Columns, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Politics

Terror Nation: How Millions Are Being Declared Terrorists For Their Political Views

Below is my column in The Hill on a growing tendency to label opposing views as terrorism in our age of rage. Democratic activists have labeled ICE as a “terrorist organization” while Republicans use that term for Antifa. It is also a way to dismiss opposing views as extremism with no need to listen, let alone respond. With the escalation of such rhetoric, millions of Americans are being portrayed as terrorists – a trend that robs the term of any real meaning. Yet, numerous officials, including the Board of Supervisors, in San Francisco supported the ridiculous resolution declaring the NRA to be a “domestic terrorist organization” and, by extension, its five million members domestic terrorists. It is not enough to disagree over the meaning of an individual right, the other side must now be little better than ISIS for disagreeing with you.

Here is the column:

It is not everyday that a public official uncovers more than five million terrorists living in the United States, including many working in some of the highest offices of the land. Yet, San Francisco District Two Supervisor Catherine Stefani managed to achieve precisely that this week, when the city board of supervisors passed her resolution declaring the National Rifle Association to be a domestic terrorist organization.

For Stefani and other board members, it is not enough to disagree with gun rights advocates. They must be declared terrorists. Otherwise, this would be a mere political disagreement. The San Francisco resolution encourages cities, states, and the federal government to follow suit. It states that NRA terrorism includes spreading “propaganda” and arming “those individuals who would and have committed acts of terrorism.”

The resolution follows a declaration from New York Attorney General Letitia James in launching an investigation of the NRA which she previously declared to be not a “charitable organization” but a “terrorist organization.” Of course, the NRA promotes the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed as the basis of an individual constitutional right to bear arms. Thus, San Francisco is declaring that advocacy of a constitutional right is akin to being an arm of the Islamic State.

For her part, Stefani expressed nothing but glee in declaring those on the other side of the gun debate to be terrorists. “The NRA has it coming to them. I will do everything I possibly can to call them out on what they are, which is a domestic terrorist organization,” she said. For the other supervisors, voting against the declaration might have risked being accused of giving material support to a terrorist organization.

The resolution is the very definition of demagoguery. It also is a sign of our time as the perfect resolution for the age of rage. Many people of good faith have criticized the NRA for years, while the organization has opposed many reasonable limits on gun ownership and has painted anyone on the other side as enemies of freedom and liberty.

Yet, it is not uncommon for organizations advocating for individual rights to be “extreme” in their support for that right. NARAL is a pro-choice organization opposing virtually any limit on the right of women to secure abortions, including supporting “partial birth abortion” which most Americans oppose. Environmental groups like Greenpeace oppose most measures that undermine the environment. PETA opposes almost any use of animals, even calling for a robotic “Punxsutawney Phil” groundhog.

Most advocacy groups follow the view of Barry Goldwater that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” Such advocacy is no act of terrorism. In politics these days, however, it is not enough to disagree. You must condemn the very act of speaking or advocating as a virtual crime. That way, you relieve yourself of any responsibility to listen or respond to an opposing view. Many academics and advocates now believe they can stop people from speaking by declaring them to be racists or terrorists.

At the University of California at Santa Barbara, feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller Young criminally assaulted pro-life advocates on campus, and later pleaded guilty to the crime. She was defended by faculty and students, including many who said she was “triggered” by a pro-life display and that pro-life advocates were “terrorists” who did not deserve free speech. The university refused to suspend or fire her, who has since been celebrated as a leader in feminist activism.

It is now routine for many faculty and students on college campuses across the country to prevent others from speaking by claiming they are acting to stop violent or racist speech. Such declarations are incredibly liberating in that you are no longer confined by notions of free speech.

Indeed, Antifa is dedicated to defeating free speech. Dartmouth University professor Mark Bray, author of a handbook on Antifa, explained, “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase” that “says I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” He defined anti-fascists as “illiberals” who reject the notion that far right views deserve to “coexist” with opposing views. The goal of Antifa is not to coexist but “to end their politics.”

As someone who has spent a lifetime advocating for free speech, I have long denounced Antifa as a despicable organization. But I was also one of the first to object to President Trump supporting the declaration of Antifa a domestic terrorist organization. That is the problem with free speech. You often have to fight for those who least deserve it, like an organization dedicated to denying it to others. There is no question here that Antifa supporters regularly engage in violent acts, but that does not mean it is a terrorist organization, any more than environmental groups are terrorist organizations when their members engage in such raging acts.

Likewise, many people applauded Democratic candidate and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg after he called for all groups deemed “white nationalist” to be declared domestic terrorists. Columnist Derek Beres explained that “such a label also denies another related idea, manifest destiny, which, like American exceptionalism, states that America has a mandate to change the world. By calling Americans terrorists, we can identify the actual root of racial and nationalist tension on our soil.”

So it is that easy. You simply declare whole groups to be terrorists, and you effectively criminalize their “related ideas.” The counterparts to Stefani in the pro-life community could declare pro-choice organizations to be terrorist organizations that kill the unborn, while Texas could declare vegan advocates to be terrorists for spreading “propaganda” against meat. After all, San Francisco declared five million Americans to be terrorists, so what about the other 322 million citizens in this nation?

The question is what terrorism ultimately means if everyone is declared a terrorist. That answer can be found in a scene from the George Orwell novel “1984,” when O’Brien is torturing the hero Winston in the Ministry of Love. O’Brien explains to Winston, “The object of terrorism is terrorism. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”

Yes, I am beginning to understand. This is all about the object of power.

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

122 thoughts on “Terror Nation: How Millions Are Being Declared Terrorists For Their Political Views”

  2. “Yes, I am beginning to understand. This is all about the object of power.”
    ************************
    It’s always about power or more precisely the will to power. It’s in every human and it can be good or evil. What made the American Revolution extraordinary was its sharing of power and hence a partial denial of that will. And it’s also why we revere those dead white English guys so much. And finally it’s why we have to exercise our benevolent will to power by opposing these tyrants in waiting.

    “Do you want a name for this world? A solution for all its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?––This world is the will to power––and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power––and nothing besides!”
    ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

  3. ” …
    And then is heard no more. It is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.”
    —- S., 1606?

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me twenty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-two weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. –

      Tis the times’ plague, when madmen lead the blind. William Shakespeare

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me twenty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-two weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – the NYT and WaPo are not the only newspapers of record in the US. Any paper that carries legal notices regularly is a newspaper of record. In the Phoenix area there are a couple of newspapers of record. It is the same for every city and town.

        1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me twenty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-two weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – I have been reading for over 70 years, so that give me your permission to spout off. 😉

          1. This time you didn’t bother to read the Wikipedia article.

            Or maybe your reading comprehension is as low as it appesrs?

            1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me twenty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-two weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – I read the Wiki article and you should never, ever use Wikipedia as a source.

  5. “I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people.”

  6. Dr. Turley – how you can even use the absurdity of comparing Democrats/Liberals calling ICE a terrorist (which it obviously NOT and is part of our HOmeland Security policing) with Republicans/conservatives calling Always-Fa terrorists (which they OBVIOUSLY ARE TERRORISTS who illegally use violence against US citizens) makes me sick. Please be even more clear and avoid equivocating any of these ridiculous Democrat/Liberal statements with reasonable and true statements made by Republicans. The Left is the purveyor of violence in the last 50 years and it continues.

      1. Hi Squeeky! 🙂

        A side note, that homeowner did not have an “Assault Weapon” , he had a “AR 15 Defender Weapon that holds big azz Mags ” for use against criminals attempting to Assault him & his household.

        Anyway… check out this new website below, I’m seeing some funnt stuff there.

        Hell, maybe you can see a way to use your obvious natural talent there?

        A sample:

        https://www.memeworld.com/meme/ilhan-and-alexandria-are-driving-the-democratic-clown-car-towards-socialism/

      2. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, sufficient to secure a free state, and that right shall not be infringed. It shall not be infringed regarding caliber, operational capacity or supply of ammunition. The people most certainly have the right to weapons equal to and sufficient to oppose the military forces of an oppressive and tyrannical government including automatic assault rifles. All laws precluding that right in any aspect are manifestly unconstitutional. Liberals, socialists, progressives and democrats take the opportunity of the irrational acts of insane people to deny constitutional rights to Americans. Insanity is not a legitimate method of amending the Constitution except to liberals, socialists, progressives and democrats. Police must effectively address mental instability as clear and present danger.
        _____________

        2nd Amendment

        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  9. The San Francisco BoS were exercising their right to free speech when declaring the NRA to be a terrorist organization. Right, Turley?

    2. …according to Creationists, apparently, while others disagree.

      This refers to Squeeky’s “revelation.”

          1. Said by the girl in her bunker, prepping for end times.

            This is true, for those who haven’t kept up with Squeeky-news over the years.

  11. Whenever I have been to a NRA meeting, it starts with the pledge of allegiance and moment of prayer. Oh my God, I’ve become a right wing extremist.

  12. America is in a state of hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and nascent insurrection.

    Abraham Lincoln seized power, neutralized the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.”

    President Trump must now seize power, neutralize the incorrigibly corrupted legislative and judicial branches and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.”

    America must be relieved of the influence and invasion of contradictory foreign ideologies, agitators, malcontents and traitors.

    The “original intent” and “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights must be vigorously re-implemented lest freedom be lost forever.

    1. George, you need to check into Bellview, or your nearest public psych institution, you don’t even know the definition of the words you used in this diatribe.

      At lest stop being a Trump sycophant!

      No President, Party, or anyone else, can seize power in a Republic! There’s no such thing as ruling, or governing, by Executive order or proclamation! And if you want to return to the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, then only the States as the Union will have any power and the authority to govern and Reestablish our Republic, as intended by the Constitution!

      Please learn something before you make comments, save us all from having to wade through your uninformed musings!

      1. Thanks for reading, again!

        Next time you might respond as an adult and attempt, in so far as that is possible, to refute the points.

        1. If you read the comment I posted on this post you will find the definitions of the words that you are trying to use, incorrectly, and how they appropriately are applied in Government. If you bother to read the Constitution, instead of relying on your party to give you the understanding of Constitutional principles, you will understand that the President has no powers or authority to lead, govern, seize power, or otherwise control government! Article 2 of the Constitution specifically outlines the powers and authority of the President and in all cases the President is to bring his concerns to congress for their consideration, and if the President needs clarification on the implementation of a law he is to consult the branch of Congress that the law originated, convening them if they are at recess, and once they have clarified their intentions then the President writes an executive order to the Executive department which is empowered to implement the law citing the clarifications obtained from Congress.

          We don’t have leaders in this country, we have Representatives and collective decision making. That’s what a Republic is all about!

          Thank you for trying to get me to conform to your political correctness, I’ll be sure to ignore your advice!

          1. “…the President has no powers or authority to lead, govern, seize power,…”

            Hop in your little time machine and tell “Crazy Abe” that.

            He learned the Latin for “thus always to tyrants” but didn’t retain it long.
            ________________________________________________________________________________________

            “Sic semper tyrannis.”

            – John Wilkes Booth

            1. Who said that they followed the Constitution at that time!? Wake up, just because people do things doesn’t make them right or make their actions Constitutional.

              And sorry, I would put more faith in Lincoln then Trump any day. Lincoln did what he had to do to save the Union, and then all his efforts were lost with his assassination, they were able to distroy the Union anyway! It took less then a generation for parties to take complete control of every aspect of our Government leading to the chaos we find ourselves in today!

              I’ll save any contending remarks, you seem to be able to insult yourself, and your intelligence, without any help from me!

              1. You’re incoherent.

                Lincoln seized power, which is a precedent that Trump may now follow to “Save the Republic.”

                1. You don’t even know what saving the Republic means! In fact you don’t even know what a Republic is! And there is no such thing as precedent to do anything in our Government! Just because someone commits a crime and gets away with it does not form a precedent for others to commit crimes of the same sort in the future.

                  Get a grip on yourself! I’m getting close to violating the civility policy, specifically for you, and I don’t care if they ban me from this blog!

  13. Today I learned that Jonathan Turley is a Spinozian, not a mere Lockean: The Guardian.

  14. WHETHER TERRORIST OR NOT..

    NRA HAS SMOTHERED MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION

    Professor Turley engages in some degree of What-Aboutism here; comparing NRA members to members of Planned Parenthood while throwing in ANTIFA as another leftist boogeyman. The idea seems to be that the NRA is merely another political interest group undeserving of any links to terrorism.

    What Professor Turley doesn’t tell us is that the NRA we currently know as an-all-powerful political lobby only goes back about 40 years. Before that the NRA was far less political. Historically the NRA was primarily concerned with marksmanship and safety. They even endorsed common-sense regulations.

    But somewhere in the late 70’s – early 80’s, the NRA morphed into this hyper-political lobby whose primary mission is quashing any ‘discussion’ of regulations. And over time the NRA has become increasingly linked to only the Republican party. Consequently Republicans are determined to thwart any meaningful conversation on guns.

    In this regard Professor Turley’s comparisons to Planned Parenthood are disingenuous at best. Republicans have proposed literally hundreds of legislative bills to restrict abortion; creating endless debates in Washington and every state capitol. But at the same time Republicans have been quite determined to gag any conversation regarding gun control.

    After the Sandy Hook school massacre in 2012, about 80% of the country expected a meaningful conversation on guns. We imagined at last the time had come for congressional hearings on guns and mass shootings. But that was 7 years ago: ‘no conversation yet.’ Instead we have seen countless mass shootings since.

    If Professor Turely is indeed concerned about free speech, then why is he not proposing free speech on Capitol Hill regarding guns and mass shootings? If ever a conversation was overdue, this one is it. I mean, here we have this never-ending cycle of violence in which innocent people are massacred (on American soil), yet Congress has never allowed hearings on the issue.

    We know, beyond a doubt, that if all these mass shootings concerned a particular extremist group, Congress would have taken serious action years ago. We know that if all these deaths concerned any other consumer product, Congress would have acted. But when it comes to mass shootings, Republicans are perfectly content to offer prayers instead of action. Would prayers suffice as a response to any other issue?

    What if Brewers, Distillers and Wineries had an all-powerful lobby to quash any discussion about drunken driving? And what if that lobby was completely tied to Democrats? One can imagine how strange that would be. Every time a horrific accident results from drunk driving, Democrats offer their prayers but say, “Now is not the time to discuss limits to drunken driving”.

    Republicans love to blame ‘mental illness’ for mass shootings. But have Republicans proposed any legislation regarding mental illness? Have Republicans proposed billions in funding for mental outreach programs? ..Of course not..! It’s all a big charade. Therefore Professor Turley’s What About’s are only designed to muddy this whole issue. With this column Turley is offering only prayers to a very grave issue.

    1. Hill – the Brewers, etc. had a lobby to fight Prohibition, and they lost. The Brewers thought they were going to be protected because 3.2 beer was going to be legal. Wrong.

      And Republicans don’t go for mental outreach because it only affects Democrats. 😉

      1. Paul, the first part of your comment is perfectly believable. And the second part if believable to every Trump supporter.

        Trumpers think ‘only they’ possess real common sense. And Donald Trump is the most sensible of presidents! Any sensible person can see Donald Trump knows how to get things done. Trump sounds like a bully because that’s his competitive spirit. He’s determined to win for ‘us’. It’s only a question of who ‘us’ includes.

      2. PCS, Fun fact: Americans have a constitutional right to and the freedom of substance ingestion. Laws against substance ingestion are unconstitutional per, if not elsewhere, the 9th Amendment. Most certainly laws against the privacy inherent in doctor/patient privilege are unconstitutional per the 4th Amendment regarding “…the right of the people to be secure in their persons,…”

        Study the 18th Amendment. It actually did not prohibit the ingestion of alcohol, it stopped its marketing. The 18th Amendment proved the right to and freedom of individuals to ingest substances, in that case the substance was alcohol. The entire concept of denying the constitutional right to and freedom of ingestion was so absurd that the 18th Amendment was abolished almost immediately by the 21st Amendment.

        San Francisco’s 1875 drug law was/is patently unconstitutional. San Francisco may maintain laws against property damage and bodily injury but San Francisco has no authority to modify or amend the Constitution and to deny rights and freedoms provided by the Constitution. Drug laws have no constitutional basis and deny rights “…retained by the people.” Laws against stalking, assault, battery, rape, murder, property damage, bodily injury, mayhem, etc., are extant constitutional statutes.

        BANNING SUBSTANCE INGESTION IS AS LUDICROUS AS BANNING SUICIDE.

        The collectivist, moralist dictatorship needs to be annihilated.
        _________________________________________________________________

        9th Amendment

        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
        _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

        “The first drug control law in the United States was a city ordinance passed in San Francisco in 1875 to try to stop the spread of opium dens.”

        – DEA

      3. PCS, there will never be enough redistribution, social engineering and free stuff to satisfy covetous parasites like this clown. The slaves said they simply wanted freedom. Ever since, they have demanded everything under the sun, from free money to free jobs and free tuition and free medical care. The demands will never end. You will never win. The American Founders provided the one thing people need: Freedom. Capable, self-reliant, ambitious and independent individuals take it from there. Freedom is enough. Charity is industry voluntarily conducted in the free markets of the private sector.

        1. So you still consider us slaves? And we aren’t supposed to demand our rights to collective services that we pay for through out tax dollars that go to form Collective revenue. Ever heard of White Privilege, or white entitlement, or the arrogance you are displaying thinking this is your country we should be privileged to be allowed live in it!

          You disgust me!

          You’re an arrogant white nationalist prick!

          1. Oh, that explains your incoherence completely. I had no idea.

            FYI:

            The American Founders passed the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 requiring citizens to be “…free white person(s)…” while at the same time, they generally required voters to be Male, European, 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres. establishing, in perpetuity, the American “original intent.”

            That Lincoln, who won with 39.8%, seized power and initiated 158 years of unconstitutional amendments and legislation, does not make the current communistic welfare state constitutional or otherwise legitimate. None of the current American welfare state comports with the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution. That requires vigorous corrective action.

            British slavery was ending naturally, George Washington freed his slaves in his will. The remnants of the 242 year-old British institution should have been eliminated through freedom and free market means including, but not limited to, advocacy, boycotts and divestiture.

              1. You’re brilliant! Simply brilliant!

                Nay, superior!

                Can we get rid of “Generational Welfare,” “Affirmative Action Privilege,” “Quotas,” “Forced Busing,” “Food Stamps,” and the rest of the contrived and spurious “pillars of success” of perpetually dependent freed slaves and their descendants now?

  15. “I was also one of the first to object to President Trump supporting the declaration of Antifa a domestic terrorist organization.”

    Here’s Turley being falsely evenhanded in support of his argument. Antifa fits the definition of a terrorist group perfectly: they commit physical violence in furtherance of political ends. But Turley, as always, wants to be the impartial voice of reason and moderation, and he’s willing to ignore reality to do it.

    No one is impartial. There are no neutral observers. The best we can ever hope to do is be aware of our biases, and be honest and open about them.

  16. “…With the escalation of such rhetoric, millions of Americans are being portrayed as terrorists – a trend that robs the term of any real meaning…”

    Let me introduce you to the term “anti-Semite.”

    Turley adores these articles Re. the ever-decreasing remnant of what used to be “free speech.” Heck, I like these articles too. And I wish he’d write an article of the greatest example of thought crime: in Canada and about 13 EU nations, to deny the Western version of holocaustianity (AKA “THE holocaust,” elevating it above all the other cases of genocide with greater numbers killed) is to commit a crime for which many persons rot in prison today.

    Does Turley agree with such thought crime? Would his employer (cough, cough) fire him if he posted against such thought crime?

  17. JT, Here is some info on what is going on with ICE: https://theintercept.com/2018/04/11/immigration-detention-sexual-abuse-ice-dhs/

    I would say it is more accurate to describe our govt./private corporation nexus as a criminal enterprise, although it does use terror as a weapon towards other nations and our own citizens. Many nations consider the US a terrorist nation. Certainly we sponsor terrorists in many other nations, including the group which help attack the US on 9/11. We also sponsor actual nazis (Yasha Levine has good info on that), along with the govt. of Israel.

    The govt. says that holding opinions contrary to it’s official narrative is evidence of being a terrorist and opens people to “preventative detention” for being off narrative. This means the govt. is using censorship and terror tactics to keep people from talking about whether the govt. is following the law, doing a good job, etc.

  18. Taliban terrorist attacks on the eve of 9/11…. Is a reply is in order?

    According to the Afghan locals, the MOAB won’t work along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
    There is a proxy war with Pakistan & U.S….And Pakistan has nukes.

  19. OT: Christians Massacred, *****Media****** Look the Other Way
    by Giulio Meotti • September 8, 2019 at 5:00 am

    “In the same week as the awful attack on the mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand… more than two hundred Christians were killed in Nigeria. There was hardly any mention of the latter in the news. There were no marches for martyred Christians, no tolling of church bells ordered by governments, no ‘Je suis Charlie’ t-shirts… no public outrage at all.” — Fr. Benedict Kiely, Crisis Magazine, September 4, 2019

    NASA’s satellites observed the Amazon fires, prompting world leaders to pledge to protect the rainforest. But the burning, chopping and murder of Christians is not tracked by satellites and their suffering is not seen on our televisions and newspapers. Actually, it seems in the West as if the persecution of Christians does not even exist.

    The Vatican and Pope Francis have a choice: to shed light on these persecuted Christians or be accused of willful blindness…. The Vatican should dedicate the next synod to them.

    cont: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14827/christians-massacred-media-ignore

    1. Alan, I’m willing to believe Christians are being killed in Nigeria. But why can’t you find a recognizable source for that story?

      Furthermore, one should point out that Nigeria is one of the most populous countries in the world and violence has been common there since the Boco Harem began its long insurgency. Should western nations send a major peace-keeping force to Nigeria?

      It seems your whole post is something of a “What About?” Like you don’t think fires in the Amazon are worthy of news coverage.

      1. “Alan, I’m willing to believe Christians are being killed in Nigeria. But why can’t you find a recognizable source for that story?”

        Because the media sucks. The writers from Gatestone are experts in the subjects they write about and even do investigative reporting. You don’t know about these things because you limit your reading to a “recognizable source” which only means you are familiar with the source and you agree with it.

        I am not calling for the US to involve its military. I hear a lot of talk from your sources about the weather and Trump which is insignifcant and throws this type of illuminating story off the front page where it belongs. That leads to a population that is unaware of important things.

        1. Alan, you could ask 100 people what news they think should really be covered. And you could easily get 100 different answers.

          Depending on ‘who’ we are, ‘where’ we live, and our particular socio-economic group, we all have different ideas of what news should be on the front page.

          1. That is true. But if one looks at the Washington Post one realizes that the only reason to read the Washington Post is for bias conformation. The paper exists to push its own point of view and doesn’t know how to provide the news. Anyone relying on it is therefore livingin a very small and inaccurate world.

            1. Alan, we know what we see. The WaPo is based in Washington with the most talented writers and editors. During the course of any day, The WaPo produces more hard news than any other paper.

              But most importantly Trump gets negative coverage for very good reason. He’s a negative fool who mindlessly creates endless controversies. Trump is not a normal president. And anyone who thinks he is dwells in an information bubble.

              1. Peter, you think they are talented, but any group of fools can pat themselves on the back and award themselves for doing nothing. That is just cr-p. I am not discussing editorial opinion but I am disgussing journalistic integrity in the news section which stinks and has been proven to stink over and over again most recently regarding the Russia Hoax. I don’t expect you to agree with me because you are not well read and you show no real interest in reality. Most of what you do is virtue signal and seek out things that provide confirmation bias.

                1. Could be worse. Jill’s go-to source is some random dame in St. Cloud, Minnesota with a website.

              2. This doesn’t pertain to the Washington post in particular but demonstrates exactly what the news media provides, stupidity along with bias.

  20. Someone should send a copy of Federalist 46 to the SF board of supervisors. BTW, since I am an NRA member, does anyone know where I can get a Domestic Terrorist t-shirt?

Comments are closed.