Professor Ken Hughes of University of Virginia recently penned a column to denounce the utter partisanship and lack of integrity in Washington as demonstrated by the failure of a single Republican to support the impeachment of President Donald Trump. He did not, of course, view the virtually unanimous vote by Democrats as partisan. Just the Republicans. The reason appears to be the view that the Democrats are right and therefore the Republicans are utter partisan hacks. To make his case, Professor Hughes makes equally selective observations about the history of impeachment, including singling out a line from my testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.
Hughes offers a comparison to the Nixon impeachment and says the partisanship is the same. He again only gives examples of Republican partisanship. He does not mention that the Democrats in the Clinton impeachment voted as a block in the Senate to not only block any witnesses but to have a summary vote without a full trial. Instead, he notes:
Much remains the same, especially the partisan attacks. In 1974, as today, Republicans complained that the impeachment inquiry was too secret, too leaky and a violation of presidential rights. Both Team Nixon and Team Trump called their respective inquiries a “witch hunt,” a “lynch mob” and a “kangaroo court.”
There is surprisingly little interest by Professor Hughes in the merits of the objection today, including the rushed impeachment, denial of a minority witness day, the blocking of all but one witness (me) demanded by the Republicans, the blocking of counsel, and other heavy-handed measures. I testified at both the Clinton and Trump impeachments and this process was far more restricted and frankly unfair to the minority.
Professor Hughes also decries that there were Republicans who supported the concept of impeaching Nixon for the defiance of impeachment subpoenas. Again, Hughes’ analysis is superficial and treats the two cases as effectively identical. The only material fact is that some Republicans supported such a claim during Nixon and all opposed it in the current controversy. Hughes is entirely uninterested as an academic if there is a basis for opposing one but not the other. I repeatedly addressed those distinctions in my testimony and other writings. It is akin to saying that a prosecutor supported a murder charge in one case but is a hypocrite for declining to charge in another case. You cannot consider any such comparison without addressing the underlying facts — not simply the charge and final vote.
As a threshold matter, it is important to note that while I opposed the four proposed articles on crimes like bribery (which the Committee ultimately also declined), I said that two articles would be legitimate. They were the two articles adopted by the Committee: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. My disagreement on those articles was with the record not the grounds.
I stated in my testimony, there are major differences on the obstruction of Congress charge. The most obvious distinction is that Nixon (like Clinton) was able to take his case through the courts and secure a final ruling of the Supreme Court before an impeachment vote. Indeed, shortly after the Supreme Court decision, he resigned before he was impeached. Second, the Nixon impeachment effort was based on an investigation that stretched back years and was extensive with thousands of transcripts and documents, including grand jury proceedings. In the Trump impeachment, the House rushed through the investigation in arguably the short time of any presidential impeachment (depending on how you count the days in the Johnson impeachment). It is also the thinnest record ever submitted for a presidential impeachment. Finally, the position of the House is that, despite that abbreviated period, any effort to go to the courts rather than immediately yield to Congress is a high crime and misdemeanor. While I said that court orders or review are not required on such articles, it presents the weakest possible case for the Senate trial.
Professor Hughes does not consider any of those distinctions. Just the fact that obstruction was alleged in both cases and some Republicans supported the article in Nixon.
Professor Hughes does obliquely reference my argument but only to the extent that I argued that the constitutional principle that the House decides the evidence and witnesses required for an impeachment inquiry an “extreme position” He does not disclose that my point was based not on the underlying premise of the article (which I endorsed) or that I said that there is no requirement that Congress wait for a ruling. More importantly, he does not disclose that it was the short period of the investigation that troubled me in such a move in the Trump matter.
Where Hughes is correct is that I have always been a critic of the Nixon obstruction article because it (like the articles) were poorly drafted. As I stated in my testimony:
“While the Nixon impeachment had the most developed record and comprehensive investigation, I am not a fan of the structure used for the articles. The Committee evaded the need for specificity in alleging crimes like obstruction of justice while listing a variety of specific felonies after a catchall line declaring that “the means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following.” Given its gravity, impeachment should offer concrete and specific allegations in the actual articles. This is the case in most judicial impeachments.”
Moreover, the Nixon executive privilege claim did have merit and his request of judicial review was not frivolous. Again, as I stated in my testimony:
“I have always been critical of this article. Nixon certainly did obstruct the process in a myriad of ways, from witness tampering to other criminal acts. However, on the critical material sought by Congress, Nixon went to Court and ultimately lost in his effort to withhold the evidence. He had every right to do so. On July 25, 1974, the Court ruled in United States v. Nixon that the President had to turn over the evidence. On August 8, 1974, Nixon announced his intention to resign. Notably, in that decision, the Court recognized the existence of executive privilege—a protection that requires a balancing of the interests of the legislative and executive branches by the judicial branch.”
The Court ultimately recognized that such privilege does exist but then declared that it could not be used to bar the disclosures in that case. It was a major new ruling on the scope and meaning of the privilege. More importantly, Nixon made available a great deal of information and witnesses to the Congress.
Nevertheless, Hughes believes that any objection to the article constitutes “rewriting” history and partisanship. He notes that eight Republicans supported the Nixon article as proof that anyone opposing the article must now be a dishonest partisan.
It is troubling to see another academic stooping to such attacks, but as I have previously written, it is not unique. I have pointed out historical claims that my co-witnesses Noah Feldman and Michael Gerhardt, in my view, got wrong. However, I have always framed those disagreements as academic differences. I have never called them partisans or “comical.” In today’s age of rage, it is not enough to simply disagree and have an academic dialogue. You have to label your opponents as stooges or partisans — a tactic that allows you to avoid the merits of their arguments.
The best example is the only quoted line that Hughes offers from my testimony:
“According to Turley, the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon told the president, “‘We’ve heard your arguments. We’ve heard Congress’ arguments. And you know what? You lose. Turn over the material to Congress.’ You know, what that did for the Judiciary Committee is, it gave this body legitimacy.”
There are three problems with Turley’s history: First, the Supreme Court did not hear Congress’ arguments, since Congress never took the matter to court. The case of U.S. v. Nixon was pressed by the Justice Department’s Watergate special prosecutor. Second, the court did not order Nixon to turn over his tapes to Congress, only to the special prosecutor; therefore, third, the decision could not add anything to the House Judiciary Committee’s legitimacy.”
He then added: “Turley’s is partisan history for partisan purposes. It enables one party to abandon principle and precedent while accusing the other of doing the same.”
Here is the problem. In each of these points, Hughes again ignores what I said and more importantly the relevant history.
Hughes makes the gotcha point that the case was actually litigated by the special prosecutor, not Congress. He ignores that I specifically discussed this distinction in my testimony. I noted that the position of Chairman Rodino was that the House would not go to court because any denial of a demand of any evidence was per se impeachable. I stated repeatedly that Rodino’s position was that the courts had no role in the matter and Congress alone would decide on the information to be given to the Committee. The quote referred to a broader point on how such rulings add legitimacy and strength to such articles. The quoted line was from an exchange with a member on why such orders added legitimacy to past impeachments like the Nixon impeachment inquiry. I referenced Congress not the Special Prosecutor in that exchange. We were going back and forth in the hearing in discussing the three presidential impeachment inquiries. Yes, the tapes went first to the Special Prosecutor and then the evidence was served with Congress. The point is that Nixon resigned after the tapes were compelled and the ruling supported the obstruction article. What Hughes does not mention is the long discussion of the Nixon case and the role of the special prosecutor. Instead, he prefers to suggest that I intentionally or comically misrepresented that case.
More importantly, he does not address the merits of the point: that such judicial review strengthens such cases for Congress. Instead his third historical point is tautological: “the decision could not add anything to the House Judiciary Committee’s legitimacy.” I am not sure what that means. My statement concerned given the Committee’s impeachment case legitimacy. That is obvious but, again, Professor Hughes prefers to adopt the most absurd possible meaning to suggest that I believed that a court opinion was needed to give Congress or a committee legitimacy.
Once again, I welcome the dialogue on the merits of impeachment. I have corresponded with various professors including co-witnesses from the hearing on such points. I have not hesitated to say when I thought that they were wrong. However, I have strived to be fair and I have never taken our academic disagreements to the type of persona ad hominem attack employed by Professor Hughes. As I wrote recently, I am not surprised by the low-grade name calling that characterize the public debate in this age of rage. However, the corruption of our academic discourse is disheartening.
Jonathan: You seemed all worked up by Professor Hughes’ observations about the history of impeachment and your testimony in the House impeachment inquiry. You call the professor’s criticism “low-grade name calling” and a “corruption of our academic discourse”. You have staked out a position in support of the minority Republican view that there was no basis to impeach Trump for abuse of power or obstruction of Congress…and you are practically calling for the Senate to acquit. As I have previously commented when you entered the public arena by testifying in the impeachment inquiry you have to expect others in academia might disagree with your views. It’s OK to be “partisan”. In this “age of rage” caused by Trump’s attempts to assume more and more dictatorial powers there’s not much room for dispassionate discourse from the rarefied air of academia. I suggest you develop a thicker skin to avoid the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”.
For so many years, I have observed the Left call conservatives every possible name in the book for disagreeing with there policies. Support a work requirement, be accused of hating the poor. Want immigration to go through legal channels? You’re xenophobic. Oppose unaffordable Obamacare, which is not accepted by many doctors and cancer treatment centers? You don’t want the poor to get health care.
It’s like an unthinking habit at this point. Don’t discuss the facts with a conservative. Don’t listen to their opinion. Just call them vile names or make false accusations. Anything to change the subject from the flaws in a Democrat position.
And now it has come to this. You can expect a Democrat to assault you or harass you if you wear a MAGA hat or if you’re an invited conservative speaker, but Democrats experience no such threat en masse.
We have observed one false accusation after another be debunked against Trump. Conservatives identify with someone targeted with false accusations for political purposes. The anti-semitism and Russian collusion hoaxes were rather prominent in the morass.
If Trump had committed a high crime, like murdering someone, then the country would have unified against him. Instead, we have seen another debunked accusation. Again, we have discovered that it was the Democrats, not Trump, guilty of the crime. In this case, it was a quid pro quo with Joe Biden and Ukraine, caught on camera. It seems to keep ramping up, and now it’s gotten to the point of impeachment. They threatened this the day after he was elected, and now they’ve done it…on another false accusation. This is an attempt to either undo the 2016 election, gather opposition research they otherwise would not have access to, and damage him for 2020, all at taxpayer expense. They have abused their authority to try to tip the scales in the next election. It’s abhorrent.
It’s galvanizing. We must not let these people take power. Look at what they’ve done with it so far, the false allegations. The attacks on the Constitution, from the 2nd Amendment to the electoral college. The core of the Democrat Party is a powerful government at the expense of the individual. They’re trying to sell it like the government will be a benevolent parent who just wants to take care of you…forever. I’ve listed the abuses of power to date. Don’t believe the selling point. Make government that powerful and regret it.
This has gone way beyond the difference between moderate Democrats and Republicans, in their beliefs about government’s role.
Murder is a low crime.
You really need to know just what is a high crime. Start with Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not a respected source. I use it at times when I don’t have time to deep dive.
The definition is actually in dispute by current legal experts. Many believe it to be an egregious abuse of power of the office…such as ordering a drone strike against Trudeau for mocking him.
The American people will not accept anything but a serious offense for removal of a sitting president. Bill Clinton committed felony perjury, admitted to it, but there was not widespread support for his removal. Some Republicans voted against the articles, so there was some bipartisan opposition.
Claiming Trump said something that the transcript proved he did not is not sufficient grounds for removing a legally elected president. Ukraine did not know about any quid pro quo, which renders the entire accusation moot. You can’t strong-arm someone if they don’t know anything about it.
Just stop. You guys are like the French Terror, forever infamous for bloodlust and ravening mobs.
Wikipedia is good enough for this blog. Stop yammering on…
Also, murder is not a low crime. It’s a major crime, as opposed to other minor crimes.
“High” and “low” are not generally used in modern times, unless you are referring to crime rates, hence the debate.
Balderdash. You merely expose your ignorance.
I take the Constitution to be modern.
Not written in Latin. 🙂
https://images.app.goo.gl/QDEUP8xQZVZrEgVCA
Karen S.,
Brace yourself for “Fiddlesticks” from Benson next, to follow his “Balderdash” .
I am rather shocked at how my attitude towards Trump has evolved. I vehemently opposed him as a candidate in the primaries. Didn’t know much about him, really. I’m frankly pleased at many of his policy accomplishments, and not surprised at his Twitter missteps. He is always ready to negotiate. Or fire someone.
I’ve been pushed to defend him from one false accusation after another, until I’ve come to view him as the Everyman Conservative, constantly fending off dirty political warfare. Trump is a mirror. If you insult him, he’ll insult you back. People are used to Republicans taking the high road, and allowing Democrats to define what they stand for. Trump catches the mud and throws it back. I wish he was more effective in his fighting, rather than just wallowing in it. But you deal with the reality of the person before you. He’s up there, getting hit with false accusations, exponentially more than we all are whenever we conservatives talk politics with hardline Democrats.
Democrats in Congress will do anything, anything at all, to get him out. Hold their martini, Machiavelli.
Agreed. The vast majority of liberals have nothing to say anymore that merits discussion. The ones who do are commonly quite elderly and came of age in a better cultural matrix than the one we have now. The academics among them are malicious like the rest of them or they are evasive and supercilious. Of course, some of the elderly aren’t much good, either, as you can tell from your exchanges with Sundown Dave.
For allegedly being so knowledgeable you consistently show us how truculent and corrosive you are, and at 6:30 in the early morning, no less. If liberals are so malicious pray tell what is your excuse?
By their fruits ye shall know them
Fix it
The House Dems have lost any of my support. Send over the indictment to the Senate. Have a trial with all the rules of evidence controlling in any federal criminal trial. No hearsay. The evidence and testimony has to be relevant to the two charges. Let the trial begin!
We need a topic on the blog about the nature of “professor ships” in America. Many who write on the media and websites have a self snottyness which is beyond the Pale. I am not referring to Joann Palin when I say the Pale.
The Professor in question failed to openly state what he openly demonstrated as one of first of the last group that is Marxist Leninist in conduct. Even the media is ahead of the group that hides behind a border of ivy in a caricature of the opposite of renaissance.
Thus the story waits on a very hot summer and hotter fall to melt all the snowflakes as the Constitutional Centrist Coalition goes from 40% of the vote (the largest block of 2016) to 50% plus as more walk aways join in and those two numbers do not represent the Independent Democrats and Constitutional Republic Party of the DNC and GOP.
That’s how you get from 95% to 45% or unpolled to controlling the election as 40% coupled with 15%. roughly speaking for a 55% lead.
It helped though to have all the walk aways and huge number of splinter groups in th Centrist Coalition one of the largest being the leaders the off duty members of the combat arms of our Constitutional Republics military. They did a great job of providing guidance in what became a counter revolution and provided 80% of the combat arms voted against Clinton.
And all the pollsters for sale who got it SOOOOO wrong.
What is the opposite of renaissance? Power Thesaurus offers the following choices also useful in describing the DNC Socialist Party.
decline
n.
ruin
,
end
deterioration
n.
ruin
,
end
loss
n.
ruin
,
end
destruction
n.
ruin
,
end
end
n.
ruin
,
devastation
demolition
n.
ruin
,
devastation
annihilation
n.
ruin
,
demolition
carnage
n.
ruin
,
demolition
elimination
n.
ruin
,
demolition
massacre
n.
ruin
,
demolition
murder
n.
ruin
,
demolition
ruin
n.
destruction
,
devastation
slaughter
n.
ruin
,
demolition
abolition
n.
ruin
,
demolition
bane
n.
ruin
,
demolition
crushing
n.
ruin
,
demolition
dissolving
n.
ruin
,
demolition
devastation
n.
ruin
,
demolition
expiration
n.
ruin
,
end
forfeiture
n.
seizure
,
forfeit
downfall
n.
ruin
,
end
eradication
n.
ruin
,
demolition
extermination
n.
ruin
,
demolition
extinction
n.
ruin
,
demolition
dilapidation
n.
seizure
,
forfeit
failure
n.
seizure
,
forfeit
abatement
n.
seizure
,
forfeit
retrogression
n.
seizure
,
forfeit
disrepair
n.
seizure
,
forfeit
obsolescence
n.
seizure
,
forfeit
disintegration
n.
seizure
,
forfeit
dissolution
n.
seizure
,
forfeit
slump
n.
period
,
turning-point
conclusion
impairment
n.
seizure
,
forfeit
withdrawal
n.
self-destruction
tissue necrosis
decay
decadence
degradation
breakdown
declension
breakup
depravation
degeneracy
depression
bankruptcy
attenuation
comedown
Enjoy the lesson in literacy!
Prof Turley attempts, futilely, to project himself as an “above the fray” academic commentator with no axe. In his attempt to give himself an off-ramp should Trump go down, however, he reveals his support for the orange one and his stand against impeachment. He is not nearly so subtle as he would propose, as his posts permit him to come down upon either side. And he rants about intellectual dishonesty. Wow.
You can’t be Chuck Aspinwall. He left in a principled huff weeks ago and, for him to return now, after castigating our host and all the commenters here would be sheer hypocrisy. Get thee behind me, you imposter!!!
He meant to change his name to:
Chuck Ass-n-da-wall
😜
Anonymous:
Okay, you win the internet today. I’m still chuckling after five minutes.
juvenille humor from mespo @ 4:16 and anonymous @ 2:43
Anonymous:
We like juvenile humor. It’s the best kind when dealing with the absurd.
JT:
“Professor Ken Hughes of University of Virginia recently penned a column to denounce the utter partisanship and lack of integrity in Washington as demonstrated by the failure of a single Republican to support the impeachment of President Donald Trump.He did not, of course, view the virtually unanimous vote by Democrats as partisan. ”
****************
Here’s the money shot from Hughes’ article:
“Turley’s is partisan history for partisan purposes. It enables one party to abandon principle and precedent while accusing the other of doing the same.”
Project much, Prof. Hughes? UVa has become “Moscow on the Rivanna River” with the pseudo- apparatchiks like Hughes mouthing every twisted, blatant left-wing hypocrisy imaginable which you have so vibrantly pointed out. Keep the spotlight shining. It keeps ’em scurrying.
Prof T says:
“I have strived to be fair and I have never taken our academic disagreements to the type of persona ad hominem attack employed by Professor Hughes. As I wrote recently, I am not surprised by the low-grade name calling that characterize the public debate in this age of rage. However, the corruption of our academic discourse is disheartening.”
Professor T is a classic liberal living in a postmodern age.
Postmodernism is absolutely pervasive throughout our politics now and that academia which clearly does not function under liberal ideals anymore. With respect I encourage Professor T to learn more about postmodernism. It is very important to understand. For all of us but especially for law professors who continue to try and project liberal ideals. Please take a look at the work of the Italian communist politician and philosopher Gramsci and the long shadow cast over us by his thought. You can read candidate Pete Buttigieg’s father’s work on him.
In short everything is viewed not through some Enlightenment schema of objective reality, but the idea is, reality itself is informed by the particulars of our existence such as most of all, class, ie, the proleteriat, race, gender, etc. This notion is core to how the entire Left including the Democrat political leadership pursues its works.
http://www.bgu.ac.il/~ngordon/Marx%20Article.pdf
rethinking Marxism by Joseph Buttigieg et al.
The key to handling the problems this outlook poses is right before us, however. It is to embrace this kind of particularist thinking ourselves, to some extent, and move beyond the Enlightenment dogmas and its liberal universal-isms that have shown their lack of applicability to the diverse wide world in which we live.
“rethinking Marxism by Joseph Buttigieg et al.”
*****************
Now there’s a familiar name! And topic.
Mr. K:
“In short everything is viewed not through some Enlightenment schema of objective reality, but the idea is, reality itself is informed by the particulars of our existence such as most of all, class, ie, the proleteriat, race, gender, etc. This notion is core to how the entire Left including the Democrat political leadership pursues its works.”
******************
Postmodernism is a revolt against the Western notion of rationalism spawned by the Enlightenment with roots in the Classic World of the Romans and Greeks. These ideologues are collectivists who have no interest in fair play, rational thought or any form of persuasion other than at the end of a bayonet. They are, in the vernacular of the Christian Church, evil to the core. And they ought to be dealt with that way.
Paul about sums it up writing to the Romans: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” It’s the truth that is the enemy of the postmodernist not the liberal.
I understand that Mespo but I am not a very good Christian anymore.
In group conflict, well organized groups win. Not individuals, though individuals are what forms groups. Anyways, Christians are not very well organized anymore. The Enlightenment itself discarded Christianity. America as a child of the Enlightenment is an explicitly secular society. It’s hard for me to see how Christianity is going to be a sufficient cause to rally Americans against the social poison being stuffed down their throats.
This has been the quandry for a couple hundred years now, more or less. I am not the first to
in 1933 Heidegger reflected on Nietzsche’s dictum that “God is dead” for the West, and remember Nietzsche also said, “God is dead, we have killed him.”
precisely, Nietzsche wrote:
“THE MADMAN—-Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: “I seek God! I seek God!”—As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?—Thus they yelled and laughed
The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he cried; “I will tell you. We have killed him—you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.
“How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us—for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.”
Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars—and yet they have done it themselves.
It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: “What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?”
Heidegger suggested that we had still not come to terms with this. The edifice of Western thought which as you say is based upon rationality– that is to say, reason, and measurement, going back to Heraclitus– was still with us. And that God was still with us but like a big empty throne. Where to go from here?
The Left answered that. By saying, we go from here, and we just keep going. They have a direction. That direction is to define their team and seek power. Now that is pretty ruthless. But looking back, it seems like it’s worked out pretty well for them, considering how strongly ensconsced they are at the pinnacles of institutional power in the West, if not fully in control of everything, quite yet.
Those who are not part of the “Left” need to figure out how to go from where they are. In my mind, it all starts with asking “who are we?” I think the question is very powerful and more the question than the answer.
but here is Heidegger’s essay on Nietzsche’s dictum
https://www.scribd.com/document/160876554/Heidegger-Nietzsche-s-Word-God-is-Dead-Holzwege
You can draw a straight line from Heidegger to Carl Schmitt and to where we are now, precisely with Trump and this most recent actions. Both for the difficulties and the promise of a better path forwards.
I keep on suggesting it but Schmitt did three works that are relevant
Concept of the Political
Theory of the Partisan
Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy
When will you ever shut up?
This is not a chat room. It is a blog where people make a few comments and move on with their lives. What is wrong with you, Kurtz?
Most of the regulars treat it like a chat room. Kurtz has a life in the evenings and on the weekends, apparently, but many of the others are married to this place.
I would mark the turning point in the US as Oxford publishing the first so-called “study Bible,” the Scofield Reference Bible, the first to teach Protestant Christians as follows: “I shall bless those who bless thee, and I shall curse those who curse thee.”
The above words God the Father spoke to then-childless Abraham. Later Abraham begat Isaac who begat Jacob; God later changed Jacob’s name to Israel.
Oxford and Scofield instructed American Protestants that God secretly referred to a nation Israel that did not exist, named after an unborn person, and kept this grand secret from Abraham for reason unknown and unknowable.
Such was the birth of modern Western Zionist-Christianity, invented in the minds of Zionists who then controlled Oxford’s executive board. Further proof is that Scofield was a never-before published American convicted criminal who abandoned his wife and child for an Oxford paycheck. Prior to Scofield’s bible Oxford had seldom if ever published previously unpublished authors.
Further proof of Oxford’s current duplicity: modern Scofield Bibles have no list of editors, yet it is continuously edited. A naïve person who reads it might think Scofield is either alive or that it has never been edited since Scofield died.
The verse I posted above and the Scofield meaning is the heart and soul of the USA’s largest denomination the Southern Baptist Convention. Any SBC member who publicly denies Scofield’s meaning is immediately excommunicated.
Zionist Christianity is largely to blame for the acceptance of modern military excursions I the ME. Modern Western “evangelicals” literally believe they go straight to hell if they don’t die for and give their wealth to modern Israel, one of the biggest crocks ever sold to the West.
.
Professor Turley. I hope by now you have realized that TDS is quite real and that nothing that you say or do can change that. However, thank you for your service. It has to be so frustrating to see some of the people you have worked have completely lost their collective minds. The real sad thing about all of this is that these people teach and therefore are influencing tomorrow’s lawmakers.
But there was bipartisanship just not enough. Members of both parties voted no. Is this not correct?
ALL FELLOW AMERICANS NEED TO ACTUALLY WAKE UP and PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC ( AMERICA ) FROM STATE AGENT PROVOCATEURS
5b524043e9 http://eagleonetowanta.com
quit with the spam wanta!
He has just as much of a right to post as you do.
he has zero relevance to this conversation and is just promoting his book which if you look into it is patently fraudulent
so, just ignore it
like everyone ignores you
Dear Professor, Subpoenas are very different from murder charges! Trump claims he’s done nothing wrong why block the subpoenas? I think we all know that answer. I realize you don’t want to recognize the very clear similarities here and that’s your right but really.
Trump claims he’s done nothing wrong why block the subpoenas? I think we all know that answer.
_________________________________________
I know you don’t know the answer.
And
It is unlikely that your guess about the answer is correct.
Positions at the University of Virginia aren’t distributed in Cracker-Jack boxes. This man’s been through screens and screens and screens. This is what you get at the end. It’s another example, in case we needed one, that American academe is suffering through a decadent period and is, in the words of Fr. Paul Shaughnessy SJ “sociologically corrupt”. You want to clean the problem up, you need to put colleges and universities in receivership, and be sure the receivers are not professors or school administrators. They lack the internal resources to fix themselves.
Hmmm. He hasn’t been through screens. He’s a lapsed magazine reporter hired as a contract researcher at the Miller Center. It’s actually an indication of a different and more circumscribed sort of corruption: patronage for favored political interests.
I think they need some Saloth Sar style reeducation camps with shovels and ditches to clean them up. But that’s just me.
However, I won’t put any hopes even on modest reform. Here’s a more realistic idea: the universities are fantastically rich and powerful. There is a desperate need to reign in their phony “non-profit” abuses. These socalled “public charities” should be under the same sort of restrictions that private foundations are. There’s certain tax laws out there which were aimed at curbing abuses by “charities” in the past and they need to be refocused now on “NGOS” masquerading as charities and in fact which are just political operations in drag.
History is best viewed through 3D glasses.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jan/08/scientists-play-shrimp-films-to-cuttlefish-in-3d-vision-study
I’m sure Professor Hughes leaves his bias outside the classroom.
I don’t think his position includes any teaching assignments. He works for the Miller Center, not any instructional faculty.
People generally don’t realize how most of university teaching is left up to junior collegiate staff and the big name trouble-makers have all day long to ply their mischief with few responsibilities that actually resemble “work”
I did have some excellent well known tenured professors along the way who were fantastic teachers, but I’ve come to suspect that they were a dying breed. They were almost all old for starters, back when i was young, and anyways that was several decades ago. I doubt the situation has improved.
People generally don’t realize how most of university teaching is left up to junior collegiate staff and the big name trouble-makers have all day long to ply their mischief with few responsibilities that actually resemble “work”
They don’t realize it because it’s largely AAUP propaganda. Full-time faculty supply about 70% of the teaching manpower in higher education. Some of the remainder is supplied by clinical faculty who make their real living doing something else. I’ve known some slatternly faculty at research institutions, but they were a minority.
And I seriously doubt this yo-yo is doing any teaching unless there is comprehensive fiduciary failure at UVa. He has no research degree in any subject. He’s a lapsed journalist.
Intellectual dishonesty is still dishonesty; once Prof. Hughes discredited himself, there was no more reason to listen to him.