trump rally was NOT that.

            1. Anonymous says: July 19, 2019 at 2:31 PM
              It was an “angry mob” just as the author stated.

              Anonymous says: July 19, 2019 at 2:49 PM
              Sorry, but no.

              Nan. The group members were paid actors by George Soros rent-an-agitprop ilk. Theyre all liberal whiteys who live off gullible minorities manipulated by the DNC

          1. Take note anonymous how you put ‘angry mob’ in quotes as if to say it wasn’t really an angry mob. Take a still picture of Antifa and compare it to the worst you see at a Trump rally. You don’t see this orderly “angry mob” trying to beat up the press, do you?

            1. “Take note anonymous how you put ‘angry mob’ in quotes as if to say it wasn’t really an angry mob.” – Allan

              LOL. Another ridiculous and unfounded conclusion by Allan.

              You clearly have a limited understanding of anger, buddy.

              1. The facts are:

                Angry mob was in quotes
                There is no mob behavior at Trump rallies.
                The audience, except for Democratic hecklers, are well mannered.

                You seem to run into problems with anything the opposition does. You hide under your bed from red hats, chants, etc. Who is ridiculous? You are.

        1. We now know the Left defines a racist as anyone disagreeing with them. Apparently to those on the Left, an angry mob is now defined as more than one racist chanting in unison.

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

    The Democrats forgot about the rule of law and the Republican side of this dispute made a statement of truth that Democrats didn’t like. Professor Turley how do you equate rule of law with a free speech comment? Again you are demonstrating an unappealing bias.

    1. “Again you are demonstrating an unappealing bias.” -JT

      It must be hard for you, Allan.

      Now, this is the reality. Said by JT in this posting:

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

      1. Though you don’t understand, we can all debate what Trumps said but we shouldn’t stand behind the Democrats in violating the rule of law.

        JT knows better. He wouldn’t use such a comparison comparing a person given a misdemeanor violation for using swear words in public to a person who committed a felony such as robbery.

        That is your problem Anonymous. You can’t tell the difference.

        1. Anonymous, let me try and help you understand the point involved. Tje content of what Trump said is debateable. I could agree with you and still say what I said because the discussion is not one of debate rather one of legality. Forget the words and focus on the law or the rules.

  11. Guardian News
    Published on Jul 19, 2019

    “The US representative Ilhan Omar is welcomed with cheers and support as she returns to Minnesota on Thursday after days of inflammatory attacks by Donald Trump. At the airport, supporters shouted their backing of the Somalian-born lawmaker. Meanwhile, Trump tried to distance himself from supporters’ chants of ‘send her back’ at a rally where he criticised Omar, as Republicans worry the incendiary mantra could set the tone for the 2020 campaign”

    1. Watch. She will never be investigated or prosecuted for her lawbreaking fraudulent string of felonies. Shame on the two-tiered justice. Justice for some = Injustice for All! Protest!

      1. Anonymous @ 1:56 pm

        “Shame on the two-tiered justice. ”

        And you think this is something new?

        Now, you care — when it suits you.

    2. One can always gather a group together to cheer and make it appear a person has support when it doesn’t exist. 9% is her recent polling numbers. She is supported not by people that support the law, the Contitution or America rather she is supported by those rooting for a politcal ball team whether they know anything about the game or not. The leaders of the ball team hate America or have lost sight and their only objective is winning despite the fact that they are hurting America and the world.

      You can’t debate this issue because your statements will contradict other statements. You have no principles to stand by.

      1. Allan, above:

        “You can’t debate this issue because your statements will contradict other statements. You have no principles to stand by.”

        Laughable, Allan.

        1. “Laughable, Allan.”

          Take note. You can’t dispute the fact that you have no principles to stand by. All you can say is “laughable”, untrue or anything else that pops into your head. No substance.

          1. Allan, above:

            “You can’t dispute the fact that you have no principles to stand by. ”

            Actually, I can.

            Allan — the old goofball — certainly reaches some bizarre and wild conclusions.

                1. In responses you never utilize principle so it goes to say that you either don’t have any or might as well have none.

                    1. “Yawn.”

                      Anonymous, that is an accurate picture of you in the classroom. That is why you function on the level of an Amoeba.

    3. This video put out as “news” is exactly what propaganda looks like. Dems and their media allies at it again. Fake News!

  12. Denouncing President Trump as a racist in a resolution? Congresswoman Ilham Omar got away with making openly anti-semitic remarks, and the resolution to denounce her got watered down so it didn’t even appear to apply to her.

    I am so tired of this.

    Many disagreed with his remarks that Ilhan Omar should return to Somalia, fix its problems, and then return to show us how it’s done. That is valid criticism. Others who despised her as an anti-semitic Socialist gleefully took that idea and ran with it. Personally, I would wish that she tried to learn what caused the problems in Somalia, work on that Jew hatred, and learn about Socialism, all of which can be done here. Once you become a citizen, you’re an American.

    However, claiming that he said that because she was black, is absurd. The list of reasons he gave for criticizing her have been consistent – 9/11 terrorists “did something”, sought leniency from a judge for different terrorists, makes anti-semitic remarks, compares Israel to Nazi Germany, pro-Socialist, supported the Green New Deal which would destroy our economy and lead to deprivation…

    These are all political reasons. None of them have anything whatsoever to do with race. There is no evidence that I have seen that he’s ever denigrated her race.

    Republicans have been called racist for decades, often for no other reason that opposing Democrats. The accusations have only ramped up in the past few years.

    I remember when Mitt Romney was accused of not giving women a chance in upper management, he proudly mentioned that he keeps several binders full of qualified female candidates, that he considers for high level jobs when they come available. Instead of saying, gee, we were wrong to accuse you of not giving women a fair shot, it became “binders full of women” like they were mail order brides. And that meme just kept going and going, and there was nothing anyone could say to dissuade anyone.

    I will say that Trump routinely words his Twitter quarrels in ways that cause him more problems. He gives freebies to the opposition. I will also say that he appeals to many people, because they are tired of Republicans just meekly rolling over when they are accused of being Nazi, Fascist, Sexist, Racist, Privileged…whatever. I want someone to fight back, but it’s got to be effective, and the party has got to do better about reaching non-Republican voters, who currently get all of their information pre-filtered for them.

    1. Please cite the Constitution wherein “racism” is precluded or denied. I find freedom of speech, thought, belief, religion, socialization, assembly publishing, press and every other conceivable natural and God-given right and freedom per the 9th Amendment. Certainly the right and freedom to discriminate and hold opinions by race reside there.

      1. There is something about all men created equal and assuming men is short for mankind, whatever. You have the right to be racist just as all good people have the right to find racism repugnant.

        1. Your citation was of the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution, which constitutes fundamental law not political philosophy. Indeed, the Declaration says men are created equal and have a right to freedom. It does not guarantee the success or failure of their individual endeavors. It says nothing about redistribution of wealth and social engineering. Karl Marx said that.

          All Americans have the right and freedom to discriminate; to accept or reject anything they choose. No race has any power to guarantee its acceptance or rejection. All men have freedom and only freedom – not “free stuff,” free-dom. No race has any level of status guaranteed by the government.

          The illicit false constructs which raise up minorities and give them fraudulent and contrived “standing” and overconfidence are generational welfare, affirmative action privilege and the endless other socially engineered redistributed benefits of the American welfare state, all of which are irrefutably unconstitutional on multiple bases.

          Neutrality should be the generic and default position – neither support nor hindrance.

        2. You’re the personification of the rationale of the Greeks, Romans and American Founders for restricting the vote.

    2. Karen: when, exactly, did Congresswoman Omar say anti-Semitic things? Date, time, place and full quote, please. She believes that America is too deferential to Israel over other groups in the Middle East, a sentiment that many share, but how does that translate to anti-Semitism? She also believes that money is part of the reason. That is fair game for criticism, but that is not anti-Semitism. but she did apologize, which is more than the Dotard ever did. Republicans are not, as a group, called “racist”. Certain Republicans have been called racist, because they ARE racist, and the reason isn’t because they disagree with Democrats. Yes, you are a Hannity disciple. These are the things he says.

      And, yes, did you get the message: you actually believe that the Dotard is “fighting back” against what, exactly? Your fears as a white person that non-whites are going to “take over” America? Your fears that America’s economy is no longer dependent on obsolete and dirty coal for energy or manufacturing jobs for security? Studies prove that the Dotard’s appeal is to non college educated whites who felt threatened by a part-African President, by his successes, and by economic changes. And, no, Trump’s problems with Twitter is not how he “words” things–it is the contents of his hateful, ignorant messages.

  13. Dr. Turley (though I doubt you read these) – My problem with this article, along with many of your other recent posts, is that your tone is almost always condescending to Republicans/conservatives and soft towards Democrats/Liberals.

    Your premise here is that within the House, BOTH sides are to blame for the decline in civility. But that is a huge mischaracterization of the situation. Take a look at the words of Democrats vs Republicans over the last few years. Which side – at all levels from Dem leaders to these Freshmen – has constantly and consistantly maligned the Administration and those who work for it as well as conservatives and Republicans in general (Kavanaugh, Covington Catholic,etc) . The incessant screeching by Dems, from Schumer and Pelosi on down, has been focussed on absurd claims of racism, treason, xenophobia, Nazi-ism, fascism, sexism, etc. You can’t compare the inane rhetoric of the Dems to the moderated and reasoned commentary of McConnell, Ryan, Gowdy, Cheney, and almost all of the Republicans. And worse is that the Press repeats these Democrat lies and even alters the facts – the Press’s “Romney at the grocery store” model has been their new MO to destroy the conservatives they hate.

    It’s time for fair-minded, logical Americans to stop equivocating and to start denouncing the last 2 years of Democrat rhetoric for what it is – nasty, unAmerican, and often just lies.

    1. SBG: First of all, Trump is not a conservative. Please read several pieces published by George Will to educate yourself about what conservatives believe in–a biggie is not increasing the national debt, which Trump did via his huge tax breaks for corporations and the very wealthy. Trump is a narcissist. Everything he does is all about glory and praise for him, him, him. Conservatives want no part of him.

      You try to blame Democrats for the decline in civility. You have a fake POTUS who routinely engages in grade-school level name-calling towards any person or entity that criticizes him. Please name for me one former POTUS who engaged in this kind of immature behavior. Your fake POTUS stirs the pot of racism. Wednesday is a prime example. He spent 15 minutes chastising 4 freshmen Congresswomen because this gets the crowd of deplorables fired up. Of course, Wednesday’s rally was supposed to be dedicated to calling Mueller a liar, a partisan and other names because Mueller had been scheduled to testify that morning, but his appearance was delayed by a week. The goal was free rebuttal on television to what Mueller had to say. Why would Trump plan a “rebuttal” to testimony by a special prosecutor about the results of a criminal investigation? Because he knows that there are at least 10 examples of chargeable obstruction of justice, and that he lies every time he says “no collusion…no obstruction”. He needs to keep reeling in people like you, who would believe whatever drivel Trump puts out. In fact, Mueller never had the chance to depose Trump, but his campaign absolutely did welcome Russian assistance, and there’s plenty of proof that it was provided. That’s why Trump will always be a fake POTUS. He cheated.

      Pointing out that Trump’s “administration” is the most-dysfunctional in recent history is not maligning it. It is a fact that this “administration” has an historic number of departures of people who were either unfit to serve, had conflicts, had unsavory backgrounds or were otherwise unqualified. Trump intentionally has “acting” heads of agencies because he refuses to comply with the law requiring Congressional approval. This is because he aspires to be a despot who answers to no one, despite US law requiring Congress to approve certain appointments of agency heads. The EPA and other agencies are being run by people who have conflicts because they are industry insiders, or, as the case of Betsy DeVos and Ben Carson, have no experience or qualifications whatsoever to carry on the business of that agency. That is not maligning. These agencies exist to do the people’s business according to the mission provided by law.

      My God! You actually cited Gowdy as having “moderated and reasoned” commentary. Are you being paid to say things like this?

      Trump has brought this country to a new low with his endless lying, his violations of Election laws (he is an unindicted co-conspirator to the crimes for which Michael Cohen is serving time), his creation of concentration camps where people seeking asylum have their dignity and human rights violated, intentional separation of children from their parents as punishment for seeking asylum, consorting with porn stars and nude models, and lack of any tangible accomplishments, other than rolling back environmental and consumer protections and tax breaks for the wealthy. His entire agenda is self-aggrandizement and trying to undo everything Barak Obama did because he is insanely jealous of the man and his accomplishments. How on Earth do you not see these things?

      1. Natacha,
        You forgot the nastiness of ‘tea baggers’, ‘astroturf’, Uncle Tom, and other snide commentary regularly directed at anyone who disagrees with the Democrat narrative–and that is well before Trump came into the picture.

  14. Center For Immigration Studies

    Somalia-Born Candidate for Congress Accused of Immigration/Marriage Fraud

    The Democratic candidate for a safe seat in the U.S. House of Representatives stands accused of immigration/marriage fraud and bigamy. The district is in Minnesota.More precisely, Somalia-born, now-naturalized Ilhan Omar is accused of marrying her own brother while being married to another, as well as misuse of campaign funds, two probably unrelated matters. The apparently cosmopolitan Omar, 36, is said to have used $3,000 in campaign funds for personal travel, including a trip to Estonia. The somewhat jumbled AP account of these events fails to explain why she went to that little country, which seems to be distant from either her background or her political ambitions. Omar admits the marriage, more or less her second, to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, and says that he is not her brother, but refuses to release any documents or specific information to support her story. We wrote about an earlier chapter of this saga two years ago, when she was about to be elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives. What we have here is a story about a successful young woman who has put together what may be immigration-related marriage fraud by adroitly using a combination of:

    – U.S. law to get (presumably) a green card for Elmi;
    – The ongoing chaos in Somalia, which she says eliminated the possibility of obtaining birth certificates for herself or her alleged brother;
    – Traditional marriages and divorces (i.e., unrecorded with the authorities) when they met her or her alleged brother’s needs; and
    – A huge dollop of luck.

    The luck includes a substantial amount of governmental non-curiosity; the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the last year of the Obama administration, according to the AP story, said it was not investigating the marriage-fraud charges; that might be attributed to political tilt.
    And then, for almost two years of the Trump administration, there has been no (or no announced) investigation of the same charges, which either indicates that she is as clean as a whistle or that the new U.S. attorney is asleep at the switch. Another bit of luck: When the press started paying attention to the matter, it found a reporter with an alarming lack of knowledge of America’s immigration policies; to quote the AP report:
    – Conservative online sites have alleged that Elmi is Omar’s brother and she married him to commit immigration fraud.
    – It’s unclear exactly what type of fraud is alleged, but spouses of U.S. citizens typically have a quicker path to citizenship than siblings, though neither is guaranteed citizenship. The basic concept that a marriage of a citizen to an alien grants that alien a green card seems to have missed our correspondent. And while it is true that a spouse of a citizen has a three-year wait for naturalization, and a sibling of one has a five-year wait, that is hardly a motivation for marriage fraud. One more bit of luck for the future member of Congress: Elmi, who she says is a British citizen, apparently is in London and no journalist or fed has bothered to talk to him.

    In the AP story, Omar’s replies to all this are those of the victim combined with overtones of the royal “we”:

    “We choose not to further the narratives of those who would oppose us” Omar’s statement said, adding that she believes the claims are being made by people who want to stop a black, female Muslim from sitting in Congress.

    The chronology of all this, briefly, follows:
    1982 — Born in Somalia;
    1991 — Went to refugee camp in Kenya;
    1995 — Came to United States as a refugee, becoming a citizen at some later point;
    2002 — Took out a marriage license to marry Ahmed Hirsi (AKA Ahmed Aden), but did not marry him except in a Muslim ceremony; they had two kids;
    2008 — Parted from Hirsi; a Muslim divorce, not recorded, took place;
    2009 — Married Ahmed Elmi; a marriage certificate exists;
    2011 — Parted from Elmi, with a Muslim divorce;
    2012 — Reunited with Hirsi and had a third child;
    2017 — Formally divorced Elmi (after being elected to the legislature);
    2018 — Married (re-married?) Hirsi and was nominated for Congress.
    At the very least, a busy lady — one with a fondness for guys named Ahmed.

    1. The lie that Omar married her brother to cheat to get a green card started with a social media post that has since been taken down. According to the Daily Beast: “Omar’s efforts to disprove the claims have been stymied by the fact that—like earlier right-wing conspiracy theories alleging that Hillary Clinton eats children in a Washington pizzeria or murdered Democratic staffer Seth Rich—her critics never appear satisfied with her explanations. In 2018, Omar showed a reporter from the Star Tribune pictures of immigration documents from when her family entered the United States that list her siblings’ names. The list did not include anyone by Elmi’s name.”

      1. “According to the Daily Beast”….please. Look at them all covering for Omar and calling themselves “journalists.” You watch Rachel Madcow too, doncha?

      2. “Omar’s efforts to disprove the claim have been stymied by the fact that….her critics never appear satisfied with her explanations.” !@@@!!!

        OMG Natacha. What is the matter with you?

        Read the Powerline article TIAx posted below. Well researched, factually-based laying out clear, credible evidence (a preponderence of evidence!) that suggests the accusations are in fact, true.

        Credible local reporters allege that Omar has been stonewalling for years, and uncooperative, unwiling to answer questions and calling it “unfair”.

        1. She also asserted earlier that Trump had stolen the Presidency with Russian help. As if the lawfare artists in the DoJ hadn’t spent 32 months failing to manufacture a case against him. You’re not talking to someone who has any use for factual information. (She claims to be a lawyer, LOL).

          1. LOL is right. Look at the quote she pulled from Daily Beast to prove her point. Complete garbage nonsense.

  15. “The Fall of Civility and The Rise of Les Infants Terrible”

    – Professor Turley

    Civility fell when the communists resorted to corrupting the vote by corrupting immigration.

    Les Infants Terrible are the communists who have nullified the Constitution, Bill of Rights, “Original Intent,” “manifest tenor” and every

    aspect of the design of the American Founders.

    The foreign invasion was diabolically concocted to steal the “white man’s money,” not to accept, adopt and assimilate in America. This

    “…discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

    The link to the germ of truth was previously revealed by Mespo.

    “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

  16. Of course a slave owning Jefferson wouldn’t want anyone criticized for that. As if there was a high falutin motive…

Leave a Reply