Impeachment Mania Hits Universities: Students Are Facing Trials Or Removals Over Political Views

In his dissent in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), Justice Louis Brandeis famously wrote that “Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.” While that observation concerns criminal wrongdoing by the government, it seems particularly apropos today on our campuses where impeachments and removals are now seemingly the rage.  For the last four years, members of Congress and legal experts have called for impeachments based on everything from Trump’s tweets on NFL kneeling to his denouncing prosecutors. Most recently, this includes the use of a “snap impeachment.” The latest such example is unfolding on the campus of the Rochester Institute of Technology where a student senator is facing impeachment after defending the right of campus police to wear a Blue Lives Matter face mask.

We discussed an earlier impeachment effort at Loyola Marymount University of a student senator who held conservative views. There were prior such impeachments at the University of Southern California and Bowdoin University.  A similar effort was launched recently at Georgetown University where the student government moved against a student for writing a column viewed as critical of Black Lives Matter.  A similar campaign against conservative students were launched at Cornell University. Editors and writers have also been removed from student publications for their conservative views, including recently at the University of Wisconsin.

In most of these cases, the universities remained conspicuously silent as students were subject to official discipline for holding opposing views of police brutality or the Black Lives Matter movement. It is reflective of the rising intolerance in higher education and the silent acquiescence of university administrators as students and faculty are subjected to these campaigns.

The controversy this week at RIT involves a student senator Jacob Custer and a petition signed by other student senators for his impeachment.  What concerns me is the inclusion of Custer’s viewpoints as grounds for impeachment: “These actions include, but are not limited to, negative attitudes towards members, blatant disregard of the effects of controversial topics such as Blue Lives Matter and how it affects the Black and Brown community, and blatant disregard for anyone’s views.”

For his part, Custer claims that the campaign was launched after he defended a campus officer who who wore a Thin Blue Line face mask. According to the conservative site College Fix, Custer wrote “Wearing such masks if they want to is not counterintuitive. It is perfectly okay for students and adults to express it since it is free speech. It is not disrespectful either. We are student government, representing all students. It is not our role to determine what idea is good or bad simply because a few members or more disagree with it and punish members of our community over something small. That is just outright censorship.”

I cannot speak to the merits of these claims but what concerns me is the absence of clear position of the university that students should not be penalized for their political or social viewpoints. If there is evidence that Custer has failed in required duties, they should be stated directly and clearly. More importantly, the inclusion of his viewpoints in the resolution should be addressed by the university.

The very intellectual  touchstone of higher education is free speech and academic freedom. Students who come to our campuses should be able to engage in our national debate over such issues without fear of being ostracized or penalized. The message from such campaigns is clear for conservative, libertarian, or just contrarian students: if you voice dissenting views, you will be formally denounced or removed from positions. The organizers of these campaigns know that such actions have a harmful impact on future applications or prospects for accused students.  The intended chilling effect is glacial on any other student who want to engage in a good-faith debate over the issues that will be defining our nation for generations.

 

429 thoughts on “Impeachment Mania Hits Universities: Students Are Facing Trials Or Removals Over Political Views”

  1. “Freedom vs. economic freedom.”

    John, Economic freedom is a better word and is quite different from freedom.

    1. “Economic freedom is a better word and is quite different from freedom.”

      Nope. At best economic freedom is a subset of freedom. That should be obvious.

      But even that is not completely true.

      At each tail of every chain of economic tranactions is something decidedly uneconomic.

      I work so that I can have dinners out with my wife, travel to visit my children, feed my dogs so that I can play with them.

      Economic freedom alone has little value. That is what the PRC is facing.

      1. “At best economic freedom is a subset of freedom. That should be obvious.”

        In the context of the discussion economic freedom was more descriptive. Look at all your comments including the ones on China.

        1. Read Coases book – or engage in some critical thinking (not meant as an insult).

          A totalitarian regime with economic freedom can do quite well. But without political and other freedom’s there are limits.

          Since Coase completed his book and died China has become more represive.

          Our data on china is poor, but there are lots of indications that China is weakening as a consequence of renewed repression.

          1. It was predicted quite awhile back that when the technocrats emerged as the new leaders of China increasing repression of the Chinese people would occur. Gordon Chang has been predicting the “The Coming Collapse of China” since 2001. I agree with a lot of the problems China had then and has now but in 2001 despite the economic situation I wouldn’t have thought of the ‘coming collapse of the United States’. So much for predictions.

            1. These is not about speculative predictions.

              I do not know the basis of the predictions that you offered.

              I do know that of Coase, who did not predict the collapse of china, only a slowdown in growth if China did not move towards greater political and other freedom. There is massive historical evidence that Coase is correct.

              Our data on China is poor – but there are strong indications that as Xi has become more repressive China’s growth rate has dropped and there are some serious hidden internal chinese economic problems

              We shall see.

              The US is clearly headed into a dark period. But it is not collapsing. We are just going to get to learn the hard way how horrible leftism is, and how badly it works.

              Trump was a backlash against Obama.

              Who knows maybe I am wrong and the country will be happy with 4 years of woke tyranny and a stagnant economy.
              Bu I would not bet on it.

          2. What you think is “repression” in China is perhaps quite a bit less repressive than you may suspect.

            Normal Chinese people don’t interest themselves in politics there. Wisely, for all the obvious reasons, but also because politics has never been much the concern of the average person. We like the subject here among us who comment, but average people care far less about it than we do. We should not attribute all our own values, to hters, though we often do.

            But is the government there really bullying the devil out of the population? Oh, I don’t think so. Not even close. A number of the population to be sure. But not most of them.

            If regular people avoid political topics, they are pretty well left to themselves.

            Now let us review our present situation here in the glorious USA

            Our own government, rather than serving the majority legacy population openly, and uplifting and praising it, attacks that population regularly, in a thousand different ways. You know– “racism” is now the fault of ALL white people because of this newer thing they call ‘Systematic racism.” Many of our prominent public figures revile people of European ancestry as a group and claim that we are perpetrators of the worst crimes in history. And strangely, many people of the same ancestry group, cheer this ethnic masochism on with glee!

            Can you imagine the CCP denouncing — the Chinese people? Telling them that they’re racist? Forcing every sort of imaginable disadvantage on them in employment quotas, university admissions, various forms of selective prosecutions, and openly tolerating billionaires adding gasoline to the fire? LOL. We can imagine a lot, but cant imagine that.

            Is the CCP forcing gender ideology on its population? Um, let’s see. Gays can’t even get married in the CCP. The party forbids it.

            Not that we really voted on that either– our party leaders in the SCOTUS decided one day, a new law of the land. Not a big day for me–I didn’t really care. I am a “normal person” that way. Gay marriage was not an issue for me when it was nonexistent, and its not much an issue now that its legalized too. I just observe: we did not vote on that one.

            Kind of like abortion too. Did we vote on that? No. The SCOTUS voted. Overturned 47 state laws in one day. “Freedom!” “Democracy!” The freedom there is the freedom of mothers to snuff out fetal lives. Well, perhaps it is ok for society that it is legal to a degree, perhaps so. I am not a pro life crusader. But, let us see that “freedom” for what it is.

            What about taxation? Oh, life is so much simpler in the PRC when it comes to taxes. That’s for sure. No estate and gift tax, most people ignore the nominal income tax, and government gathers revenues with an inobtrusive VAT.

            I view the CCP overlords of the PRC as a national adversary of the US. I believe they do maintain certain injustices and repressions against their people. But oh what a lot more people they have to manage. It is perhaps a more difficult task than we might understand. Imagine a nation the size of China being run by the Democrat party.
            Wow., Talk about a nightmare.

            And, in all sincerity., I am not sure at all that they are nearly as oppressive as we believe. Indeed we should look to how oppressive our overlords are and ask perhaps we have fooled ourselves into thinking things are better than they really are.

            Perhaps some of our oppressions, are more clever? Like, you can say whatever you want on public property, perhaps. THat is until somebody hears you and you are “removed as a security threat.” And, who gathers to listen to debate in public anyways? We all talk on the internet, which is owned by private overlords in the US, who silence us just as efficiently as the government silences dissenters “behind the bamboo curtain.”

            I am not going to be whining about the CCP anymore. I don’t worry about those repressive overlords. They’re not repressing me. The ones in DC NYC and the Bay Area are the ones Im worried about, from now on. Oh, I know. The CCP has a lot of them in the pocket. Well, that show how weak WE are, that they fear the CCP more than they do us. That should change.

            Sal Sar

            1. I am not interested in a debate over what constitutes repression in China.

              Though I would note that Falun Gong, The Uighurs, and those in Hong Kong would differ with you. I would also suggest there are several smuggled documentaries from China on Amazon that would give you a first person perspective.

              Regardless, repression is subjective. Freedom is not. Sustained economic growth requires more than economic freedom.

            2. I would suggest watching one child nation if you do not think there is significant bullying of ordinary people

  2. “Do you agree that capitalism is a term that means substantially different things to different people ?”

    John, I have no problem with your use of the phrase free markets. Free markets and capitalism, though related to one another, have different definitions.

    1. “Free markets and capitalism, though related to one another, have different definitions.”

      Define them.

      1. John, I know you won’t like the answer but there are loads of dictionaries that will define the words for you. Merriam Webster is one of them.

        Presently it seems you are looking for argument because you don’t like my recent answers

        1. No, I do not like your recent answers. Your dictionary fetish is misguided and is shades of 1984.

          I do not loath dictionaries. They have their place. But they are a value add not a requirement and they are an easily coopted tool to destroy language. We are only seeing hints of that – but that is coming too.

          Where are all of your dictionary arguments going to get you when the woke left takes over the dictionaries.
          We are already seeing activists successfully getting dictionaries to redefine terms.

          1. “No, I do not like your recent answers. Your dictionary fetish is misguided and is shades of 1984.”

            John you are very confused. 1984 demanded conformity and that included the meaning of words. I am suggesting something quite different, an agreement on the meaning of words by people that are involved in dealing with one another. Merriam Webster or another source is an aid not a demand from a despot. It calls for mutual agreement not for authoritarian decisions.

            I do not say dictionaries are the final word. They may or may not be a good place to start. However, in discussion when you say you cannot put down in writing a definition for a word you are being authoritarian. You know what you think and demand others think in the same fashion or they are wrong.

            What is justified force? That means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. You have something in your mind, but your mind is not open for everyone else to read and discuss.

            1. There is no requirement that language be determined by agreement. Communication would work perfectly well if we were given a fixed vocabularly by fiat – so long as it was orderly enough to learn easily, and of sufficient breadth to express anything we needed to communicate.

              Mathematical, logic, and computer languages work exactly that way, and work well.

              Human language is traditionally determined by use. That works well enough as the language shifts and expands to suit our changing needs to communicate.

              By agreement is NOT the same as by use. Control over language is incredibly dangerous. The greatest danger in control of language is censorship. We miss that there are multiple forms of censorship occuring concurrently today.

              Explicitly barring people from saying specific things is only one form of censorship. A more dangerous form is changing language such that we can not convey some ideas.

              This latter is Orwell’s primary focus. And is the more insidious problem we face today.

              Contrary to your claims – in specific arguments I use a very narrow vocabulary of very specific words. And you will note that I am religious in precluding different meanings for those words. I use FORCE constantly. I rarely use coerce or compell or other synonyms, or nuanced variants. i am not interested in debates over the nuances. Not that those are never important, but they are a distraction from my argument.
              I also use violence – and refuse to allow speech to be conflated with force or violence. Another in my limited pallet of words is justify.
              Justify is more probelmatic – force, and violence – beyond the efforts to conflate speech with force and violence are close to universally understood – this is addressing your problematic and completely incorrect use of “proprietary definitions”. I do not use proprietary defintions but the opposite, only the narrowest of defintions that are so common/universal that we do not need a dictionary. Aside from the effort to bleed force and violence into speech we are all very clear on what is and is not violence or force and we do not need dictionaries.
              And I have argued correctly that this MUST be the case to the largest extent possible to make law.
              Law must be limited, it must use few common words, and it must use them in their most universally and clearly understood way – not in some dictionary way. Laws must also to the greatest extent possible confine themselves to near universally accepted negative morality.

              The above is little different from the Madison Federalist quote I gave you.

              While it is difficult to express precisely the breadth and depth of “jusitification” – it is still not driven by dictionaries. It is driven by our core negative morality. Almost all killing is not justified. Almost all uses of force against others are not justified. The initiation of force in particular is almost never justified.

              1. You are satisfied with an authoritarian understanding of words where you dictate their meanings and others follow even when you haven’t stated what those words actually mean. A Tower of Babel will be created and to maintain control you will have to execute all those that cannot read your mind.

                When we first got into this dispute over force and the adjectives applied we were dealing with existential threats and there too you refused to recognize the gray zone of what were existential threats. The only way for your system to work is if you are dictator.

                1. “You are satisfied with an authoritarian understanding of words where you dictate their meanings and others follow even when you haven’t stated what those words actually mean. A Tower of Babel will be created and to maintain control you will have to execute all those that cannot read your mind.”

                  Nope, I do not dictate the meaning of these critical words related to govenrment and the use of force. They are determined by our common understanding – as words have been determined throughout most of human history.
                  I am not in control of the meaning of words.

                  But I do oppose offorts by those on the left to redefine words – specifically for the purpose of blurring meaning.

                  “When we first got into this dispute over force and the adjectives applied we were dealing with existential threats and there too you refused to recognize the gray zone of what were existential threats. The only way for your system to work is if you are dictator.”

                  No I refused to accept that a threat alone was a justification for the use of force.

                  As an example during the capital protests – Alishi was killed by a police officer.
                  I have no problem with the argument the officier perceived her as a threat.
                  But a threat is not sufficient to kill someone. We use force in response to force.
                  You are free to PREPARE to use force in response to threats. But your perception of a threat is not sufficient to use force.

                  You are making a serious logical error with respect to “gray areas”.

                  It is unlikely that any two people will be in agreement as to the degree of threat that exists. That is a gray area. I accept that.

                  We can debate and congress can make its own assessment and make plans and funds regarding the military that exceed what I think is reasonable. Again grey areas.

                  But we do not go to war – Actually US force, without an ACT OF WAR. Threats are not suffiicent.
                  The gray area – or atleast most of it, is with regard to our preparation related to the threat.

                  To ACT we must respond to an ACT OF WAR – little or no grey area.

                  You claim to wish to minimize grey areas, but your comments universally seek to make them ever larger.

                  Words are not violence, threats are not acts.

                  1. “Nope, I do not dictate the meaning of these critical words related to govenrment and the use of force. ”

                    John, you did to me, When we were discussing justified force I brought up existential threats which means different things to different people. You stated in perhaps different words that force had to be justified. We discussed existential threats and at an impass you said that we all understood what the words meant. That must be our “common understanding” that you now mention, but your common understanding wasn’t so common because I didn’t agree.

                    Existential threat has a lot of latitude. Despite the fact that you said I was using a leftist technique I wasn’t changing the meaning of the words only how one would apply them in the discussion of threats.

                    “No I refused to accept that a threat alone was a justification for the use of force.”

                    That is why I used the term existential threat. We went through some of the threats and I line drew until we reached a point where definitions were necessary. That is when we got into a discussion about the use of words and dictionaries.

  3. The Rosenbergs were pretty much nothing. While some evidence has subsequently come out implicating Ethel Rosenberg,

    the fact is that the Rosenbergs were inconsequential pretend spies.

    You’ve had too much to drink. What Ethel Rosenberg was accused of doing was producing some typescripts for her husband. If I’m not mistaken, David Greenglass subsequently admitted having shivved his sister to protect his wife.

    And, no, they weren’t ‘pretend spies’. Julius Rosenberg’s contact with Soviet intelligence was still alive in 1996 and sat for an interview with the Washington Post. He said Rosenberg was a welcome source of classified information on radio technology, which included smuggling out cutting-edge devices from his workplace.

    1. I have no idea what Rosenberg’s contact said – nor does that have much weight – If the rosenbergs were inconsequential – then the contact was in consequential.

      Regardless, with the fall of the USSR a treasure trove of Soviet data became available.
      The rosenbergs were not a consequential source used by the soviets to develop the bomb.

      They most serious leaks were in the UK.

      But even the leaks were not all that important.

      The most important advantage that the Russians had in developing the Bomb was the knowledge that it was possible.

      The Russians developed the Atom Bomb far faster than we expected. That was more an under appreciation of the soviet capability, than a consequence of spying.

      The soviets followed the Atom Bomb with the Hydrogen Bomb in record time.
      They followed that by beating the US to Space. They remained ahead in the space race until about 1964.
      At that time their mot brilliant rocket scientist died unexpectedly.
      Further Kruschev hand cuffed soviet rocketry by fixating on getting a long sequence of soviet firsts into the news, to the harm of actually advancing the science.

      Even today in several weapons areas the Russians remain ahead of the US.

      The russians are not stupid, and they did not get where they are by stealing everything from us.

      The rosenbergs were spies, they were guilty, but they were inconsequential to the soviet bomb program.

  4. Dr. T – YES YOU CAN “SPEAK TO THE MERITS OF THESE CLAIMS”. Take a look at the vile liberal students’ absurd claims, “These actions include, but are not limited to, negative attitudes towards members, blatant disregard of the effects of controversial topics such as Blue Lives Matter and how it affects the Black and Brown community, and blatant disregard for anyone’s views.” Tell me how you could ever defend such absurd statements as “…blatant disregard for anyone’s views”.

    Now read Custer’s cogent and constitutional statement …. “Wearing such masks if they want to is not counterintuitive. It is perfectly okay for students and adults to express it since it is free speech. It is not disrespectful either. We are student government, representing all students. It is not our role to determine what idea is good or bad simply because a few members or more disagree with it and punish members of our community over something small. That is just outright censorship.”

    It’s time that even Democrats start standing up for truth and our constitution and speaking AGAINST the absurd claims of the far left!

  5. So the National Guard will remain in DC for months. Why ? Because the Biden administration is so tennuous in legitimacy that it is terrified of the people.

    It was OK this summer to have “protestors” burning and looting through DC. To attempt to destroy the fence arround the white house, but a few windows get broken at the capital and our government is terrified of its own people.

    There is an easy way to avoid that – Do not govern lawloessly.

    https://greenwald.substack.com/p/reflecting-the-authoritarian-climate?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyMDE4NDY1MywicG9zdF9pZCI6MzE4OTgwMzgsIl8iOiJDS1czUCIsImlhdCI6MTYxMTY5NjEyMiwiZXhwIjoxNjExNjk5NzIyLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTI4NjYyIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.GWFSDUjDtxFyCRRlZ83xAcAtghlxXRxack09V4iFe9s

  6. SEIZING ABSOLUTE POWER
    For Dummies
    .
    Chapter 4
    Getting The Useful Idiots To Do The Dirty Work For You.
    .
    Once you sucessfully create mass hysteria in the sheeple, it’s just a matter of choosing which slaughterhouse you want to stampede them toward.

    1. There is no absolute power.

      Onje of the reasons that Sweden did not follow the rest of the west – aside from the fact that there is no scientific support for lockdowns, is that the use of government power is only temporarily tolerated.

      Way too many are looking at what happened at the capital and saying “almost an insurrection, we must not go there”, instead of grasping that if we continue as we are violent insurrection is inevitable.

      Outside those on the left – this is not a nation of sheep.

      1. Then why do white citizens put up with 540k violent assaults against them by blacks and 4k black on white rapes? Everyone is terrifed of being called a Racist.

  7. All, and I mean every single instance, of cancel culture comes exclusively from the Far Left.
    All censorship and banning for political expression in social media comes exclusively from the Far Left.
    All massive election corruption, all abuse of government power against individuals of the political opposition, all of it comes from the Far Left.
    All calls to ostracize citizens who hold contrary political views come from the Far Left.

    I have to wonder what political views prevent Jonathan Turley from speaking out against all this. His opinions are so tepid as to be worthless.

    1. It’s time to bring the A game. Watch Sen. Rand Paul spar with the little turd Stuffaluffapus on ABC this past Sunday. That’s the A game all need to start bringing.

      1. Paul was good,

        He made a very important point.

        But both of them missed a much more important point.

        Government exists only with the consent of the governed.

        It does not matter if the electorate is right or wrong – when they do not trust government. government is no longer legitimate.

        This is one of the more critical issues regarding the capital protests.

        Those protests were messy, and complicated, and do not clearly fit into any “box”.

        They were NOT an insurrection. but they WERE the precursor to insurrection. They were what happens when government loses the trust of the people.

        No one was going to hang mike pence. No one was putting Pelosi’s head on a pike.

        But we are headed in that direction.

        And to make something clear to Chaiman Xiden and the left – insurrection is NOT domestic terrorism.

        “When government fears the people, there is liberty”

        1. Correct, it was not an insurrection. The whole thing was a setup. The vast majority of the “insurrectionists” had no idea what was happening as the Capitol Police let them in the building to wander around like a bunch of goofballs. The whole “siege” was over in an hour or two. There are no ‘credible threats’ being reported that justify an absurd military occupation of Washington DC – which is all part of the charade. This whole impeachment trial nonsense is a Democrat/Media “Melodrama Part 2.” It’s a phony bunch of hooey so they can brainwash people into believing Trump voters are Domestic Terrorists. And they ALL know it. Shame on them all. Joe Biden says he wants “Unity” and then he says to Trump supporters “we’re coming after you, and labeling you all “terrorists”…and then we will destroy you, crush Trump and his MAGA movement”….so much Unity, eh?

          The focus of attention needs to be Election reform, including making ‘ballot harvesting’ illegal in all states, and to restore confidence in our elections. Democrats, of course, are just fine with the way things are. Republican legislators at all levels need to bring their A game and get it done. Let’s see if they do. Not holding my breath.

          1. Oh and to top it off…Eric Swalwell, who literally banged a Chinese Spy, is who Pelosi chose to deliver the articles of impeachment.

            1. Anyone who has the slightest doubts of the malevolence, hypocracy, and cluelessness of the left, need only look at its leaders.

              Do you think any republican caught banging a chinese spy could ever get elected ?

              Democrats force Kate Hill out over a lesbian affair – no spies in 100 miles.

              With leaders like Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer, Schff, and Swallwell – who expects anyone to take seriously anything they say about Trump ?

          2. The details are only marginally interesting.

            Much if not all of what you say is true. But there is more than that too.

            The entire thing is complex with no real central theme.
            It involves Antifa, and Qanon, and the FBI. In fact it may have been atleast partly instigated by the FBI unwittingly or even wittingly.

            It was NOT an insurection. But it was a warning that trust in government is incredibly low and we ARE moving closer to justifiable political violence – insurrection.

            It is not hard to defend it as an actual justifiable insurrection.

          3. “The whole thing was a setup.”

            patter
            limitations of our senses
            inability to integrate many things at the same time
            distraction

            Those are some of the ways magicians create illusions.

            We then fill in that which we don’t see or sense based on what we have already learned. That is one reason that it is often harder to fool a child. If magicians can manipulate our senses so can our politicians.

      2. Yeah, if trying to talk over your opponent to keep him from scoring on you again is your idea of an A game.

        Paul is not very bright. How’d he get into med school?

          1. Lawlessness and fraud.

            Regardless, I listened to claims that Trump was an idiot for the past 4 years – how did he get to the whitehouse ?

            That is far more impressive. It is also why the left (and some on the right) remain terrified of him.

        1. This is a Blog. there is no such thing as “talking over your opponent”.

          Your comments remain here forever – brilliant or stupid, for anyone who wishes.

          Your voice is not diminished by anyone else’s only by the quality of your own expression.

          Make a good argument and others will amplify it.

          1. Try to keep dip. the discussion was about the idiot Rand Paul getting his a.s kicked on TV Sunday morning.

            1. Everyone should listen to that video. It demonstrates a so called journalist taking sides, speaking over the guest, and having to back track what he erroneously implied in his discussion. GS looked like a fool but GS depends on fools believing anything he says.

              1. And yet there are people here on the left who think that Stephanopolis get the better of Paul.

                There is also a pretty good editorial by Denis Prager.

                https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/01/26/the_most_important_question_about_the_2020_election_145121.html

                Prager is too kind to the left – by using the Nazi equivalence and admitting that in 1932 he would have cheated to defeat Hitler.

                Regardless, the point he dances arround is extremely important.

                Today the left and the democratic party have no moral foundation. While that does not mean that all democrats act immorally, or all republicans act morally. It still means that there is significantly less reason to trust the left.

                The frequency with which a random selection of people are willing to make immoral choices is correlated to their moral foundations.

                “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
                John Adams

                Without moral foundations, the ends justifies the means.

                1. John Say writes:

                  “Today the left and the democratic party have no moral foundation. ”

                  Dude, you defend Trump regularly. You have no standing on the issue of morality.

                  1. John Say wanted to bet me on a final Covid death count at one point. He knows much more about morbidity than he does morality. Voting on a Covid death count shows a rather complete moral ineptitude.

                    As an aside, I believe we crossed the threshold of his ‘death count’ long ago.

                    Elvis Bug

                    1. This is a bizarre by typical leftist faux moral argument.

                      Like it or not every single thing we do is a bet.

                      The policies that you support bet the treasure of the country as well as the liberty of individuals against the demonstrably false assumption that you can beneficially alter outcomes.

                      That is actual immorality.

                      The problem with your leftist faux morality is that you are placing huge bets – and others have to pay when you inevitably lose.

                      All I ask is that you quit making bets with the lives or others.

                  2. And then there was that 10 point trumpy bear win John predicted for November. Not a guy with his pulse on the finer inner workings of public opinion, let’s just say that.

                    Elvis Bug

                    1. Anonymous lies about another in a thread on morality and you want to defend him.

                      I have never claimed to be humble, only right.

                      When have you been either humble or right ?

                    2. I predicted no such thing. I explicitly stated that I hoped that whoever won would do so by a large margin.

                      But I predicted exactly what we got – a close election and plausible accusations of fraud.

                      So you lie as evidence of your on morality ?

                  3. Actually I have not defended Trump regularly. I have attacked the left.

                    Noting that the left constantly lies – whether about Trump or everything else – is not a defense of Trump.
                    It is a fully justified attack on the left.

                    If you have actual specific evidence of bad conduct on the part of Trump – raise it.

                    I do not agree with many of his policies. Unfortunately I can not think of a single area I disagree with Trump on that the left is not worse.

                    1. Unfortunately I can not think of a single area I disagree with Trump on that the left is not worse.

                      Pretty much and across the board.

                  4. I have no standing ?

                    I have defended Free speech my entire life. I know you are clueless – but that is a first principled moral issue – one you are on the wrong side of.

                    I will be happy to measure my morality against yours any time.

                    Here is a pretty good test of positive morality.
                    Matthew 25:34-40

                    Have YOU ever cooked or served meals to the hungry ?

                    Have YOU ever taken in strangers or the homeless ?

                    Have YOU ever visited prisoners or helped those trying to put past bad conduct behind them ?

                    Have YOU ever done anything good for anyone else in the world without any expectation in return ?

                    Just to be clear – I do not give a $hit what you voted for. I do not care what you demonstrated for.
                    I care what you have actually personally done.

                    Conservatives contribute between 2-3 times as much money and time to charity than those on the left.
                    Even discounting contributions to their own church they still significantly outperform the left.

                    1. Indeed John one wonders why. Maybe this isn’t working very well anymore. I am not looking to Jesus to bail me out of this. Nor should you.

                      Sal Sar

                  5. Right here on this Blog you have posted numerous false claims – I can not recall a consequential correction.

                    You are fast and loose accusing others of lying and immorality – but blind to your own obvious failures.

                    In addition to learning something about real history and real science and real economics – and just reality.

                    You could use several years in catholic grade school with nuns prepared to thwack you with a ruler for moral error.

                    Regardless, too many people have saved you from the consequences of your own stupidity.

                    My only regret is that others will suffer in order for you to hopefully learn something – and you wonder why I do not accept that you are a moral person ?

                    You have been told – and there is plenty of historical data to confirm the bad consequences for others of your ideology, and yet you go ahead and screw them anyway.

                    I thank god I am not you.

                2. “And yet there are people here on the left who think that Stephanopolis get the better of Paul.”

                  We have some downright Stupid people on this blog that have little knowledge so what they opine on is based on what they most recently read from a left wing hit piece. The ignorance of the Joe Friday’s and the Anonymous the Stupid are what have left the country in such turmoil.

                  I think Adams was correct and that quote provides you another reason I think our Republic, as we knew it, is gone.

                  1. I am more hopeful than you.

                    We can learn from history, or we can learn from failure.

                    We chose the latter.

                    1. Many learn from failure over and over again. Many nation states represent many series of failures without ever seeing success.

                    2. meyer is right about this. The republic is pretty much gone. There is little hope.

                      That’s ok. We can have something more reliable than hope. We have “amor fati.”

                      “We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one thing that can not be taken from a man.”

                      ― Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life

    2. While I mostly agree, censorship is a self punishing act.

      He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
      ― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

  8. Any of those calling for the impeachment of these student officers who are majoring in pre-law, political science, journalism, history, etc…. should all be expelled from their school.

    If they can’t see the errors in their way, they don’t deserve to be in School.

  9. I earlier questioned why article I section 9 regarding bills of attainder and post facto laws is not being applied to this second impeachment attempt and indicated that the wording in the constitution is very straight forward and does not leave a lot of room for interpretation.Therefore if the Congress goes ahead with this rewriting of the constitution without following the guidelines of article V. They have exhibited a failure to uphold their oath of office and also R in violation of the last paragraph of article VI. Please explain to me what I
    Am missing here. I think the founders were clear on the issue of impeachment and removal as synonymous in their intentions.

    1. The reason none of this is being applied – is because there is no checks and balances on the impeachment process.

      The most that could possibly happen here is if the Senate barred Trump from future office, he could challenge that in court.

      While he would have a very strong case, there is no certainty the courts would want to hear it.

      This is pretty much impeachment exactly as our founders sought to avoid.
      but because they left no oversight, no meaningful appeal – the words of the constitution have no meaning.

    2. What is missing the most is self awareness on the part of the democrats.

      I am for the most part happy that they are proceeding.

      This is a star chamber, it further undermines democrats. It makes them look small and anxious.

      After all – If there was no fraud, why should democrats be afraid of Trump seeking office again ?

      This is an act of weakness – let them go ahead.

    3. I would further note that the “fact checkers” are claiming that Roberts did not refuse to preside,
      That in fact he can not preside.

      Amazing lefties actually reading the constitution and caring what it says.

      Regardless, is their anyone who doubts that if Democrats could have had the Chief Justice preside – they would have ?

      1. Kangaroo court with zero legitimacy. But the billionaire owned press will continue to mislead the public. Because they hated donald, he disrupted their plans for extending globalism.

        But now with Donald gone, they will have their cadaver synod, to try and flog the dead horse, their bete noire, lest he be forgotten, their boogeyman, their baba yaga, in order to distract us from the worsening domestic economic and social situation

        Sal Sar

  10. Ho ho ho. Great news both sides can now stop arguing about what to call Co-vid virus .. Let us officially name it the Faucci Virus. That right our own Dr Faucci funded and directed an possibility released this virus on the world. It is my belief this man is of similar character of Dr Mengele of Nazi death camp fame.

    1. Hey did you see this?

      Wearing two masks instead of one is probably more effective to stop the spread of coronavirus, says Dr. Anthony Fauci.

      Fauci is a terrible little man. The way the MSM and Hollywood fawn over him is your first clue.

  11. The democrats are pursuing impeachment of a former president to keep the declassified Russia investigation documents out of the news. The declassified Russia investigation documents prove the guilt of Comey, McCabe et al. and the fraudulence and criminality of the “dossier” and the FISA applications. The entire “fake” Russia investigation was conducted to cover up the guilt of Hillary Clinton. The democrats are covering up the guilt of Hillary Clinton, Comey, McCabe and the FBI by pursuing an unconstitutional and “moot” impeachment of President Trump.

  12. The democrats are pursuing impeachment of a former president to keep the declassified Russia investigation documents out of the news. The declassified Russia investigation documents prove the guilt of Comey, McCabe et al. and the fraudulence and criminality of the “dossier” and the FISA applications. The entire “fake” Russia investigation was conducted to cover up the guilt of Hillary Clinton. The democrats are covering up the guilt of Hillary Clinton, Comey, McCabe and the FBI by pursuing an unconstitutional and “moot” impeachment of President Trump.

    1. Of course they are. This was also what Faux Impeachment #1 was about.

      I do not understand why democrats are not thoroughly embarrassed to have Biden as president and to have impeached Trump for seeking an investigation of Biden.

      And they want to do this idiocy again ?

  13. College? For your kids? Do this. Create your own business that the kid can enjoy. Like a book store and computer store. Send him to community college to learn the world. Math, art history, history, english literature, philosophy etc. Have him or her work part time in your business beginning in junior high school years. After community college then local state university. When they grad you have them work full time and let them run the business soon. No private college. No student loans. No need to go to work for some corporation or to be a dumb teacher. Unless they choose to do so

Leave a Reply