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. New documents revisit questions about Rep. Ilhan Omar’s marriage history

    Although she has legally corrected the discrepancy, she has declined to say anything about how or why it happened.

    New investigative documents released by a state agency have given fresh life to lingering questions about the marital history of Rep. Ilhan Omar and whether she once married a man — possibly her own brother — to skirt immigration laws.

    Omar’s story

    1982: Ilhan Omar is born in Somalia, the youngest of seven children.

    1997: Omar, still a teenager, settles in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis after fleeing Somalia’s civil war with her family and spending four years in a refugee camp in Kenya.

    2002: Omar, now 19, marries Ahmed Hirsi, 22, in their “faith tradition” in Minnesota, but they don’t legally marry.

    2008: Omar and Hirsi, now the parents of two children, reach an “impasse in our life together” and divorce in their faith tradition.

    2009: Omar, at 26, marries Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, 23, whom she identifies only as a “British citizen.” School records show he attended high school in St. Paul and studied art at North Dakota State University.

    2011: Omar and Elmi end their relationship and divorce in their faith tradition, but do not legally divorce until 2017.

    2012: Omar and Hirsi reconcile and have a third child together.

    2014-15: Omar files joint tax returns with Hirsi, though they are not yet legally married; she remains legally married to Elmi.

    2016: Omar, endorsed by the DFL over longtime incumbent Phyllis Kahn, is elected to the Minnesota House, becoming the first Somali-American, Muslim legislator in the United States. But her campaign is rocked by allegations in a Somali news forum and the conservative Power Line blog suggesting that Elmi is her brother and they married for unspecified immigration benefits.

    2017: Omar is granted a legal divorce from Elmi.

    2018: Omar legally marries Hirsi and is elected to Congress.

    Source: Public records and campaign statement

  2. Absolutely brilliant comment, anonymous. You meet my expectations of your capabilities.

        1. I am fine with anonymity (obviously), but the multiple people using ‘Anonymous’ makes it difficult to track who is who and makes it frustrating when attempting to address someone’s points (and addressing points should be the SOP of these conversations).

          Please at least go with a pseudonym of some kind. Heck, go with ‘He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named’ if you do not want to be named. That, at least, would be something that wasn’t amorphous or used by several people.

          1. Prairie Rose,
            That’s exactly the point of anonymous trolls bunching up under the same usernames.
            There are some distinctive characteristics that make some of the “anonymouses” identifiable, but the “trolling anonymouses” can and will exploite that.

          2. I suspect that when anyone posts under the name “Anonymous” but appears to have a specific animosity towards other regular posters, that they are someone who has been banned. Unable to resist, they return to the blog, but don’t choose a new avatar, because they do not want all of their comments to clearly be linked to that one avatar.

            It would be easier to interact with people who choose one identifiable avatar, whatever that may be. However, internet trolls aren’t looking for a decent conversation.

            1. And amazingly, those “regular posters” are all right wingers, most of whom are regularly hostile and personal toward leftists and Democrats.

        2. Anonymity is not the problem. The problem is with discussions that involve more than one person with the same identity. That is easy to solve except for those that are stupid or have no concern for other members on a blog. Use a distinct name, and remail anonymous. Variable icons without a consistant name are just another form of disruption..

          1. Alan, the anonymouses in question carry the same Gray, Ink Blot Symbol as ‘you’. And the same Ink Blot Estovir was using until quite recently.

            So I strongly suspect that one, or both of you, is using ‘Anonymous’ as a sock puppet for extra commentary. As if we don’t get ‘enough’ of your opinions!

            1. Peter, I list my name next to the icon so I distinguish myself from everyone else. WordPress has constantly caused me problems forcing me to continue doing it this way. Any anonymous that has had the same problems can also place any name they wish next to the icon. When my name doesn’t appear you see me writing a reply to identify where that last posting came from. I don’t use sock puppets and wish that the blog would end all anonymous postings

              1. Allan says: July 21, 2019 at 7:39 PM
                Peter, I list my name next to the icon so I distinguish myself from everyone else.

                Peter has the intelligence of a mutant, Neisseria gonococcus, resistant to most antibiotics and spreads his love bug to anyone who gets near him. He sez he lives in Hollywood so case in point

                Dont take anything these trolls claim as being true. They lie in their sleep to outwit the rats in their manholes holes so as to steal their lice


            2. Peter is too busy blaring propaganda on his HHHNN media outlet, and lying about what others write, to pay much attention to actual content of the writing, or note the similarities of style and content of an active troll.
              The AM propagantist who had the record as the top propagantist and liar is no longer active, so that puts extra pressure on Peter to take up the slack in the propaganda and lying department.
              Kodos to him for his efforts in those areas. There is, however, a downside to pulling those stunts again and again.

              1. Tom, you get tedious.

                Like I said, you’re a cardboard cut-out of a commenter who rarely engages in real debates. Instead you pop in at regular intervals to scream ‘liar’ at whichever liberal is commenting.

                And again, random readers, scrolling these threads, don’t even know ‘what’ you’re even howling about. It’s just manufactured outrage from a pompous bore.

                What’s more your politics is somewhat less than clear. You seem to be an establishment Republican who realizes Trump is off the rails. So instead of defending Trump, or administration policies, you simply mount generic attacks on liberal commenters. Attacks where all you do is scream ‘liar’. In that regard you’re like an auto alarm that keeps going off on windy days.

                1. I have no expectation that Peter Hill reads my comments, or understand what is in them. I will say that when someone repeatedly lies about what I’ve written in comments, or invents things that I did not write, that all bets are off as for as being polite or tactful with that individual.
                  As the site’s primary propagandist and as a chronic liar, Peter can expect to occasionally be called a propagandist and a liar. That’s the downside of using this site as a propaganda platform, and lying and evading his way out of any real exchanges.
                  I have called very, very few people here liars and propagandists. And I don’t use those words lightly. Up until a year or two ago, that wasn’t a major issue in these comment threads.
                  When a relatively few, but very prolific, con artists like Peter set up shop here, discussion/ debate and facts go out the window. Engaging in discussion or debate is clearly not their goal, and after months of observing Peter’s act here, I have at times made note of his ridiculous HHHNN propaganda platform, his evasiveness, and his lying.
                  If he wants to whine about me calling him a liar and a propagandist, he is certainly free to do so.
                  But given that he is a liar and a propagandist, he should realize that he will at times get credit for that.

                  1. Tom, this part stands out:

                    “I have called very, very few people here liars and propagandists. And I don’t use those words lightly. Up until a year or two ago, that wasn’t a major issue in these comment threads”.

                    In other words these threads were a safe space for conservatives. And you’re outraged that liberals established a foothold.

                    Yeah, we get that every day. Conservatives on these threads regard liberals as invaders. Like there was a gentleman’s agreement that only Republicans could reply to Turley’s columns.

                    Which means Tom’s howling indignation is totally justified. Liberals are ‘liars’ just for posting here. it doesn’t matter if their facts are right. Liberals must be shunned because Ann Coulter said so.

                    1. Conservatives on these threads regard liberals as invaders.

                      Not at all, Peter. However, the liberals who post here have no interest in policy and are purveyors of various sorts of historical fiction. Liberals other places I frequent can barely utter three sentences without revealing their personality defects or introducing some red herring. That’s the discursive world you inhabit. You people did that to yourselves. The rest of us have to live with it.

                    2. “In other words, these threads were a safe place for conservatives”
                      No, in PETER’S words, once again distorting what I actually said. Does he think he’s the only libreral to ever comment here? He has no basis for that assumption, conclusion, delusional, or whatev is going on in his “thought” process.
                      I can discuss things with liberals, debate things with liberals, argue with liberals. I won’t waste additional time trying to do any of that with a lying, hyper-partisan hack who views these comment threads as his own propaganda platform.

                    3. And Tom has no problem with partisan hacks , lying or otherwise, and no matter how much they use the board as their personal propaganda sheet – cough..Estovir, cough…Allan -if their righties. Having standards you apply based on whether you agree with a poster or not is the same as having no standards, which makes Tom a complete poseur.

                  2. Actually Peter’s issues are less pronounced than those of Diane, Natacha, JanF, or Jill. There hasn’t been a time since I’ve read newspapers when liberal discourse wasn’t badly infected with conceits and signature stupidities, but that’s to some extent part of the human condition. It didn’t used to be frankly pathological. We live in a decadent age.

                    1. Absurd,
                      The AM propagantist ( retired) listed about 12-15 people who comment here as her liberal allies. She made at least 2 or 3 comments listing them all, and complementing them in words that might have been lifted from a syrupy Valentine’s Day card.🙄
                      If it helps Peter to believe that I criticize him because he’s the first liberal, or the sole liberal, to comment here..
                      …if that helps him, he should stick with that.

                    2. And it’s been a long time since absurd read a newspaper. His childish bifurcated view of the world is self mocking.

                    3. PS Tom spends most of his time here ankle biting serious posters like Peter. If you think he’s a liar, as opposed to just someone you disagree with, prove it in the specifics.

                    4. Neither Allan nor Estovir have lied about what I’ve written. It is a far different matter with Peter and “JanF/ anon/ anon1” or whatever other aliases he/ she might be using.

                    5. The AM propagantist ( retired) listed about 12-15 people who comment here as her liberal allies.

                      Cannot imagine who that might be. You have a couple of posters who limit themselves to juvenile insults (YNOT, Fishwings, and one other), bettykath (who posts in the intervals when she’s not distracted by Calder mobiles), David Benson (who prefers supercilious drive-bys), bill mcwilliams (who has problems commonly treated with antipsychotics and the like)….

                      What’s distressing is that the main brains around here (Schulte, Spinelli, Olly, mespo) have largely decamped elsewhere and Darren is fed up with all of us. I’m wagering he persuaded Turley Jr to introduce anomalies into the site’s operation just to goose us.

                  3. TIA: “I’m wagering he persuaded Turley Jr to introduce anomalies into the site’s operation just to goose us.”

                    “Chuckle.” (

                  4. This isn’t a chat room or a similar sort of forum designed for debate; it’s the comments section of a blog. One has to wonder about people who spend copious amounts of times posting comments — especially those of dubious quality.

    1. “Absolutely brilliant comment, anonymous.”

      Why, thank you — though I have no idea what you’re talking about…

        1. It was below a comment that “anonymous” made. It looks like that particular comment has been deleted.
          This comment is in reply to Anonymous’ 12:40 PM comment.

                1. If it was deleted once, it would be rude to Professor Turley to repost it.

                    1. “Rudeness is the norm among liberals.”

                      LOL. More nonsense by FFS. Her ‘angry edge’ is showing,

      1. I think anon1 can read the comment that was recycled and re-spun by Peter. That is a specific example, and it is habitual with Peter. As far as the accusation that I primarily attack others, that’s complete bull****.
        I recently posted some information, some history, on the budget/ deficit issues. I recently pointed out, in some detail, that “80,000 votes in three state” determining the outcome of an election is no unprecedented. The fact that 80,000 votes in 3 states’ determined the outcome of the 2016 election is noteworthy and worth mentioning.
        I would question if it’s worth mentioning dozens of times by the same people, when the outcome of at least two elections were determined by smaller margins in one or two states.
        Those comments may or may not be of interest to some if they read them. To pretend that they do not exist is a different matter. Some of the least substantive and inaccurate people who comment here are the ones who complain about ”’ no substance”, or “ankle biting.
        The was a phony claim several days ago about the Oct. 2002 letter from the CIA ( George Tenet) to Sen.Graham, claiming that it deflated the idea that there were WMD/ WMD programs in Iraq. That bogus claim wasade by a persin who claimed to “know” prior to Gulf War II that there were no WMD/ WMD Program.
        That claim was phony as a three dollar bill. The person who referenced that letter provided no link, no citation, just claimed that he/ she “knew” there were no WMDs because of that Tenet/ Graham letter.
        To claim that I don’t comment on issues is simply one additional lie. I’m not going to try to review every issue that I comment on, discuss, or debate. I presented the above as just some recent examples.
        Like clockwork, there are a couple of individuals here who will totally ignore everything but my criticicism of them. If it seems like ‘that’s all I do”, they appear to have trading comprehension issues.
        When propagandists, liars, and anonymous frauds with phony biographies/ resumes flood a comment thread, and habitually lie about what I write, I’ll take the time every now and then to point that out.
        These words could not be made any clearer, but it’ll be interesting to see how the spinmeisters translate them. More than anything else, they are an intellectually dishonest nuisance who waste time and space here.

        1. “reading comprehension issues” ….numerous typos because I wasn’t able to see and proofread this comment until it posted.

          1. “serious posters like Peter” 😄😃😂🤣 ….I meant to thank anon for the unintentional humor.

        2. Unless I lose it on this difficult to navigate site, I also respond to substantive posts. I did not say Tom never posts substance, but that he mostly spends his time ankle biting, and that is obvious. I note that he did not push back on my true statement that his supposed high standards are only applied – aimed would be a better term – to political opponents, making him not principled, but a hack.

          Lately, this post is another example of him calling someone a liar who he disagrees with. I have called 2 posters here liars, but only when it was clear and I could prove the specifics of their knowingly promoting specific lies.

          I did not claim I knew there was no yellowcake possessed by Saddam, but I sure as hell had not seen any proof of that prior to the invasion, thought it highly unlikely they did, and could see the W administration was knowingly – we call it lying – conflating nuclear capabilities with mustard gas under the term “wmds” – that days “collusion” – in an effort to scare Americans about :nuclear clouds”. This subterfuge also included the aluminum tubes. I did know that much and opposed that war – as did most Democrats. Obviously by his comments Tom did not and that is further evidence of his gullibility. He may disagree with me and defend following W into Iraq, but he didn’t know me then, my opinion then did not require spectacular prescience, and I was right. Calling me a liar is a prime example of his stupid personal attacks against those he disagrees with under the guise of superior standards. What an ah.

          1. First of all, I don’t think I mentioned the name of the person I exchanged comments with the the WMD issue ( on July 18).
            The person making the claim that he/ she “knew” there were no substantial was posting as ‘anonymous, not “anon1.
            There are now 4 known different usernames that JanF/ then anon/ then anon1/ then anonymous uses here to make comments.
            I don’t know how many different sock puppets are allowed here, or whether there is any policy related to that.
            It’s one thing to have “big tent/ open forum” type of comments thread……it’s another to have some clown running around posting under 4 separate usernames.
            I don’t think ”’anon1″ was involved in that exchange at all……so technically, I guess that “anon1” could say that “anonymous” was the one who actually made those comments.
            Those July 18 comments are among over 300, I think, in the thread under the JT 7-18-2019 column about the “Sent her back” chant.
            I was not able to cut and paste the relevant comments…..I did not want to end up with the entire thread of 300 + comments being reposted here, so if someone else has a more efficient device for doing that, I’d welcome a review of that exchange if it:s posted here.
            Or I’ll try it again later if I’m on a desktop that does a better “cut and paste” job.
            There were definite “JanF/ anon/ anon1” characteristics in the slop posted by “anonymous”….. so what 2 or 3 of us suspected about the “Many Faces of Jan.F” is now confirmed in the comment by anon1.
            As “anonymous”, he/she had claimed in the 7-18 comments that he/she knew before Gulf War II that there were no substantial WMDs/ WMD programs, and that you just had to read Tenet’s October 2002 letter to Sen.Graham to know that.
            On the contrary, Tenet’s letter strongly indicated that Saddam’s WMD/ WMD programs were a real threat.
            Calling out a fraud for using 4 sock puppets and for distorting the words in actual documents is not merely “ankle biting”.
            When the activity of a could of the people here ( 5, counting the sock puppets) ramps up to the level that it have, it turns a thread into a damn joke.
            These fools deserve to have it come back and bite them in the ankle, or the ***, when they pull this crap.

              This was included in the Oct. 2002 letter from CIA Director Tenet to Sen.Graham.
              This was about 6 months before the start of Gulf War II, and barely a year after 9-11.
              I pointed out some other factors involved in the faulty intelligence leading up to Gulf War II; from 1998 on, there were ominous warmings about Saddam and WMDs coming from both the Clinton and Bush Administration.
              The Resolution to authorize military action ( Gulf War II Resolution) passed overwhelmingly in Congress.
              When someone retroactively claims that they “knew” at that point that there was no serious WMD threat, that is immediately suspect.
              That claim becomes even more suspect when made by one of 4 sock puppets used by a commenter.

            2. More ankle biting by someone our mod allows to post here with endless drivel without editing or blocking him. If you don’t like different names Tom, take it up with him as that’s the only way some of us stay on here. In any case you know who I am. I’m the guy who kicks your a.. when you venture above ankles and who is smart enough to not buy the BS sandwiches in either W or Trump flavor you like.

              1. Anonymous1:
                “I’m the guy who kicks your a.. when you venture above ankles and who is smart enough to not buy the BS sandwiches in either W or Trump flavor you like.”
                Self-declared victories are the most fleeting kind.

                  1. One point that Bush 43 made in the 2004 debates with John Kerry is that Kerry saw the same intelligence report that Bush saw, and voted for the Gulf War II Resolution. Kerry never disputed Bush’s statement.
                    Over 75% of the Senators voted for that resolution. Sen. Kennedy’s speech in voting against the resolution was typical in his recommendation to continue sanctions to contain Saddam’s WMD weapons and programs.
                    It was not ‘Saddam does not have WMDs” ; it was, as was almost universally believed at the time, how do we deal with that WMD threat.
                    A claim by some anonymous flake on the internet 17 years later that he knew along that there were no significant WMDs is suspect to begin with.
                    When that same flake is then stupid enough to claim that a cited source that directly contradicts his/her position actually supports it, that proves sheer stupidity.
                    To then declare that all of this somehow makes anonymous1 the winner in a debate is downright delusional. Stupidy and dishonesty may be the least of anonymous1’s problems.
                    These threads appear to have become a nesting place for stupid, dishonest, and self-deluded cranks……in a 4i-n-1

                    1. Yeah, I know Tom. Hard to be so wrong on an act that cost at least 130,000 lives, displaced several millions, cost the US about 4,400 killed and 32,000 wounded, $2-3 trillion and counting, exacerbated and hardened rivalries among religious sects, empowered Iran, and gave home to ISIS. You should be troubled.

                      Some of us followed the inspections of the IAEA which W forced an early end to and could smell the BS his administration was selling. It wasn’t hard. Most Democrats and many others opposed the war, while others, for cynical political reasons supported it. You? You’re still looking for excuses for being part of the support for such a collossal FU.

              2. our mod allows to post here with endless drivel without editing or blocking him.

                Therein lies the difference between paid trolls like you and slobs like us. You wake to generate your earnings by posting ad nauseam WahPutz & CNN fake news. We post strictly for sheets and giggles and on occasion to engage the thinking types on here, which is why we are not blocked but you trolls live to circumvent the IP blocks by Darren because Daddy David Brock expects that

                Darren, please consider requiring commenters to create an account on this blog, and access comments via that account only. Clearly the trolls are detracting from the blog with their abuses and their compulsion for pyrrhic victories of the Axis II personality disorder type

                1. Estovir, it is both pathetic and flattering to me and others that you seem to actually think we are paid for posting here. I don;t know about the others you think are, but I do it because I love to argue and any group of self satisfied half informed group of posters – and I’m being generous – like on this comment sections, needs push back. Obviously I don’t know who you are, nor do I care – you might be a Russian troll – anymore than I know or care who “Tom Nash” is (Maybe he’ll post his address and cell phone number so we can verify it is really him, whoever “him” is.) If you can’t hold up your end of a discussion, that’s all that counts, if anything does.Does TIA care if he’s humiliated by a troll or a concerned citizen?

                  1. I think Estovir is one of those anti-abortion activists who presents himself as a deeply pious Catholic. But as we all know Estovir is just a nasty nerd functioning as dirty trickster.

                    And that’s par for the course with anti-abortion activists. They think God wants them playing dirty tricks on ‘Godless liberals’. Because if you’re pious enough, that gives you license to be an absolute jerk.

                    And it’s interesting that Estovir presumes Professor Turley welcomes his participation. Like Turley actually ‘wants’ dirty tricksters trolling these threads in defense of liberal ‘invaders’. Like Tom Nash’s regular shrieks of ‘liar’ aren’t enough.

                    1. Ironically, catholics were the main targets of 19th century Know Nothings who were anti-immigration like Estovir’s idol Trump. Various anti-immigrant voices in our past opposed the Irish, Germans, Italians, Chinese (of course), and Jews as “others” who would corrupt our protestant, English heritage. As late as the 1950s in America, Italians were assumed to be lower class, both economically and culturally by waspy citizens like my family. They sure could sing though!

                      Sound familiar?

                    2. Sure, Peter, you are “victimized” here because you are a liberal. I’ve explained multiple times why I dislike liars like you who decide that this thread is their own personal propaganda platform.
                      You can not or will not get that through your head. Have fun with your recent pal Anon/ anon1/ JanF./ anonymous……the 5 of you are very well – suited for each other.

                  2. Anonymous1,
                    I see precious little discussion here as of late. “Push back” here looks more like a schoolyard shoving match than a thoughtful rebuttal. Enough of the snideness, name-calling, and demeaning commentary overall. Figuring out problems and really understanding someone else’s point of view is hard enough without people being argumentative–on both sides. It just hardens people and entrenches viewpoints, without anyone having to do the hard work of humbly sorting out the tangled underlying problems and perspectives. Discussions on here could really be fruitful, interesting, and maybe even productive in the larger narrative if the mudslinging stopped.

                    1. I agree Prairie and those who have engaged me respectfully have received similar treatment from me in kind. I admit to taking too much pleasure in hitting the easy targets for sarcasm some her present and deserve for their nasty partisanship, but I’d much prefer an intelligent and respectful discussion of the facts and how we reach our opinions.

                    2. Anonymous1,
                      “I admit to taking too much pleasure in hitting the easy targets for sarcasm some her present and deserve for their nasty partisanship”

                      I don’t understand the pleasure in that. Wouldn’t there be more pleasure in figuring out a difficult problem, or, at least gaining a better understanding of others? How does it ease partisanship?

                      When problems arose in my family, my mom advised us to ‘take the high road’. I wish there was more of ‘taking the high road’ here or giving others grace. Good discussion is hard enough without the added challenge of text/emoji-only communication.

                      What are your long-term goals for solving at least one of the problems discussed on these threads?

                      “I’d much prefer an intelligent and respectful discussion of the facts and how we reach our opinions.”

                      Me, too.

                    3. Prairie I agreed with you and i don’t think further lecturing is necessary. Surely you don’t think I’m the only or even worst offender here, so maybe you should spend your time spreading the word instead of beating up those already on your side.

                    4. Anonymous1,
                      “Surely you don’t think I’m the only or even worst offender here”

                      Goodness, no!

                      “you should spend your time spreading the word instead of beating up those already on your side”

                      Since I cannot speak with you privately about my concerns (which is how I’d prefer to approach it), I know that others can see what I say and hope they take them to heart, too. I did not mean for you to feel beat up.

                      Peace be with you.

              3. I know that “anonymous 1” is stupid enough to cite a source that anonymoys 1 says supports his/ her claim,, but in fact it directly contradicts the claim. If “anonymous1” thinks that Tenet’s letter to Sen. Graham is compelling evidence against the Saddam/ WMD case, heshe is even dumber than I thought.
                Tenet and others expressed their conviction that the opposite was true.

                1. Butt hurt Tom is still trying to justify his apparent support for the Iraq war which many of us were smart enough to oppose from the beginning. In Tenet’s letter to Graham, he not only states the CIA’s opinion that Saddam will not use WMDs unless attacked, but lists those WMDs as chemical and biological, not nuclear. For those as confused as Tom – hey, that was the administration’s strategy – the old mustard gas cannisters left from the Iran war, while “WMDs”, are not the “mushroom cloud” Condi warned against and there was no yellowcake as mespo opened this discussion with. Tenet mentions nothing lending support for that poisonous fantasy.

                  1. Anonymous is once again lying about my supposed ”support for the Iraqi War.’ That was not even the issue of the debate; it was, rather, the ability of an all-knowing, all-seeing seer like anonymous to claim (17 hears later) that he knew all along that the 2002 consensus about Saddam’s WMDs was incorrect based on the available intelligence.
                    Anonymous may next claim that he warned FDR on December 6, 1941, that Pearl Harbor was about to be attacked.
                    Anonymous internet trolls and/ or their sock puppets can manufacture any kind of claim, resume, or biography they chose. An open comment forum is ideal for that.
                    Under the circumstances, probably the best possible outcome for this thread is that will attract a better class of trolls, propagandists, liars, and lunatics.

                    1. Tom’s problem is that I do not claim to have seen through some Pearl Harbor conspiracy, but like most Democrats in Congress and millions of other Americans did believably see through the obvious BS – since disproven as a matter of fact – he in his current comments shows he not only accepted then but still does today.

                      “In the early 2000s, the administrations of George W. Bush and Tony Blair asserted that Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs were still actively building weapons, and that large stockpiles of WMDs were hidden in Iraq. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted between November 2002 and March 2003,[3] under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Saddam give “immediate, unconditional and active cooperation” with UN and IAEA inspections, shortly before his country was attacked.[4] The United States asserted that Saddam’s frequent lack of cooperation was a breach of Resolution 1441, but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5][6][7] Despite this, Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War instead. A year later, the U.S. Senate released the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq which concluded that many of the Bush administration’s pre-war statements about Iraqi WMD were misleading and not supported by the underlying intelligence. Later U.S.-led inspections found that Iraq had earlier ceased active WMD production and stockpiling.[1]”

                  2. Of course, we all have the various sock puppets’ word that they knew all along, even 17 years ago, that there were no significant WMDs or WMD program in Iraq .
                    I previously recommended that anonymous or anon1 or JanF. of of anonymous or whoever is now making claims about “what they “knew” and when…..should have sent an ( anonymous) note to the Bush Administration, Congress, and the media to alert all of us of the faulty intelligence on the WMDs.
                    That is a really, really valuable claim/ piece of information that anonymous et al is now retroactively revealing here. That he/ she “knew” all along. This is better than a clueless Inspector Clouseau claiming “yes. yes, I knnnuuuw that.
                    I did not doubt the consensus about the WMDs. My objections to that war were based on the very flimsy and suspect claims that Saddam was in league with Al Queda. I expressed doubt that to some neighbors before Sec. powell’s SecPowell’s U.N. testimony, and I did not express that via sock puppets or aliases.


                    1. It is beyond pathetic that Tom still does not know what millions were pretty sure of before the Iraq war. Of course the IAEA inspectors at the the time were regularly reporting back publicly and their information was known to the Bush administration and anyone who wanted to know. It wasn’t secret.

                2. Prairie Rose,
                  I’m using this reply box because it’s the closest one available. I don:t try to understand the mindset of internet trolls posting under various names, any more than the mindset of the slime that scribble stuff on bathroom walls.
                  They are very similar. I know that when that kind of investation sets in and is established behavior on a comment thread, that that will largely define the tone/ quality of any rational discussion or debate going forward.
                  It was probably just a matter of time before this particular thread got slimed up by the loony sock puppets, liars, and trolls.
                  On the bright side, the activity here…’s a time- consuming job supporting at least 4 sock puppets….probably keeps the bathroom walls of public restrooms cleaner.

                  1. Tom Nash,
                    “I know that when that kind of investation sets in and is established behavior on a comment thread, that that will largely define the tone/ quality of any rational discussion or debate going forward.”

                    You are right, those patterns of discourse can get established. Yet, I am concerned that rather than defuse the rancor and lay the groundwork for rational discussion, it just sows the seeds for more rancor and the cycle perpetuates.

                    Emotions and ego get tangled into already charged topics of discussion, and the conversation disintegrates. Why would people mark up bathroom walls? Why do people sow dissension? That, too me, is interesting (to an extent–it can get tiresome). Are they wanting to be noticed? Quite often, I think people want to be heard, to have their perspectives understood, even when it is all tangled up in distracting elements. Sifting through all that is challenging, but far more fruitful in the long run.

                    Jordan Peterson has an excellent lecture about ‘Slaying the Dragon Within Us’ (#6 on his podcast–but the youtube video of it has the illustrations). He discusses the children’s book “There’s No Such Thing As A Dragon” as a metaphor for the ‘dragons’ in our lives that plague us and our families, communities, etc. In the end, to make the dragon manageable, it just needs to be noticed.

                    Yes, there is a time for saying ‘no, writing on the bathroom walls is wrong’, but that doesn’t get to whatever motivated the writing in the first place. Dealing with the motivation, the dragon, might help smooth the rails for the rational discussion most of us really want.

                    “got slimed up by the loony sock puppets, liars, and trolls.”

                    I agree–people should not use sock puppets, willfully distort or misrepresent what people say, or act as trolls for the sake of sowing discord. It is frustrating and counterproductive.

                    1. So sorry Prairie that I mistook you for someone sincere when clearly you’re a hack agreeing with the uber hack Tom, busy protecting his right wing turf from counter thoughts he can’t handle without losing his cool. Of course the moderator also tries to chase dissent which is why some of us change names occasionally. You and Tom are protected, and absent any issues he can win on, likes to play this one, as if this wasn’t the internet but someone’s house where we all know reach others real identity, or should.

                    2. Pairie Rose,
                      I actually stumbled on this site several years ago researching a particular lawsuit that I was researching. I had viewed multiple sites, sources in addition to speaking with some of those involved in that lawsuit.
                      Since I don’t do Facebook or chatrooms, the “qualtity” of the internet open forums was a real eye- opener. There were, for example, nearly 2,000 comments on one thread that was supposedly about the topic I was researching.Very few of them had any worthwhile comments that had anything to remotely do with the topic of the article.
                      And a relatively few, prolific clowns could cause disproportionate disruption in any attempt at rational dialogue.
                      That experience was repeated across the board with one exception. That was an article on this site by Darren Smith that I found in an Google search; it dealt with exactly the lawsuit that I was researching. Considering what I had previously seen, I was surprised that those submitting comments were generally well-informed, rational poeple.
                      So I did maintain an interest in engaging in discussion, debate, etc. on this particular site for a number of years.That interest starting to wane over the past year or two as the relativlely few number of trolls, sock puppets, propagandists, and intellectually dishonest fraudsters became a bigger and bigger part of “discussions” here.
                      So these threads became the kind of threads that I had had avoided in the first place, for the same reasons.
                      But on the bright side, the walls of the public bathrooms may remain claeaner. And there is always the outside chance that a better class of propagandists, trolls, sock puppets, etc. will brighten up these threads.

                    3. Tom Nash,
                      “Since I don’t do Facebook or chatrooms, the “qualtity” of the internet open forums was a real eye- opener.”

                      Unfortunately, yes. I do not do Facebook, and this is pretty much the only place I post, bar a few exceptions on occasion.

                      Along with you (and others), I, too, hope that the quality of discussion continues to improve. There are bright spots of good conversation often enough with people of very different viewpoints that I enjoy reading these posts and threads overall.

                  2. Anonymous,
                    I do not agree with Tom regarding his mode of commentary. He, too, has been lashing out and causing the discussion to spiral badly. I disagreed with how he responds to certain other posters when I said, “Yet, I am concerned that rather than defuse the rancor and lay the groundwork for rational discussion, it just sows the seeds for more rancor and the cycle perpetuates.”

                    “busy protecting his right wing turf from counter thoughts he can’t handle without losing his cool”

                    You’re right, losing one’s cool is not productive. I would rather he (and others on both sides of the disagreements) look past whatever sarcasm or snark is present (intentionally or otherwise) and ask probing questions to figure out what your and others’ concerns are. Being understood is important.

                    It takes two to tango.

                    Please consider your own mode of conversation.

                    “So sorry Prairie that I mistook you for someone sincere when clearly you’re a hack”

                    Not helpful. If you think I was being unfair, you can most certainly point that out in a civil manner without calling me names or using sarcasm.

                    I would prefer to ‘know’ who I was conversing with, even if you use a pseudonym. Each of us are real people with real concerns and real feelings, even if we do not use our real names.

                    1. Prairie, sorry to misinterpret your posting. I thought your response to Tom did not convey any of what you expressed to me, and he has certainly been less than civil. Let’s try again.

                    2. Anonymous1,
                      “Prairie, sorry to misinterpret your posting. I thought your response to Tom did not convey any of what you expressed to me, and he has certainly been less than civil. Let’s try again.”

                      Yes, let’s try again. 🙂

                      I think there are a lot of hard feelings right now that is making having civil conversations challenging.

                      No worries. Peace.

  3. Democrats have been, to be charitable, uncivil for more than 2 years and Mueller has been the Queen of Tarts

    What to expect when Mueller testifies: Not much

    Weeks like this make me regret there’s not a Wimbledon-like “performance rule” for politics, as when Australian tennis player Bernard Tomic was fined $56,100 for not trying hard enough to win his match against Jo-Wilfried Tsonga.

    For more than two years, I’ve written that congressional Democrats never had the slightest intention of impeaching President Trump and, instead, have been running out the clock while pretending to build a case against him. Now, with former special counsel Robert Mueller scheduled to testify before Congress on Wednesday, this match is getting even more embarrassing than Tomic’s fiasco at Wimbledon. The problem is that this match has lasted roughly 580 days rather than 58 minutes.

    The Mueller hearing is shaping up to be more of an autopsy than an exploration. Committee members will ask Mueller about his findings, and Mueller will read the findings as if he is recording an audio book for the visually impaired. In the meantime, courts and prosecutors have left various allegations against Trump in legal tatters:


    After two years of pundits and politicians assuring us that crimes linked to collusion were well-established, Mueller found there was no basis to bring a charge on any collusion-related grounds.

    Pundits and trolls have engaged in open denial, claiming Mueller was holding such indictments and slamming those who state otherwise as “Trumpsters” or “apologists.” That group now includes Mueller, who stated after an exhaustive two-year investigation that he could “not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    Of course, this all began with collusion allegations and how Trump worked with Russians to undermine our democracy. Now members of Congress rarely discuss collusion.


    Democrats reportedly plan to focus on obstruction, which Mueller surprisingly left unresolved. I will not repeat why Mueller’s position was incomprehensible and unsupportable. However, Attorney General Bill Barr and his then-deputy, Rod Rosenstein, accepted the entirety of Mueller’s report and evidence, yet still concluded there was no case for an obstruction charge.

    The reason was simple: Mueller detailed non-criminal motivations behind Trump’s actions, a record that would create an easy defense case on the issue of intent.

    Democrats are now adopting their own version of “Lock her up!” chants, with promises of prosecution if only people will vote for them. For example, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) has declared her Justice Department would “have no choice” but to prosecute Trump if she is elected president. That, of course, will not happen, any more than Hillary Clinton was ever at real risk of incarceration.

    Moreover, it would be implausible to remove a president under a criminal-obstruction theory rejected by the Justice Department — including Rosenstein, who was long lionized by Democrats.

    Campaign finance

    Democrats have highlighted the fact that newly released court records show Trump and his aides were directly involved in the effort to pay money to porn star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy bunny Karen McDougal to keep them silent about affairs. For two years, there has been a constant cable-news drumbeat from legal experts, saying such payments were undeniably crimes for those involved, from Trump aides to Trump lawyer Michael Cohen to Trump himself.

    The problem is, those documents being exhaustively covered this week were released because there were no charges to be brought on campaign finance crimes. This is a bit of a surprise, since Cohen included the payoffs in his plea deal; the other alleged culprit in that exchange was Trump.

    One could argue that an indictment against Trump may be waiting until he leaves office, under Justice Department rules. However, there have been no charges against any other person associated with the payoffs, including various Trump Organization figures. The fact is, campaign finance charges are rare and hard to prove, as shown by the failed prosecution of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.


    With the collapse of collusion, various Democrats and lawyers have pushed the claim that Trump’s D.C. hotel is a giant “emolument” magnet.

    Article 1, Section 9, prohibits emoluments, which cover compensation or gifts tied to a person’s public office, but it has never been well-defined. For example, Benjamin Franklin received a diamond-encrusted box from the King of France while serving as U.S. ambassador; Congress told him to keep it.

    Arguments that the Trump family’s hotel constitutes an emolument are something of a stretch. Still, filings to that effect have been made by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) board chairman and vice-chairman Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, constitutional law scholars Erwin Chemerinsky, Laurence H. Tribe and Zephyr Teachout, and Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler PLLC.

    While District Court Judge Peter Messitte unwisely ruled that these groups had standing and a meritorious claim, the Fourth Circuit recently dismissed the action as unsupportable. The court was equally dismissive of the theory that the hotel benefits from Trump’s name since many people, including diplomats, likely avoid it due to it association.

    Judges in both Washington and New York also have rejected such lawsuits.

    Since standing was never established, Congress could argue that there were unconstitutional emoluments lurking in these cases. However, there is no clear precedent to support that theory and, despite good-faith arguments, no president has been impeached on such uncontested legal grounds.

    In the meantime, Congress again overwhelmingly rejected impeachment with a vote this week in which members tried to add bigotry as an impeachable offense. It failed, 332-95.

    So if these crimes and impeachable acts have been largely negated, what is Congress planning to do on Wednesday? The answer is play … just not well.

    Mueller has made it clear that he does not want to testify and will decline to give any information beyond his report. He has held up the hearing for weeks, first by declining to testify and then unilaterally maintaining that he would testify for only two hours before the House. Witnesses — particularly private citizens, as Mueller now is — usually are not given such leeway. One would think that after accepting the special counsel’s job and spending millions of public dollars, Mueller would have less, not more, ability to stipulate limits.

    Yet, Democrats have yielded to his demands with only a slight increase in time, divided into the ridiculous five-minute segments of most congressional hearings.

    Most members will prance and pose for four minutes in just introducing themselves. For his part, Mueller will continue his performance as the “American Sphinx,” even though there is much he should answer about his own conduct, let alone his conclusions (or lack thereof).

    It will be nothing but “puddlers” — chip and drop shots — but it won’t matter. The same analysts who have been wrong for two years will give the same breathless courtside commentary. And the members of the congressional committees will scream like John McEnroe — while playing like Bernard Tomic. Of course, unlike Tomic, those members will continue the match despite it having been called weeks ago.

    The play is and always has been for 2020. That is why there is no performance fine in politics because the score is entirely irrelevant — and you are never sure of what game is actually being played.

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

    1. Crooked partisan Democrats are beginning to resemble the doomed test pilots in The Right Stuff. (“‘I’ve tried A! I’ve tried B! I’ve tried C! I’ve tried D! Tell me what else I can try.'”).

  4. Oh, look!!! It’s more trannies in Tranny Land. Always ever so closer to androgyny. Donna, looking ever so soft, rosy cheeked, and delicate in the hands; where’s Rubik when you need him.

    And look, that manly fella from the “Squawk Squad.” Hope that hijab covers the Adam’s Apple nicely…no need for Feminine Facial Surgery (FFS) then…I would suggest Korea over Brazil for Dr. Specialist….

    Oh, I’m just kidding. Jokes, jokes, lots of them.

    I just need my popcorn for my D(6)i(6)sney(6) in D.C. ep 😉

  5. Petty, tit for tat, impotent, limp Dims. America is great again because the Dims have been exposed as frauds thanks to Fox News and conservative news sites. the liberals no longer have a monopoly on Americans news hence the antics

    Virginia Democrats say they’ll boycott if Trump speaks at Jamestown anniversary event

    Lawmakers in Virginia are now sparring over Democrats’ plans to boycott a major event at Jamestown later this month if President Trump attends.

    Trump is expected to attend the celebration marking the 400th anniversary of representative government in America, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported Friday night.

    “The current President does not represent the values that we would celebrate at the 400th anniversary of the oldest democratic body in the western world,” said the statement from House Minority Leader Eileen Filler-Corn, D-Fairfax; Senate Minority Leader Dick Saslaw, D-Fairfax; House Caucus Chairwoman Charniele Herring, D-Alexandria; and Senate Democrat Caucus Chair Mamie Locke, D-Hampton.

    “We offer just three words of advice to the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation: ‘Send Him Back,’ ” the statement added.

  6. Anonymous is a very good label to hide out under when you’re a chicken**** liar.
    Good choice you made.

      1. You have been given all due respect and all the civilty due to you.
        I would think that between the four of you, you should be able to handle it.

        1. Tom, more and more it seems your participation is limited to calling people ‘liars’. And typically random readers have no idea what ‘lie’ you’re railing about. It’s just a catch phrase we see beside “Tom Nash says”. A catchphrase like, “I’m gonna catch that rabbit”.

          Consequently you’ve reduced yourself to a cartoon character. One forever raging with furious indignation. A cardboard cut-out of a commenter yelling ‘liar’ several times per day.

          So that’s why I was asking, earlier this week, if you saw yourself as a ‘hero’. Because you read as one dimensional. An outraged Republican howling the same catchphrase in every post.

          1. I call people liars in these threads when they lie, repeatedly, about what I’ve said…or about what I have not said.
            Like you do, repeatedly. Hope that clears it up for you.
            If you don’t like being called a liar, you could always stop lying.
            Always look forward to more “news flashes” from our man on the scene in Hollywood, and his HHHNN network he set up here.😃😄😂🤣

            1. I meant to add that Peter Hill’s HHHNN posts are actually a cut above cartoon characters.
              His parody of an overeager, incompetent cub reporter are priceless.

              1. What are you contributing?? Nothing. All you do is pop in at regular intervals to call someone a ‘liar’.

                1. Maybe that’s all you read, Peter. I can’t help it if the comments you read are the ones where I point out that you’re a liar.

  7. The Squad vs. Trump: We Already Have the Winner

    By Sebastian Gorka

    Most American who don’t devour politics have no idea who Ilhan Omar is or what Alexandria Ocasio Cortez really believes. But after tweeting out that those who criticize America should go and fix the places where they came from (Somalia and the Bronx?) before they come back and lecture the rest of America was a masterstroke. In the firestorm of a Democrat response which led to articles of impeachment being introduced in the House and Nancy Pelosi bringing a resolution to condemn the president as a racist, the only winner is the president. Let me explain.

    I keep hearing that the president’s greatest vulnerability is apolitical suburban housewives who couldn’t tell you who Antonio Gramsci was if their lives depended on it. These are voters who are not aware that the Democrat party has been taken over by extremists who hate America. Well, they do know now. The president’s tweets were the fuse to a signal cannon that has woken up all Americans to the racism, anti-Americanism, and bigoted extremism of the so-called Squad. After Sunday there is no way to hide AOC’s reprehensible concentration camp comments from the widest audience possible, or Ihlan Omar’s belittling of the 9/11 attacks, or Rashida Tlaib’s anti-Semitism, or even Ayanna Pressley’s racism.

    And incredibly, the president did all this while managing to trigger Pelosi to embrace the squad, making her break all the congressional rules on decorum, triggering the presiding black Democrat to drop his gavel and walk out in disgust. The subsequent impeachment vote saw 137 Democrats jump ship and vote against the resolution. All this after more than a year of screams for Trump’s impeachment from the Democrats. If you ever doubted the power of social media—or the president’s unmitigated fluency in its use—doubt no more.

    We may have more than 470 days to go until the election, but not one of those days will be a day during which the true face of the Democratic Party can be denied any longer.

    1. Yeah. “Greatness” by Gorka. I don’t think so.

      Gorka’s stirring the pot — like so many others, including Trump.

  8. “Bill Priestap, a fellow at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service, was head of the F.B.I.’s counterintelligence division from 2015 through 2018.”

    In his words:

    “To protect our democracy — and our place in the world — we need to restore a sense of national unity and purpose, treating more of our fellow citizens the way we treat our loved ones.

    As we head into the 2020 presidential campaign, where our adversaries may once again try to poison our political debate, we would do well to remember something John F. Kennedy once said: “There are few if any issues where all the truth, all the right, and all the angels are on one side.”

  9. As usual, Andrew McCarthy sets the rational tone.

    Most Republican villains the Left selects (the Bushes, Mitt Romney . . .) respond by trying to prove they’re not really villains. This is a futile strategy. The demagogues making the accusation already know it’s not true. They do it because it always works. Or at least it used to. It’s different with the president, who is from the Leo Durocher School: “I come to play. I come to beat you. I come to kill you!” Trump vexes the Left because he revels in the mud wrestle. Sure, he craves admiration, but he wants to win more, and he doesn’t in the slightest mind winning ugly. In that the Left must see a lot of itself, but that doesn’t mean it has figured out an effective response.

    1. While ‘the Left’ may not have ‘figured out and effective response’, the first part of McCarthy’s final sentence is wrong.

      It should read:

      “Sure, he craves admiration, but he wants to win more, and he doesn’t in the slightest mind winning ugly. In that the [Right] must see a lot of itself.”

      But, hey. Thanks for the quote.

      We don’t need a mud-wrestler, we need someone who is presidential.

      1. We don’t need a mud-wrestler, we need someone who is presidential.

        No, your we doesn’t want anything to do with President Trump…period. He’s got your we holding swap meets seeing which candidate can sell out our country better.

        1. The Left, Antifa, Kamala Harris / Cory Booker, all of the Leftist in the US Senate who skewered an honorable Catholic man like Justice Kavanaugh, all of the US House Democrats like Ilhan Omar, AOC, Pelosi, Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, etc, etc, etc are fond of insulting, decimating, advocating hate, vilifying Americans, chasing them in the streets, and as we know bombing facilities like ICE Centers. Throwing cement laden milkshakes at gay journalists are just part of a day’s work for them

          Ignore everything they say and observe their actions.

          They rely on histrionic, sympathy, victimization arguments but these are the same savages who will stab a woman’s baby in her womb, decapitate a baby’s head after being delivered ala Va Governor Ralph Northam and lest we forget excoriate millions and millions of Americas in the 1990s as part of a paranoid, whacked out Hillary screed of “vast right wing” conspiracy

          Never forget what they have done to our country since the 1960s.

          1. Even more awesomeness. Amongst all the gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make who claim to support the day glo bozo, I annoint you the leader in the clubhouse to take crazy georgie’s lunacy girdle. Congratulations.

            this is to “me and georgie used share a room in the ‘competency wing’ at the hospital” estovie

          2. “…an honorable Catholic man….”

            You mean the kind of man your precursors in the 19th and early 20th century tried to keep from immigrating here? They’d ruin the country and corrupt our morals. Now Estovir and his fellow travelers want to keep others from corrupting our morals.

        2. OLLY @ 3:14 pm

          “…holding swap meets seeing which candidate can sell out our country better.”

          Hyperbole. Nobody’s trying to “sell out our country.”

          Get a grip, OLLY.

  10. There’s no shortage of civility. We see it in right here, in the comments to your blog postings, Jonathan.




    President Trump broadly declared Friday that no one should criticize the United States while he is president, part of a renewed attack on four minority congresswomen whom he has targeted as un-American.

    Trump also praised his supporters who chanted at a rally, “Send her back!,” a refrain directed at one of the lawmakers, ­Somali-born Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). The president called the campaign crowd “incredible patriots” — a day after saying he disagreed with the chant.

    Trump’s shift Friday was reminiscent of how he responded to the deadly clash between white nationalists and protesters in Charlottesville in August 2017. He initially denounced the bigotry and hatred, then issued a stronger statement calling the racism practiced by hate groups “evil,” but the next day he spoke of “very fine people on both sides.”

    His comments Friday capped a tumultuous week when Trump tweeted that the four women should “go back” to the “totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” and repeatedly defended his words despite widespread criticism that his remarks were racist and divisive. In a rare rebuke, the House voted to condemn his racist tweets about the four lawmakers.

    Trump said Friday that criticism of the United States is unacceptable and that the four congresswomen “can’t get away with” it.

    “I can tell you this, you can’t talk that way about our country, not when I’m the president,” he told reporters outside the White House.

    “We have First Amendment rights also ­— we can . . . say what we want,” Trump said. It was unclear who he was referring to as “we.”

    The four Democrats — Omar, and Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) — have warned that the country has taken a wrong turn with Trump administration policies, most notably on immigration and climate change.

    At the rally Wednesday, Trump supporters chanted “Send her back!” when the president recounted several of Omar’s comments, mischaracterizing some of them, and lashed out at her for her opposition to the Israeli government.

    The next day, Trump said he didn’t condone that chant, but by Friday morning he was back on the attack. He assailed the media for its coverage of the episode and hailed the crowd at the North Carolina rally.

    “Those are incredible people. Those are incredible patriots,” the president said during an event in the Oval Office at which he again attacked Omar.

    “She’s lucky to be where she is, let me tell you,” he said. “And the things that she has said are a disgrace to our country.”

    Asked about his unhappiness with the rally chant, Trump said: “You know what I’m unhappy with? I’m unhappy with the fact that a congresswoman can hate our country. I’m unhappy with the fact that a congresswoman can say anti-Semitic things.”

    Trump has provided no evidence that Omar has ever said she hates the United States. Earlier this week she said, “I probably love this country more than anyone that is naturally born.”

    Edited from: “Trump Vows Congresswomen Can’t Get Away With Criticism”

    Today’s Washington Post


      1. yeah, that’s her signature, just like with the other freak, Federalistpapers who couldn’t write a sentence without including superfluous number of exclamation points

        I think Peter Shill is either a female (hence all of the drama) or an adolescent (ditto)


        And that you care makes one wonder. We hear this same thing from you almost every day.

          1. That particular “Anonymous” can’t remember things that did happen, but can remember things that did not happen. That would be the kinder assumption rather than the more likely scenario that has Anonymonous the Liar hiding out under a double layer of anonyminity.

                1. The response I gave to that particular “anonymous” was accurate and warrented.
                  But at least anonymous will have something to do this weekend, other that anonymously scribbling on bathroom walls.

                  1. “…accurate and warrented” (sic)

                    Sure it is.

                    Nash sounds like a kid. An adult in years only, perhaps.

                    1. I noticed the spelling error after it posted. Since “anonymous” can not count very well, I didn’t see any need to correct spelling, either.

                    2. JanF./ anon/ anon1/ anonymous,
                      Do you find that you get more mileage out of your comments by using multiple aliases?

                    3. Tom posted:

                      “JanF./ anon/ anon1/ anonymous,
                      Do you find that you get more mileage out of your comments by using multiple aliases?”

                      This was in response to one of several posts by me last night which have been deleted. None of them were any more nasty than the norm here and what Tom posts regularly, which explains why some of us end up anonymous – to get posted. “tom Nash” is protected by our right wing mod apparently, so his obsessive ankle biting is deemed worthy of JT’s blog comments.

                    4. Yeah, “Estovir” and “Tom Nash” are apparently protected by the mods and don;t need to change to post. That is not true for me and I assume some of the other anonymae here.

                  2. Tom asks: Do you find that you get more mileage out of your comments by using multiple aliases?

                    I don’t know because I don’t use multiple aliases.

                    1. Of course you don’t, and I believe all 4 of you when you say that.😃😄

                    2. Actually, it brings out the anonymous in anonymous. And the reasons for that particular alias.

  12. The fall of civility might be based on stunted growth. We expect what we see from college students that are still learning how to think and evaluate facts. But, what happens when they stop learning and believe they know everything?

    1. I’m stunned this thread continues to be given cardiac massage and not surprisingly the paid trolls Peter Shill, Anon1, et al are racking up their earnings by copying/pasting anything they can find on their go-to far left wing websites, NYT, et al

      While at the gym this morning CNN was hyperventilating about Trump for 15 minutes (I couldn’t change the channel sadly) while Fox News was remembering the Apollo mission. Two different realities.

      The Left is losing their brown shirts in self-immolation expecting Americans to join them. One wishes they would just do the real thing and rid the Earth of their carbon footprint

      Burn baby burn? courage of convictions and all that

      1. “I’m stunned this thread continues to be given cardiac massage ”

        Estovir, we shouldn’t be stunned. Their ‘dimanic’ brains have been deprived of oxygen since birth. Dynamic activity is not expected.


    That drab February day, I asked Trump-supporting caucus attendees their opinions on Muslims. And one after another, they advocated deportation — or, in the case of one old man ..(Alan).., a choice between execution or forced exile. At his words, all those around him nodded approvingly, as if he had said something of deep philosophical import rather than advocated a policy of state-supported genocide.

    I left the caucus in a cold sweat, convinced that the U.S. was on the precipice of something utterly catastrophic. I also left absolutely convinced that the media and the country’s political establishment were woefully unprepared for how to deal with a demagogue in the ascendancy; that the language generally wasn’t there to call him out for what he was — and that even if the language was there, the political will was lagging to recognize just how degraded the GOP had become and how fascistic in impulses much of the base now was.

    Fast forward to today: For weeks now, Trump has been touting dragnet Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids that would, he promised, result in the deportation of “millions” of people. In fact, while some limited raids did occur in the 10 cities targeted, to date no mass deportations from these cities have actually occurred. If Trump was hoping for a “biggest ever number of migrants arrested” moment that he could tout to his base, he must have been disappointed.

    But, I suspect, for Trump, the real intent was never to actually deport millions; rather it was to further gin up a sense of crisis, a racial and cultural siege mentality amongst his base. The intent was to stoke the flames, to build fear and rage and resentment.

    That’s the narrative from here on in — the narrative that Trump, and his shameful, amoral, GOP enablers have decided will help them win elections in 2020 and beyond.

    Edited from: “Trump Race-Baiting Evokes Nuremberg Rallies”

    Truthout, 7/19/19

    1. Regarding Above:

      We have no way of verifying if that was ‘our’ Alan referenced as “one old man”, but that’s beside the point. However the following sentence is spot-on: “At his words, all those around him nodded approvingly, as if he had said something of deep philosophical import rather than advocated a policy of state-supported genocide”.

      This description of the crowd nodding with approval sounds like the Trumpers on this thread. Every day Alan writes insane commentary in a tone of “deep philosophical import” and our Trumpers regard him as an elderly sage. Or Alan, at least, regards himself as an elderly sage. In reality he’s attempting, more often than not, to justify the inexcusable with pseudo-partiotic nonsense. And that embodies the Trump era; ‘pseudo-patriotic nonsense from a warped old man fancying himself as deeply philosophical.

      1. I guessed Allan was about 15. He specializes in saying stupid s… while using language like a kid pretending to be a grown up. IN any case, not worth anyone’s time.

        1. I guessed Allan was ….

          We have noticed that you trolls are now tag teaming each other. You really ought to get a motel room and just do each other in private. Think of the children.

          1. Estovir, it strikes me as ‘ironic’ that a good Catholic like yourself is always writing such nasty s**t. How do you reconcile that?

            I mean here you are, this deeply pious man, posting Catholic prayers as testament to your piousness, yet you frequently resort to homophobic ‘humor’ in response to perceived ‘trolls’.

            And one has to ask who the ‘trolls’ really are on these threads. Several times in recent memory Estovir has written snarky comments about our host, Professor Turley. Yet we should think Estovir is more welcome here than the so-called ‘trolls’?? ..How presumptuous..!

            1. Estovir, it strikes me as ‘ironic’ that a good Catholic like yourself…

              I thank you for that but you show us the novice that you are on these affairs.

              How often do I have to quote your employer’s credo? Can’t you do any better than pulling out his rules to come at me? sheesh.

              Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals:
              “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
              “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”


              Back to troll school for you.

              Good to know I still get under your skin and in your head.

        2. “I guessed Allan was about 15.”

          Anon, it sounds like your growth was stunted at 15. Imagine, according to you a 15 year old is showing you up and displaying your ignorance. You gave yourself too much credit. In your case a nine year old would suffice.

      2. “We have no way of verifying if that was ‘our’ Alan referenced as “one old man”, but that’s beside the point. ”

        In other words what you are saying, Peter, is that you cannot verify anything that comes out of your head. Those things that make it out are your personal thoughts that swim about and make no sense. Most of the stuff you write is garbage but at least this attempt of yours provided a bit of comedy and revealed the emptiness that exists in your head.

    2. “That drab February day, I asked Trump-supporting caucus attendees their opinions on Muslims. And one after another, they advocated deportation — or, in the case of one old man ..(Alan).., a choice between execution or forced exile.”

      It seems a crazy article was written by the crazy Truthout and that the crazier Peter inserted my name into the article without even spelling my name correctly. That is the type of accuracy crazy Peter delivers. He of course doesn’t care about American citizens. He wishes to dilute their education and healthcare while being forced to pay higher taxes so that illegal aliens can have the healthcare denied to them. All of this while criminal illegal aliens kill their children. Peter is a dope. End illegal immigration and let those that respect our laws enter. The ability of legal immigrants to enter our country has been compromised by those enterring illegally. Peter does not respect the law or respect any immigrant waiting to enter legally. Peter is delaying the legal entry while pushing illegals to enter our country.


    So apparently Donald Trump wants to make this an election about what it means to be American. He’s got his vision of what it means to be American, and he’s challenging the rest of us to come up with a better one.

    In Trump’s version, “American” is defined by three propositions. First, to be American is to be xenophobic. The basic narrative he tells is that the good people of the heartland are under assault from aliens, elitists and outsiders. Second, to be American is to be nostalgic. America’s values were better during some golden past. Third, a true American is white. White Protestants created this country; everybody else is here on their sufferance.

    When you look at Trump’s American idea you realize that it contradicts the traditional American idea in every particular. In fact, Trump’s national story is much closer to the Russian national story than it is toward our own. It’s an alien ideology he’s trying to plant on our soil.

    Trump’s vision is radically anti-American.

    The real American idea is not xenophobic, nostalgic or racist; it is pluralistic, future-oriented and universal. America is exceptional precisely because it is the only nation on earth that defines itself by its future, not its past. America is exceptional because from the first its citizens saw themselves in a project that would have implications for all humankind. America is exceptional because it was launched with a dream to take the diverse many and make them one — e pluribus unum.

    Edited from: “Donald Trump Hates America” by David Brooks

    Today’s New York Times

    1. Hey David Brooks…..just shut up and go away. And take George Will with you.

    2. Many yrs. ago I had a long conversation with a friend who’s mother was alive during the Hitler/Nazi era. I asked her how did that happen, did the people not see and why didn’t they fight back. To make a long explanation short, the people did see but many fell for the line and by the time they realized what was happening it was too late to fight back. I said well it couldn’t happen here, we wouldn’t fall for that and we would fight if necessary. I was wrong. Watch some of Hitler’s rallies and they are dangerously similar to the Donald’s who was in full Mussolini mode with the despicable chanting.

      I agree with David Brooks article and he certainly is no liberal.

      Here is another good read that should arouse the fear of fascism invoked by the Donald.

      1. You better review those tapes again and take a look at those of Kennedy and FDR. Don’t confuse charisma with Hitlerism. That is a narrow way of looking sgt and leads you down the wrong hole.

      2. Sergeant, your Sabai is showing.

        Wiki says a Sabai is used for a “woman’s silk breast wrapper.”

        Nice, Sarge. You’re in company formation, ready for inspection, right, Sarge?

        Aten- HUT!!!

        You go, boy!

        Sabai (Thai: สไบ, RTGS: sabai, pronounced [sābāj]; Lao: ສະໄບ), or phaa biang (Lao: ຜ້າບ່ຽງ; Thai: ผ้าเบี่ยง, pronounced [pʰâː bìa̯ŋ]) is shawl-like garment, or breast cloth worn in mainland Southeast Asia. The term “Sabai” is used for a woman’s silk breast wrapper in Cambodia, central Thailand, southern Thailand, northern Thailand, Isan, and Laos while in coastal Sumatra it is described as a shoulder cloth.[1]:410 A Sabai can also be worn by men in Lao weddings or when attending religious ceremonies. The type of Sabai typically worn by Lao men often has checkered patterns. Sabai also well known as a long piece of silk, about a foot wide, draped diagonally over the chest covering one shoulder with one end dropping behind the back.”[2]

        – Wiki

      3. Sergeant Sabai is a writer of fiction; a bad one at that. President Trump totally and completely espouses the American thesis of freedom and self-reliance (emphasis on free enterprise). That self-reliance thing is a real problem for communists and various and sundry other forms of leeches and parasites. President Trump has lived a life of enterprise and wealth creation, not one of a power-hungry despot such as the Bushes, Clintons and Obongos. President Trump has many multiple relatives, friends and associates who are Jewish. Sergeant Sabai’s closest, inseparable companion is idiocy.

        In terms of requirements of citizenship, Sergeant Sabai will have to annul the Constitution, legislation and delete the “original intent” of the American Founders, according to whom citizens must be “…free white person(s)…,” thrice iterated, understanding that all actions by the tyrant and brutal dictator, “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, and his corrupt successors and all unconstitutional and historical corollaries were improperly imposed and ratified and are illegitimate to this day, while the original Constitution, Bill of Rights and thrice legislated (i.e. they meant it) citizenship requirements by the American Founders continue to carry the full weight and force of law.

        To wit,

        Federal naturalization laws (1790, 1795).

        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. Good column addressing what MAGA means. The Trumpsters commenting here were not willing to take on it’s premise.

      The answer from Democratic candidates should not be poor mouthing with their version of “American carnage”, but a return to grasping the future, not avoiding it, and to rejoining the rest of the world’s democracies in leadership on it’s coming problems.

      And simply, having a president who’s word means something. Does anyone accept Trump’s word on the Iranian drone? He lies about everything whenever it suits him and we can’t even have confidence he understands – or cares to understand – the intelligence supplied him by Defense and State officials. The W administration sold the Iraq war on WMD’s lies, but while a costly destructive mistake, they at least had a plan not based solely on the vanity and fantasies of a narcissist,

      1. Anon1:
        We take on the premise every day. We explain to you that he isn’t racebaiting and no fair reading of his speeches could conclude that. We tell you that you view everything through the prism of race because you are ideologically driven, hate the country and will do everything in your power to tear it down for psychological reasons we can’t begin to understand because we refuse to see everyone as a victim. We explain to you daily the country is both great and compassionate and you disagree violently using emotion as your sole argument. We can’t convince you because you’re oblivious to facts, history, information new to you or logic itself. In short, you’re hopeless but the conversations we have with you aren’t because it helps other open minded people see the issues and the character of each side’s proponents.

        1. Mespo, none of your personal attacks on me address either Brook’s or my statements or what I believe or have posted here. I neither hate America or call everyone racist who I disagree with unless they express racist opinions here. Many of your Trumpster buddies here regularly express hatred for entire states, cities, or regions of our country as they also denounce entire segments of the population while others wish for a future violent clash with them. I’ve expressed nothing like this, don’t believe in it, and have expressed my respect for conservative people I have grown up with and have worked with all my life – I’m in construction and have managed a farm in the deep south. My criticism is specific to what people say or do individually, including still supporting our pig of of a president, not if they are righties, republicans, conservatives, or live in Virginia, Oklahoma, or Indiana. I have relatives in one of those, order the grits not home fries, and know the difference between turnip and collard greens – pass the hot vinegar.

          By definition MAGA implies America must return to a better past. or words have no meaning. That race is part of that is obvious in the dog whistle appeals Trump has been issuing since he entered politics on the birther nonsense, continued while calling out the “threat” of Muslims and Mexicans, while wishing for a world of Norwegians. His audience for this – if you didn’t notice – is overwhelmingly white. That great America from the past he claims sucked for blacks and other minorities . That you truly don’t see or hear this is a comment on you, not the facts.

          1. America must go WAY BACK to 1789, to the constitutional era of freedom from dictatorship, whether a monarchy or one of the proletariat sort. You just can’t grasp that freedom means the individual is provided maximal freedom by the Constitution and Bill of Rights while the government is severely restricted and limited.

            The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Education, Labor, Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing,” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

            Try Article 1, Section 8. Congress has the power to tax for ONLY “…general Welfare…,” deliberately omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for “…individual Welfare.” Congress has the power to regulate ONLY trade, exchange or “…commerce among the several States…” to preclude favor by one state over another. No other regulation by government is constitutional. Free enterprise and individual freedom prevail over government. Free enterprise means freedom from regulation by government in endeavor and the “pursuit of happiness.” Freedom means individuals achieve on will and merit and freely and totally bequeath assets to designated beneficiaries without confiscatory taxation.

            General welfare – ALL WELL PROCEED – consists of goods and services that ALL people use in similar amounts and frequency, such as roads, water, post office, sewer, trash pick-up, etc. People eat food, wear clothes and obtain healthcare in different amounts and frequency.

            Citizens have the right to petition the government for grievances. Citizens do not have any right to run the country as a whole or to run the lives of free individuals as a dictatorship. People free – government severely restricted and limited. Get it?

            READ IT. It’s COMPLETE freedom of the individual from dictatorship or, otherwise, governmental control. No redistribution of wealth, social engineering, central planning or control of the means of production (i.e. regulation). The principles you espouse are those of the Communist Manifesto and are antithetical and unconstitutional in the United States of America.

            Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

            You and your communist ilk simply cannot GRASP the freedom provided to Americans by the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the American Founders.

    4. “First, to be American is to be xenophobic. ”

      That is relative and a lie. Compared to the rest of the world we have permitted more immigration than almost any other country if not all countries. To be American is to live under the law. The NYTimes and Peter believe that laws don’t matter and that as long as the criminal element remains away from their doors, their schools and their lives except as maids things are fine.

      1. Xenophobia is constitutional and patriotic. America-haters have a problem with that.

        1. George I wouldn’t use the term xenophobia which might border on the irrational but may be appropriate when it involves illegal aliens and suspect groups. Patriotism is appropriate for Americans as is nationalism though the word is becoming distorted. I wonder how long it will be before America-haters becomes synonymous with leftists.

    5. I would disagree with you entirely if there was anything to disagree with. But it’s hard to disagree with nothing so instead I’ll give the readers something to make the read worth while

      Cinco De Mayo

      ” Cinco de Mayo is an annual celebration held on May 5. The date is observed to commemorate the Mexican Army’s victory over the … French”

      But if you ask a Mexican they have too look it up. You see there was no such battle which apparently did not take place between Mexico City and Pueblo to the SE. One side the Mexican Army set off in one direction and the French in the other aimed at each other. When they got a distance thought to be too close both turned around and wen the other way and then claimed victory. Accoridng to the local history professors they never made contact.

      Flash Forward to those who had gone north of the border in effect deserting their former country but that’s another discussion and those who were already in the area north of the border called Tejanos and Latinos. “We wanted a day to celebrate our heritage that has more meaning than the based solely on economics kwanza. Even though ours came first.” It was the only day NOT celebrated as no such batte ever took place. Which suited our culture just fine as we could go straight to fiestas!

      But it was a valid day and fr a valid reason.

      So I mentioned that to show the difference between what is valid and and what is not. Representatives who are not valid, a party which is not valid, party leaders who are not valid.

      Alice Restaurant has more validity than do the five since you keep leaving out Sanders.

      1. Constitution Day in Mexico – Time and Date

        3 Feb 2020 Public holiday inMexico Mon, Feb 3, 2020 Add to … and street celebrations are part of the festivities that occur throughout Mexico on Constitution Day. … It was approved by the Mexican constitutional congress on February 5, 1917.

        In searching we quickly found Constitution Day for next year. Our compradres no mas distante celebrate it on a day semi certain while we of the Constitutional Centrist Coalition and the Constitutional Republic Party celebrate it every day. Unlike the RINOs, DINOs and leftist Socialistas celebrate it … Never if ever.

    6. “In Trump’s version, “American” is defined by three propositions. First, to be American is to be xenophobic. The basic narrative he tells is that the good people of the heartland are under assault from aliens, elitists and outsiders. Second, to be American is to be nostalgic. America’s values were better during some golden past. Third, a true American is white. White Protestants created this country; everybody else is here on their sufferance.”

      Supporting examples, please.

      How is it xenophobic to want immigrants to follow the rule of law?

      Immigrants need to be vetted and have background checks and to be cleared medically. When I lived in AZ some poor young teen girl was stalked as she got off the bus from school and was raped by an illegal immigrant in her house. Perhaps he had a criminal record from wherever he came from–but he wasn’t vetted. Immigration has rules. People need to follow them or be turned away.

      You want to follow our laws, share our values as ensconced in our Founding documents–welcome, no matter from where you hail.

      Nostalgia for some things does not equal nostalgia for all things.

      America’s values were better, in some ways, in the past. The creeping Balkanization of “identity groups” is not good for America. Radical post-modernism, from the 70s, is not good for American ideals, especially the way some vociferously vocal proponents have been attacking Free Speech.

      How does Brook’s support the assertion that a “true American is white”?

      Joy Villa, Kanye West, Andy Ngo, and others obviously disagree that that is Trump’s position.

  15. Turley is still talking like a horse’s ass. His defense of Trump’s racism blew up in his face this week and here he is defending an archaic rule of the House to once again play the part of a slimebag. Do the world a favor Turley, retire. The world has passed you by embarrassingly so.

    1. Relax. When your worldview originates inside a donkey’s ass, of course everything sounds like it’s coming from an equine.

    2. One wonders why you’d spend your time castigating a “horses ass” if you had anything better to do. Apparently like most cranks, you don’t.

  16. Headline from NYTimes just in:

    “Trump’s Electoral College Edge Could Grow in 2020”

    Send an ambulance to Peter’s house.

  17. The Left supports Anti-Semitism

    Ilhan Omar’s Anti-Semitic Comments/Actions She Does Not Regret

    Tweeted “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”

    Said that Jewish lawmakers “have allegiance to a foreign country” regarding their support for Israel.

    Badgered a Jewish diplomat in defense of a Venezuelan dictator, then blatantly lied on the record about his statements.

    Tweeted that US support for Israel was “all about the Benjamins” and when she was asked what she meant, she responded “AIPAC!”

    Is a big supporter of the anti-Semitic BDS movement.

    Traveled with “a radical anti-American and anti-Israel organization” that sides with countries who are foes to the United States.

    1. Not only do they support it but like abortion it’s a critical strut to the party. Add in the final support – oppressor/victim mentality – and you have the three-legged stool that the Left teeters on day.

      1. One thing you get a sense of from commenting here (and it’s manifest as well on our Facebook wall from the partisan Democrats among our circle of friends) is that committed street-level Democrats have little interest in public policy except as talking-point fodder, have a hypertrophied sense of the space political combat should play in the common life, and are basically motivated by antagonisms whose substance and mode of expression has an adolescent quality. The country suffers because half the political spectrum is occupied by an assemblage of pompous fools, greasy wire-pullers, and arrested-development cases (salted with a few out-and-out kooks like Jill and Natacha). This will not end well.

        1. Here you go mespo. TIA on another self comforting denunciation of the character and intelligence of an entire segment of the population. This kind of thinking is for children, idiots, and TIA.

          1. See the late Joe Bageant (a demoralized Democrat) on this subject. He says that in 1960, ‘common sense was about equally distributed on the political spectrum’, something that wasn’t true in his mind 40-odd years later. Or, you can look at our Facebook wall. Our Republican friends post pictures of their grandchildren or their vacation. Some of our Democrat friends do that. And some of them inundate you with memes and John Oliver clips (and that’s the level at which they think; note a number of them have post-baccalaureate degrees). My work life and family life has put me in contact with more academics and medical professionals than would ordinarily be the case. They have the prejudices of their tribe. Most of them do know something, but when you’re off their home ground, they’re no better informed than anyone who reads newspapers. They are, however, more self-confident. It isn’t pretty.

            I’ve wasted far too much of my life tangling with people online. It’s bloody rare to find a leftist who trades in anything but falsehoods, malice, condescension, or evasion and obfuscation. I didn’t manufacture a world where cultural decay has a political dimension, you did. You want to be treated respectfully, be respectable. You cannot manage it. Natacha cannot manage it. Enigma might be able to manage it when he’s not in a mood.

      2. KMA mespo. My family is Jewish, so no, I’m not anti-semetic, nor are most American Jews who vote strongly Democratic.

        1. My family is Jewish,

          And everyone in it does their own tax returns. Whatever.

          1. Apparently TIA either doesn’t make enough to report income or hustles down with his W-2 to get in the door 1st at HR Block.

        2. “My family is Jewish, so no,”

          Anon, the idea that being born Jewish makes the individual immune to anti-Semitism is ridiculous.

          Think of George Soros.

          “nor are most American Jews who vote strongly Democratic.”

          Most American Jews that vote Democratic are secular Jews. Practicing Jews are more likely not to vote Democratic.

          1. Buzz off you ignorant freak.

            By Estovir and then mespo concurrence, most American Jews would be anti-semites.

            If only the Know Nothings of the 19th century had been successful we wouldn’t have all these Catholics like Estovir here spewing their anti-American propaganda.

            1. By Estovir and then mespo concurrence, most American Jews would be anti-semites.

              No, most American Jews maintain a self-understanding (and an understanding of their social world) which requires they vote Democratic. They’ll take a foul side-dish like Omar and Tlaib, scrape it onto a separate plate, and forget about it.

              This isn’t manifest among Jews in Britain (much less Jews in Israel), who have a completely different set of priorities.

            2. “Buzz off you ignorant freak.”

              Anon someone has to inform you of the facts. The idea that being born Jewish makes the individual immune to anti-Semitism is ridiculous. That is ignorant.

              Most American Jews that vote Democratic are secular Jews. Practicing Jews are more likely not to vote Democratic.

              I saw the insult, but what I didn’t see is any proof that what I said wasn’t true. That is freaking ignorant.

              1. Most American Jews are democrats. That’s a fact. By the “reasoning of the ignorant goys estovir, mespo, allan, karen. and now Michael, most American Jews are anti Semites.

                That’s the kind of crap Trumpsters have to believe to keep the faith in their cult leader.

                1. I think the initial post was eaten up.

                  Most American Jews are Democrats and they represent the majority of secular Jews. I don’t hold it against you that your understanding of Anti-Semitism is so limited for you lack any significant understanding of most things under discussion and continuously distort the facts. Most Jews of both parties are decent people but that doesn’t mean that they are smart about things that affect their future. I think the Jews of Germany as a whole weren’t smart enough to get out when they could during the rise of HItler.

                  If a Jew wanted the American embassy in Jerusalem they got it from Donald Trump.. How many Presidents have promised but not delivered? How many Presidents gave American money to the Palestinians that was spent on awarding the families of those terrorists that killed women and children in Israel? Only Trump stopped that practice. Decades have gone by where Israel was considered the enemy of all Arab nations. That changed as well along with a lot of other things that changed in American policy towards Israel. Trump is protecting American and Jewish interests at the same time while the democrats have anti-Semitic and anti- American leaders.

                2. After disgustingly insulting the memory and relatives of the millions of Jews murdered by the Nazis – where were they going to go to? – and then insulting American Jews for not knowing as well as the goy Allan what their political interests are – yeah, move the American embassy in Israel, whoop de doo – he retreats from his and his ignorant buddies’ here claim that Democrats are anti-semites and pins it on their/our leaders. I guess he means people like the Jewish Senate Minority leader. 8 Jewish Democratic senators (none Republican), 25 Jewish Democratic representatives ( 2 Republicans). All antisemites!

                  What a DB.

                  1. The new leaders of the Democratic House known as the squad are anti-American and anti-Semitic. That is who I was referring to. “Most Jews of both parties are decent people” is what I said despite your inability to reproduce the truth. It is you who is creating an illusion about anti-Semitism with your response of “most American Jews would be anti-semites”.

                    Your response “yeah, move the American embassy in Israel, whoop de doo” to a religious Jew could be easily taken as an anti-Semitic response from an anti-Semite whether or not he is is married to a Jewish woman. If you read the prayers repeated over and over again by Jews all over the world including the six million that died in the Holocaust the words are “next year in Jerusalem”. That is an important part of the religion that only an arrogant, insensitive anti-Semite would say “whoop de doo” to. The yearning of Jews to return to Jerusalem is profound and its recognition by Trump is likewise profound.

                    1. Allan has retreated further from Estovir, Karen’s, Michael, and TIA’s claim that Democrats or leftists are anti-Semites to the claim that 4 of them are. That’s progress.

                      “Next year in Jerusalem ” is said at the end of Passover – which our family practices – and refers to the return home after exile to the desert during the ancient events of the service as well as the return to Israel from the diaspora. If modern jews want to go there they can buy a ticket today and only fundamentalist groups like the Lubavitchers and Christian Evangelicals concerned with fulfilling prophesy, not the Jewish people, GAF about our embassy being there while others worry more about the increased difficulty it creates for negotiating a two state solution, which has been US policy for decades as well most Israelis, including Netanyahu. The move was denounced almost universally, including by our European allies. My relatives generally care about that more than a symbolic but destructive act.

                      Allan is never worth a response except to correct the record for his numerous falsehoods and in this case he actually retreated from one of them. I don’t need to counter his disgusting claim that I am an anti-semite – that would mean I hate my own children, among other things – except to point out that it is typical of the exceedingly stupid personal attacks he adds to every post.

                    2. “Allan has retreated further from Estovir, Karen’s,…”

                      Anon, Allan hasn’t retreated from anywhere. Allan’s position has been firm and I don’t believe the positions of the others mentioned mirrored what you said. The progress you wrongfully assumed you made was created by your lies and by no one else. Putting sunlight on your lies caused them to disipate revealing a naked Anon.

                      ““Next year in Jerusalem ” is said at the end of Passover – which our family practices”

                      You might say the words but they don’t seem to have much meaning to you. That is your problem. You think words are the answer to everything. Your hero Obama used words not deeds such as ‘you can keep your doctor’, the ‘red line’, etc. Like it or not, … know it or not …Obama hurt a lot of people and created instability in the world even though he sent drones to kill people along with innocents. Sloppy.

                      Words. Listen to your own. Hear your brain talking when it thinks of “next year in Jerusalem”. Your speech is right here, ” If modern jews want to go there they can buy a ticket today” That is about as glib as one can get, but no it doesn’t stop there for you continue “fundamentalist groups like the Lubavitchers and Christian Evangelicals concerned with fulfilling prophesy, not the Jewish people “ Obviously you are totally ignorant of what fulfills the Jewish people along with history modern and ancient. Stupidity is the oil used by your brain.

                    3. On the political side you say, the embassy in Jerusalem creates, “increased difficulty … for negotiating a two state solution”. You don’t even know what a two state solution is and means. Go ahead and tell us what your idea of a two state solution is. We are waiting for your answer. Many Jews do not know the topography of Israel along with the space it occupies or the hatred Israel faces. I have said this before, war requires endpoints so look to history and the Peloponnesian Wars, the Punic Wars and WW1 and 2. All required a victor for a final ending. America did not let an endpoint occurr in the middle east.

                      Instead of denying the full of Israel’s existence all other Presidents gave hope to the Arabs that the Israeli people could be pushed into the sea and extinguished. Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital (and many other things) and that showed a truism that Israel would survive and that in the future Palestinian created war would likely cause more Palestinian losses. Today, Israel is aligned with multiple neighbors that threatened to wipe them out only a few years before. Trump’s actions has moved the middle east towards peace for Arab, Jew and Christian.

                      [As an aside you should read the Hamas ‘Constitution’ that states Israel should wiped out and Jews killed. I say this because Obama’s dollars went to Iran who is the state supporter of terrorism for Hamas (and Hezbollah along with others). I also say this so that you recognize that in the US, CAIR is an organization supporting Hamas and some of its leaders were sent to jail for terrorist supporting activities. Finally, I say this because the Muslim Brotherhood declaration in the US states its purpose is to “destroy western civilization”. You directly or indirectly support all these groups.]

                      “My relatives generally care about that more than a symbolic but destructive act.”

                      They may “care” but do they likely don’t know or understand the situation on the ground. Are they willing to disagree with Democratic policies and face the onslaught of criticism from their friends and relatives or even their employers? That is doubtful.

                      I can deal with different ideas and discuss them but it is near impossible to deal with an ideologue whose religion is leftism or socialism. For many secular Jews, whether or not they observe the High Holidays, their secular ideology trumps their own religion. Israel though talked about and donated to is a low prioity for many of them.

                    4. Anon1’s been spelunking around in Wikipedia about the conduct of the seder. LOL.

                    5. “Anon1’s been spelunking around in Wikipedia about the conduct of the seder. LOL.”

                      Anon confuses religiosity with religious belief.

                    6. “And one of my wife’s 2nd cousins is a Lubavitcher in Brooklyn.”

                      Anon is claiming Judaism by injection.

                    7. “…Omar understands that the establishment Jewish community seems willing to live with her anti-Jewish prejudices if in service to damaging Donald Trump. She sees the weakness among American Jewry, and it has now emboldened her to introduce BDS legislation. She knows the Jews in Congress and the Jews in the cities will not stand in her way. Indeed, many are choosing her. … Such statements are emboldening Omar. She smells the self-righteousness, the virtue-signaling, and the political correctness emanating from Jews and some rabbis. … She [Omar] sees no difference between Al Qaeda in Somalia and our society here in America that provided her asylum. … too many in the American Jewish community are championing the very person who wants to destroy Israel and, no doubt, those Jews supportive of Israel. Too many Jews see their protection, identification and fraternity with the intersectional groups, even those hostile and those calling Israel and Jews Nazis. …

                      Omar and BDS are co-joined with Hamas, the very Hamas that this week called for the killing of Jews worldwide. …”

                      __Rabbi Aryeh Spero

                      Full article at:

        3. KMA mespo.

          The Torah explicitly declares the pig as being unclean so now we know that you are not a Jew. Your being an alleged attorney is being debated elsewhere on this forum, I believe, along with Peter Shill being a Female-To-Male Transgender. She says he’s a He but all data points to exogenous estrogen induced behavior

          No judgement


            1. Estovir, you can accurately call this guy Anon, Bent Nail or Broken Hammer but not Legal Eagle.

        4. Not true the Jewish faith is split between the older folks who are strong supporters of Israel, Sabras and Zionists. And the Wall Street types

          Until you ask them to defend the Democrats history of anti semitism, anti religion and pro Islam. not to mention their record of the state department refusing entry to those trying to escape genocide from WWI, WWII, and the current Obama supported genocide. Which was not limited to Jews or Christians but a number of muslim faiths

          At the point their support of the Socialist Party crumbles….and they refuse to answer. but never come out and support any form of socialism.

          1. i found no evidence of strong support in 2016 or 2018 and since as usual the left fails to document the allegation one can only say BS and REJECTED.

Comments are closed.