“State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth”: House Democrats Set To Approve D.C. As The 51st State

The House Democrats, with the support of President Joe Biden, are set to vote to approve the establishment of the “State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth” as our 51st state today. I had testified and written about D.C. statehood for decades and, as noted in a recent column, I believe that the best interests of both the country and the district residents is found in retrocession, not statehood.

As noted earlier, there has been comparatively little debate of the bill in the House, where perfunctory hearings rushed it to the floor. What was missing by design in the House was any acknowledgment, let alone consideration, of alternatives to creating the first Vatican-like city-state in the country. Most importantly, there was no discussion of what district citizens could gain from an alternative to statehood — retrocession.

The tragedy is that we have never had a full and honest debate of the options for securing full representational rights for district residents. There is little interest in having such a national discussion or submitting this question to the voters in the form of a constitutional amendment. Polls show a majority of Americans still oppose D.C. statehood as they have for decades despite both well-funded campaigns and overwhelming support in the media.  There has always however been a pathway to full representational status through retrocession. However, the Democratic leadership again cut off consideration of that and other options in another “take or leave it” legislative construct. There are also opposing views on whether a constitutional amendment is warranted and, of course, the preference of some to continue the original intent of the Framers in the creating of “federal city” that is not controlled by any state.

The bill is not likely to succeed in the Senate and we will lose another year without a full and civil discussion of these options. Instead, it will fail and deepen our divisions while supporting calls for killing the filibuster rule.  The politics remains the same as does the status of the district.

220 thoughts on ““State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth”: House Democrats Set To Approve D.C. As The 51st State”

  1. Why DC was created:

    “During the American Revolution and the era of the Articles of Confederation, the US Congress met at various locations. In 1783, the Pennsylvania government refused to order the state militia to protect the Continental Congress from a mob of soldiers demanding back pay, and Congress moved. When the new Constitution was ratified in 1788, Congress was meeting at New York City.

    The Constitution included a clause that led to creation of the District of Columbia, with exclusive Federal jurisdiction:1

    The Congress shall have Power… To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States
    Creating a Federal district ensured that no single state would have special leverage over the Congress, and that clause generated little controversy. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison noted the risk that any state retaining control over a national capital might apply inappropriate pressure, and:2

    might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy.”

    http://www.virginiaplaces.org/boundaries/retrocession.html

    This article provides a brief history of the area, as well as the gag rule and growing abolitionist movement.

    1. You do understand that a federal district not in the state of DC would continue to exist, right?

      It would include the WH and the Capitol, the National Mall, the Smithsonian, the Library of Congress, and the National Archives.

  2. Requires a 2/3rds vote of the States. Not that the socialists give a damn about the rest of the States or The Constitution,. Answer is to get recall if you don’t have it and start recalling anyone in their party. At the very least Recalls are inexpensive to use and very expensive when the socialists have to fight them the dozens or hundreds. .

  3. If Trump was making power grabs like this, there would be mass hysteria.

    DC residents can be represented by Congress by giving the land back to the donor states that first ceded it to the Capitol. Residents would rejoin MD, reversing the Organic Act of 1801. The country already did that with some of the original DC land, giving it back to VA in the Retrocession Act of 1847.

    That would solve the problem without making what is essentially a city into a state. But Democrats don’t want that. Instead, they want another couple of Senators and some Representatives.

    Just like they want to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court so that they can stuff it.

    Would it be peachy if the next Republican president expanded the SCOTUS and then packed it, instead of merely appointing judges to openings as they come up?

    Anyone who argues that retrocession is unconstitutional, because the states ceded that land forever, cannot in the same breath take that same land and create a state. That, too, removes it from the federal government.

    If the state of Maryland still does not care for retrocession, it might be because most people in the US don’t want DC to become a state, or change its status. Or, it could be that Republicans in MD don’t want the flood of Democrats. Since it voted for Biden in 2020, that ship has sailed.

    This is ridiculous. DC is 1/22 the size of the smallest state in the Union, Rhode Island. There are 692,683 people in DC. By contrast, there are 39.51 million people in CA, and 3.967 million people in Los Angeles alone.

    Just stop with the Democrat hegemony already.

    1. Making DC a state is like giving the federal government a vote on the federal government. DC is packed with politicians. Why in the world would we provide separate representation for the political seat of the country?

      It’s like the Capitol in the Hunger Games.

      1. Name another democratic country that it’s nations capital’s people don’t have a say in national affairs.

          1. Lots allow mail-in voting –
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting#Experience_of_postal_voting_and_all-postal_voting_by_country

            “Out of 166 countries for which data is available, 40 used postal ballots in their most recent national election, according to country experts surveyed before the COVID-19 outbreak by the Electoral Integrity Project. Postal ballots were used most widely in Europe and North America and are also common in some countries in the Asia-Pacific region, such as India, Indonesia, South Korea and Sri Lanka.”
            https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/30/from-voter-registration-to-mail-in-ballots-how-do-countries-around-the-world-run-their-elections/ (has a link to the Electoral Integrity Project dataset)

        1. Fishwings – I have absolutely no problem with retrocession, ceding the land back to the donor state of MD. That would mean they get Congressional representation just like the Alexandria district was given back to VA.

          But it won’t net the Dems more Senate and House seats, so they won’t go for it.

          1. This will subject to the filibuster rule in the Senate and it’s hard to see any way that 10 Republicans will go along. That said, I see no problem with retrocession so long as Maryland agrees. DC would dilute the power of Baltimore, and Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland, so I’m not sure that the powers that be in Annapolis would completely happy with bringing DC in.

        2. Name another “democratic country” that has a constitution guaranteeing rights by their forefathers as America…betcha cant fishflaps. Afterall you support bonehead joey and his “THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE AMENDMENT”. It’s no small guess you are totally behind an end run around our constitution for you hypocritical dreams of a one party zeig heil state.

      2. It appears the Gerbil may have escaped from his cage and disguised himself with a beard and mustache. He wore a green dress and referred to himself as AnonymousBBB. The two sightings of him have not been recorded on the blog so perhaps the Gerbil, better known as Anonymous the Stupid, was returned to his cage.

        1. Allan the Rodent-lover trolls again.

          Those giant Trump Rat balloons are made for you, Allan. They combine two of your loves, Trump and rodents.

          1. “Allan the Rodent-lover trolls again.”

            So true Anonymous the Stupid. That is why you are my pet and play in my maze. You can pretend to be whomever you wish but you will always be the Fighting Gerbil underneath the disguise.

        2. BTW, Allan, the rat Trump has stiffed citizens again.

          “Trump ran up a $200,000 bill for security costs when he held a rally in Albuquerque. His campaign didn’t pay up, so now the city has referred the request to a collection agency. The mayor doesn’t expect to get paid, citing Trump’s “shady” past dealings.”
          https://twitter.com/JanNWolfe/status/1385645394571448322

          https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/city-of-albuquerque-refers-trump-campaign-bill-to-collection-agency/6083948/

          He raised millions after the election but still isn’t paying off his debts.

          1. Oh, no! $200k for security costs, you say. Well if true, that bill should be paid. Now on the other extreme, which politician(s) should pay for the billions in damage to cities for lack of security? Let me guess, Trump?

              1. Terrible. Just terrible. They should sue him for having secure rallies. And then places like Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, etc…… should sue Waters, Harris, etc. for promoting the anarchy that led to billions in damage to their cities.

                  1. Now tell us, Anonymous the Stupid, how much cities all over the country are going to repay all those citizens for the damage done to them by riots permitted to happen by Democrat leaders.

                    Those costs were in the billions but you are too Stupid to recognize that.

                    1. BLM collected a lot of money by striking fear into corporate leaders. Maybe that money should go to the people injured by BLM’s actions. Don’t you think so Anonymous the Stupid?

          2. “The mayor doesn’t expect to get paid, “

            Anonymous the Stupid you might not realize this is a chronic problem for cities everywhere and occurs from both parties.

            You like to highlight only one person when it is common to all. You either are a liar or Stupid. Your choice.

    2. Early 2020
      _________

      America is in a condition of hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and rebellion.

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

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

    3. “This is ridiculous. DC is 1/22 the size of the smallest state in the Union, Rhode Island. There are 692,683 people in DC. By contrast, there are 39.51 million people in CA, and 3.967 million people in Los Angeles alone.”

      I note you didn’t compare DC to Vermont or Wyoming?

          1. Now an Anonymous the Stupid pretend friend will swarm at Karen as well. Friend or pretend friend, just as Stupid.

      1. Enigma – that is because Wyoming is a vast amount of land and represents industries such as ranching. DC has almost no land and an insignificant population. It does not represent any region of the US. It’s full of politicians and government bureaucrats.

        Care to explain why a city 1/22 the size of Rhode Island should become a state rather than rejoin Maryland? Or are you willing to do anything to gain Democrats more power?

        You belong to the Democrat Party which has mainstreamed calling black conservatives racist slurs, so I already question your judgement. Doesn’t the intense racism of Dems against blacks who disagree with them bother you?

        1. There are plents of Black alleged conservatives (white and Black Republicans lost the right to call themselves that during the Trump spending spree) that are well respected by many Black people. Colin Powell, Condi Rice, JC Watts to name a few. There are others who deserve to me shunned, Clarence Thomas, Candace Owens, Diamond and Silk, and others that have sold their birthright. It’s not because of a political difference of opinion. Sen. Tim Scott has on a few occasions refused to go along with the appointments of some of the worst judicial nominees and is currently a co-sponsor of the George Floyd bill the Senate will apparently be taking up soon.
          Recognizing DC as a state would give Democrats more power, so would making Puerto Rico a state. That doesn’t have to be permanently thsat way, Republicans could attempt to earn their votes instead of trying to restrict Black and brown voted in somewhere between 43-49 states (it’s fluid). They are also attempting to pass wildly Unconstitutional anti-protest bills like just got passed in Florida. Three people can now constitute a riot here, if convicted they will be felons and lose their right to vote. Black Republicans (feel free to use the word conservative of it makes you feel better are not under attack for being either Republican or conservative, it’s their specific actions or lack thereof that get them singled out. If you could be specific as to which Black Republicans are being called allegedly racist slurs. Please point them out and I give my best shot at explaining, why and whether or not you consider a racist attack is really racist.
          Also, no state is required to represent a region of the United States and most of the residents of DC are not politicians and bureaucrats, most of them live in Northern Virginia. The Congresswoman they do have isn’t allowed a vote so is therefore meaningless.

          1. Your president, Joe Biden, has uttered more racist slurs, hung out with actual racists, been mentored by segregationists and KKK wizards, and Biden’s racist policies incarcerated more black men than any of these Republicans you talk about. Joe Biden is the biggest racist of them all in case you haven’t heard.

            1. If Joe Biden were still in the Senate I can suggest several racists he could hang out with. On both sides of the aisle. What makes Biden more racist than say, Louier Gohmert, Ted Cruz, or Lindsey Graham?

              1. Lord senile darth Baizou biden of chyna is more racist than maybe the grand dragon he called his mentor…yeah that Mr Byrd from west VA. And when you are party to halfwit racists like that wig wearing “insultress” Maxine waters to name just that flagrant twat….you know that everyone else knows common sense and truth is not on your side. Don’t even get started on morals/morality either on that score.

              2. Where to being with Joe Biden. There’s a mile-long list of racist comments and actions attached to Biden and his decades in Washington.

                Listen to these folks interviewed on the street in Harlem. Pay attention to the part where they are asked if comments made by President Trump were racist. They all said no, it was the truth. Biden’s comments, however, were considered racist and most of them were shocked to learn it was Joe Biden who said the racist things.

                1. This is your idea of evidence? It doesn’t even rise to the level of hearsay. I’ve heard enough of Trump’s comments and seen his actions and policies to have formed my own opinion.

                  1. We know nothing will change your mind about Trump and Republicans. But you may want to open your ears and eyes and SEE Biden for who he actually is.

                    There are thousands of black men sitting in prison on drug charges because of Joe Biden’s crime bill. But Joe Biden’s own crack addict son, who should ALSO be in prison for numerous drug offenses, is getting million dollar advances for his “memoirs” and cashing in.

                    It was President Trump who worked hard to pass criminal justice reform, not Barack Obama or Joe Biden.

                    “The First Step Act would give federal judges more leeway when sentencing some drug offenders and boost prisoner rehabilitation efforts. It also would reduce life sentences for some drug offenders with three convictions, or “three strikes,” to 25 years. Another provision would allow about 2,600 federal prisoners sentenced for crack cocaine offenses before August 2010 the opportunity to petition for a reduced penalty.

                    It also incentivizes prisoners to participate in programs designed to reduce the risk of recidivism, with the reward being an earlier release to either home confinement or a halfway house to complete their sentence. This will not be made available to offenders who were also convicted of violent firearms offenses, sexual exploitation of children or high-level heroin and fentanyl dealing.

                    The changes were aimed at addressing concerns that the nation’s war on drugs has exploded the prison population without helping people prepare for their return to society.”

                  2. We understand Enigma, before Trump was born there is an urban legend he was at a KKK march where people of both sides existed. Based on that you believe Donald Trump is a racist.

                    You stretch every slander until it breaks and then you have to back peddle to change the storyline.

                    1. You purport to tell me why I believe what I do and then provide a wrong version of a story to convince me. In 1927, there was a confrontation between the KKK and police where his father was arrested. That has nothin g to do with why I believe Trump is racist. His refusing to rent to Blacks at his apartments. His removal of Black employees from the floor of his casinos when he didn’t want them seen. His full-page ad advocating for the death of the INNOCENT Central Park Five. His reinstating mass incarceration, his immigration policy, his Muslim ban, his blocking aid to Puerto Rico after the hurricanes, the list is too long for anything but a book.

                    2. “You purport to tell me why I believe”

                      No, Enigma, I only state what you write as argument. In fact you repeated the argument against Trump in essence tying DJT to something his father did before DJT was even born. That was one of your bits of evidence that Trump was a racist and you repeated it several times. It is interesting to know that you recognize it was a mistake to say what you actually believe and today prefer to hide it.

                      “His refusing to rent to Blacks at his apartments. “

                      We went through this argument again. I see you now recognize that neither NYC nor the feds could prove that Trump was a racist in his management of his NYC apartments. NYC and the feds abysmally failed. The metrics being used against Trump had to do with statistical numbers that did not apply. If one used those same metrics in football and basketball one would have to conclude that both sports were racist against whites, hispanics and asians. Trumps actions were no different than the actions of all developers in NYC including those that were black.

                      You have listed more stuff without evidence. None of them have to do with racism or the truth, but your own posts seem to demonstrate a degree of racism significantly greater than most people.

                      If you are unhappy with what you see today, blame yourself. Your attitude and desires have turned the clock in the opposite direction from where it was heading increasing racism and hate that was disappearing.

                    3. You can say that if you wish Enigma, but it isn’t true. Why isn’t there racism if there are more than 13 % African American’s on sport’s teams? That demonstrates what I said to be true and not made up. Such calculations do not prove racism. The same happens in housing. They used phony numbers to make accusations of racism. Quite awhile back I showed you a copy of the settlement agreement with everyone’s signature. That also demonstrates what I have said is not made up. Finally with regard to Trump’s father, when we had our first disagreement you emphatically referred me to the news article about the KKK march and Trump’s father (who may or may not have been there; why he was there was never determined; and while others were held he was released). Yet, his father’s proximity to a march without knowing much of anything else led you to use that incident 20 years before DJT was born to call DJT a racist.

                      …And you are saying I am making things up? It doesn’t sound that way. What it tells us is that you have a screwy way of looking at things and you will define anything you don’t like as racism.

                    4. Unless this is a new name for you, I don’t believe we have been conversing for any period of time. You do sound like Allan (which isn’t a compliment). I have written a post that documents exactly what I said which doesn’t fit your description. I could produce it and will if asked (it would probably take 5 minutes. Feel free do document your version of events and I’ll publicly apologize.

                    5. Enigma, below provides the answer. There should be 5 posts in a row.That is not the first time the answer has been provided, only the most recent. I doubt very much that you need to be spoon fed the answer. You will find reference to my wife before she was able to come to America and a tiny bit about what life was like behind the iron curtain. Later you will get your answer. This is a great country being destroyed by lunatics from BLM, Antifa and the left (along with some crazies whose exact direction, right or left, isn’t clear like some would believe it is.)

                      “which isn’t a compliment)”

                      I don’t expect compliments from you. A compliment would mean, though I have not a racist bone in my body, that I failed to explain what it is to act in a non racist way. Character over color.

                      https://jonathanturley.org/2021/04/22/norfolk-police-officer-fired-for-making-anonymous-donation-to-kyle-rittenhouse/comment-page-1/#comment-2084606

                  3. Enigma, you asked for examples. I gave you this video interviewing black folks on the streets in Harlem. They were asked their opinions about whether certain statements are racist or not. None of them thought Trump’s comments were racist. All of them thought Biden’s comments were racist.

                    You wrote: “If you could be specific as to which Black Republicans are being called allegedly racist slurs. Please point them out and I give my best shot at explaining, why and whether or not you consider a racist attack is really racist.”

                    Care to respond?

                    1. I repeat for emphasis so you don’t miss the important part:

                      They were asked their opinions about whether certain statements are racist or not. They did not know WHO made the remarks when asked their opinions.

                      NONE of them thought Trump’s comments were racist.

                      ALL of them thought Biden’s comments were racist.

                  4. enigma said, “Maybe they weren’t given the examples of statements I would have used.”

                    Ok, we get it, NOTHING will change your mind about what you think about Trump. But if you were asked to rate the comments that WERE given to the people on the street in Harlem, would you call Biden’s comments racist?

                  5. FWIW, Enigma, “S. Meyer” is the same person who used to post under the name “Allan.” He switched just after the election. If you need evidence that it’s the same person, I should be able to find comments where he uses the same icon to post as Allan and as S. Meyer. No matter what name he comments under, he still the same old troll.

                    1. He admits it, here:

                      https://jonathanturley.org/2021/04/22/norfolk-police-officer-fired-for-making-anonymous-donation-to-kyle-rittenhouse/comment-page-1/#comment-2084610\

                      “If you remember quite a while back when I entered the blog as Allan (the name change had to do with a failure where my computer took all that information along with certain signals that WordPress probably sends and screwed up my inbox. The new name was intended to be temporary). I started writing with higher-level, more informative responses. You (I think it was you) even flattered me.” -S(tupid) Meyer/Allan

                    2. Anonymous the Stupid, you have provided everyone insight into your lack of intelligence. If you go way back you will see that is not the only time.

                    3. And earlier, today, he posted as S. Meyer with the old gravatar.

                      https://jonathanturley.org/2021/04/26/the-difficult-realities-of-lethal-force/comment-page-2/#comment-2085234

                      If one clicks on the gravatar, the following appears, as the address.

                      http://en.gravatar.com/1212allan

                      Also, where one now sees ’01’, one used to see ‘Allan.’ When it was called to his attention, a few weeks ago, he changed it, to eliminate ‘Allan.’

                      The guy’s a joke.

                    4. Anonymous the Stupid, with all your digging you seemed to be the last to discover what you were looking for. It stared you in the face while you made a fool of yourself. Keep it up.

                    5. Anon. @ April 26, 2021 at 11:26 PM, thanks for the link to the comment where he confirmed it. He regularly uses one of his old gravatars. He’s used two icons all along (the one you noted for his first comment, and another for his later comments), even when he was posting as Allan.

                    6. “He’s used two icons all along (the one you noted for his first comment, and another for his later comments)”

                      Anonymous the Stupid, you are so silly. For months you have been running through this maze trying to convince people that Allan and S. Meyer were the same. The cards were laid out for you or anyone else to see. No one important cared and more than one (eg. Diogenes) used the name, Allan.

                      You acted like the fool you are, but I never bothered to hide that fact and cover my tracks. You kept telling everyone Allan was SM and then you discovered I never changed my starting email name. You were thrilled running around like a chicken without its head trying to get everyone to look at my starting email with the name Allan. To keep the fool jumping like a chicken without its head I removed the name and laughed. I found it hard to believe you were as dumb as you sounded.

                      I will tell you the sequence of events. I use two icons because I wish to get the emails as they come in and one did not provide such a service to my computer. WordPress did not send my responses to my inbox. I set up a second icon under Allan as well so that everything I responded to was emailed to my inbox. This ended up causing conflicts. I started getting duplicate emails that weren’t opening correctly if at all.

                      I kept the email name that had a reliable server and created a completely new and different name and address for all F/U responses. That solved one problem, but others remained including responses from a completely separate blog (also from WordPress) that came in under Jonathan Turley’s address.

                      There is a lot more detail about what happened here and elsewhere. I didn’t hide from my name since many replies were based on my former posts and originally I left my name on the starting post thinking I would return to my original name with both email addresses. You made a big deal and since you were making a fool of yourself I decided not to stop you. The hints were all over the place including my name remaining on one email. I indulged your foolishness. You were the rat in the maze.

                    7. Take note Anonymous the Stupid, Enigma knew about the names, and he doesn’t post a lot.

                      Enigma wrote: “He shared that information.”

                    8. The only rat in your little maze, S. Meyer, is you.

                      And enigma is correct: You are a troll.

                    9. Anonymous the Stupid, you needed the WaPo to tell you what was going on. Don’t you feel like a fool?

          2. For just one example, check out Joy Reid, the bigot, slurring Justice Thomas as “Uncle Clarence” on her show.

                  1. Enigma, you got me interested in the “More complicated than that.”.

                    Maybe you wish to tell us the full story about “Uncle Clarence”

                    1. That wasn’t the question I was referring to, it was whether he was an Uncle Tom. I suspect your definition might not be the same as yours. What Clarence Thomas is I can’t know. His actions suggest a few things but they would be speculation.

                    2. “More complicated than that. I just meant I didn’t need it explained to me what “Uncle Clarence” meant.”

                      What I was asking was for an explanation of the above paragraph. I would like to better understand your response to this statement by anonymous, “Meaning you see him as an Uncle Tom?” You responded “More complicated than that.” Now you tell me that “…whether he was an Uncle Tom. I suspect your definition might not be the same as yours.”

                      I suspect that to be true, but I don’t have a firm fix on a definition for Uncle Tom so perhaps you can straighten us out about Uncle Tom and what is so complicated about one Supreme Court Justice that so happens to be black and a conservative.

                      You make me think you believe there is something dark in both of their characters so perhaps since you statement involves the character of others you should explain.

                    3. “You make me think you believe there is something dark in both of their characters so perhaps since you statement involves the character of others you should explain.”

                      I really don’t have to explain. I have an opinion which I kept to myself until directly asked. If I thought we were going to have a real conversation and not simply an argument. I might be willing. Especially from someone who tells me what I think and believe.

                    4. ” Especially from someone who tells me what I think and believe.”

                      Enigma, I understand. You don’t want anyone to know why you said something dark about another individual. That is your option. Then, should someone defend that individual, you don’t want others to tell you why you think that way. It’s a very convenient way to defame another without having your reasons questioned.

                      If you choose to defame, have a reason. If you don’t want to express the reason then don’t defame another person or expect in argument others expressing your opinion for you. We have seen you call people racists for reasons that are absolutely wrong.

                    5. Enigma, your last cryptic response added little but did confirm what I said earlier.

                  2. It was you, Enigma, who asked for examples. You wrote: “If you could be specific as to which Black Republicans are being called allegedly racist slurs. Please point them out and I give my best shot at explaining, why and whether or not you consider a racist attack is really racist.”

                    Care to respond?

                  3. Enigma….Just curious whether or not you consider these slurs “racist attacks.”

                    Or do blacks like Justice Thomas and Senator Scott somehow deserve it because they “sold their birthright”? (whatever that means)

                    1. Context is important in most racist statements along with who is saying it. I don’t think Joy Reid calling him Uncle Clarence is racist although given her audience it might be ill-advised. Within the Black community, the N-word mkight be like the word snow for Eskimos which can have multiple meanings, almost none of them racist. However, there is probably very few non-racist ways you could use it in conversation. If you ever listened to a Richard Pryor album, he wasn’t racist in my opinion. Yet after a trip to Africa he became enlightened and stopped his use of the word. In my old age, I don’t find the word appropriate in public in any context but that’s just me.
                      The “attacks” on Thomas and Scott that I’m familiar with don’t seem racist. They are certainly not based on the fact they’re conservative. Rather that they have advocated policies and appointments guaranteed to hurt Black people. I have supported Scott for his refusal to support the worst of the worst and getting a few others like Marco Rubio to stand with him. Tim Scott hasn’t forgotten he’s Black. I think Clarence Thomas actually hates his blackness and everything associated with it.

          3. Republican Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.) took a swipe at Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.) after Durbin called the GOP police reform bill a “token, half-hearted approach.”

            “Y’all still wearing those kente cloths over there @SenatorDurbin?” tweeted Scott, who is the only black Republican in the Senate and the lead architect of the Republicans’ police reform proposal.

            https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/503176-tim-scott-responds-to-durbins-warning-about-token-half-hearted-approach-to

          4. “. . . others that have sold their birthright.”

            That’s a clear, nicely worded expression of tribalism. A black individual who disagrees with his ethnic group’s ideas and values is a traitor to his race. His “birthright” demands that he not think, not judge — but blindly obey the commands of his ethnic leaders. If he steps out of line, you smear him as an “Uncle Tom” or as one who “ain’t black.”

            That tribalism is ripping America apart. And your “remedy” is more of the same poison.

            1. “That tribalism is ripping America apart. And your “remedy” is more of the same poison.”

              It seems that is all Enigma knows.

              1. No response from Enigma explaining what he means by “sold their birthright”….

                And no defense of bigots like Joy Reid slurring Justice Thomas. Just that he “got the reference.” Kind of hard to miss it, Enigma.

                It was you, Enigma, who asked for examples. You wrote: “If you could be specific as to which Black Republicans are being called allegedly racist slurs. Please point them out and I give my best shot at explaining, why and whether or not you consider a racist attack is really racist.”

                Care to respond?

          5. Another example…

            How the Wa Po treats black Republicans. White liberal ‘Fact Checker’ writes an article: let’s investigate, shall we, to find out just how black is your blackness Sen. Scott?

            Remind us, did the Wa Po ‘Fact checker’ investigate how “black” Kamala’s “blackness” really is? You know, with her family being plantation owners and all…

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/23/tim-scott-often-talks-about-his-grandfather-cotton-theres-more-tale/

              1. You know, you could easily search all of the columns he’s written about Harris.

                site:washingtonpost.com/politics kessler “kamala harris”

                1. You know Glenn Kessler contorts himself so as not to ‘fact check’ Kamala or Joe’s flatout lies, and call them lies, right? You know Kessler is a total hack, and the WaPo is a biased rag, right?

                2. Will Kessler be doing a lengthy ‘fact check’ for Kamala Harris’ family background?

                  Or perhaps Hunter Biden’s laptop and all the lies told around that? Or lengthy fact checks on the multitude of lies coming out of Joe Biden’s mouth?

                  1. Like this favorite “story” about “fweedom” told by Kamala —–>

                    “Vice President-elect Kamala Harris recalled a story from her childhood during an October interview with Elle Magazine that is almost identical to a story Martin Luther King Jr. told back in 1965.

                    Elle Magazine’s feature article opened with a heartfelt story that Harris told from her childhood: Harris was attending a civil rights march in Oakland, California as a very young girl. Seated in a stroller, Harris said that she fell out of it at one point, unbeknownst to the adults caught up in the protest.

                    “By the time they noticed little Kamala was gone and doubled back, she was understandably upset,” the article reads. “‘My mother tells the story about how I’m fussing,’ Harris says, ‘and she’s like, ‘Baby, what do you want? What do you need?’ And I just looked at her and I said, ‘Fweedom.’”

                    Harris’s story is also told in her 2010 book “Smart on Crime” as well as her book published in 2019 titled “The Truths We Hold,” according to writer Cameron Cawthorne.

                    This story is very similar is similar to a part of writer Alex Haley’s MLK interview published by Playboy over 50 years earlier, Twitter users pointed out on Monday…..”

                    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kamala-harris-s-childhood-story-about-calling-for-fweedom-is-almost-identical-to-a-story-told-by-mlk/ar-BB1cup4Q

            1. “White liberal ‘Fact Checker’ writes an article: let’s investigate, shall we, to find out just how black is your blackness Sen. Scott?”

              What a weird and inaccurate description of that article.

              1. No it’s not. The article is a disgusting attempt to delegitmize Sen. Scott’s personal story of his racial heritage.

                You know what’s ‘weird and inaccurate’?

                Glenn Kessler’s biased and dishonest “fact-checking”….

                Just one example…..

                “The topic of conversation was the fact that the Post is being very selective in what they even bother fact-checking when it comes to Biden, specifically on his pledge to not ban fracking during the campaign. Glenn Kessler chimes in to let it be known that they only fact-check “policy” and not general statements.”

                “None of this unexpected. Kessler has been a hack for as long as he’s been on the job. His publication is one of the most biased, dumpster fire news outlets in the business. Even still, it’s a bit jarring to see them be so upfront with their bias. You’d think Kessler would at least give a better excuse for why he’s not going to fact-check an obvious lie by Biden and Kamala Harris…”

                https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/01/26/the-washington-posts-fact-checker-makes-an-absolute-fool-of-himself-n316781

          6. “There are others who deserve to me shunned, … Candace Owens.

            Enigma, I know Candace and have spoken to her numerous times. She is a lovely lady and far more intelligent than the average intelligent individual. Tell us why do you wish to slime Candace like you have done to so many others? In the end we know your sliming always comes down to a victimhood argument that doesn’t hold water or claims that are utterly ridiculous.

        2. “Wyoming is a vast amount of land”

          That’s irrelevant to the rights of citizens. Land doesn’t have rights, people do.

          “DC has almost no land and an insignificant population”

          Again: DC has a larger population than WY does. DC also has a larger population than VT does. Glad to know that you consider the populations of WY and VT to be “insignificant” too.

    4. “There are 692,683 people in DC.”

      And there are 578,759 people in WY.

      “DC is packed with politicians.”

      It is? How many of the 692,683 people are politicians?

      1. Enigma and Anonymous, stop bloviating with meaningless numbers. State admissions have frequently been the result of necessary compromises. You show no interest in compromise and never will. That has always been the problem with you leftists. You have this narcissistic compulsion to believe that what’s yours is yours and everything else is negotiable. You think like a political infants.

        YOU are the biggest roadblock to DC statehood. NO DEAL.

        1. Karen is the one who introduced the numbers, Diogenes. So tell HER you think her numbers “meaningless.”

          “You show no interest in compromise and never will.”

          I compromise about all sorts of things. So does Enigma.

          “That has always been the problem with you leftists….”

          In other words, you have difficulty interacting with us as individuals.

      2. Anonymous – explain why a small city should become its own state rather than rejoin the donor state of MD.

        Explain why the seat of government should get more power over government.

        There is no reason to carve out a tiny section of the country, 1/22 the size of Rhode Island, and make it a state. It does not cover any significant land, doesn’t represent particular interests. It’s not sparsely populated ranching and farm land.

        People who oppose the electoral college in the Constitution, would disenfranchise those sparsely populated farming, ranching, and other areas of natural resources, subverting them to king making NY and CA. All of a sudden, disenfranchising people bothers you?

        The only conceivable reason to make this absurdly small piece of land an actual state, rather than giving it back to the donor state, is for Democrats to get more power. Which they can’t do without the support of Democrats willing to turn a blind eye to the power grabs.

        I always wondered how the good people of Germany allowed Nazis to rise. How in the world did people turn a blind eye and allow the government to erode individual rights and gain so much power? We are seeing this willful blindness today.

        It’s so blatant, the SCOTUS expansion a glaring example, and now this. But as long as their loyal voters won’t object, nothing will check them.

        How would you feel if Trump carved out a small city, packed with Republicans, and declared he was going to make it a state in order to gain more Congressional seats? How about if he’d expanded SCOTUS and created more seats, rather than just legally appoint vacancies? Would you be sanguine about that?

        You know you’re doing something wrong if you would be upset if the other side did it.

        1. It isn’t a small city. I bet it’s in the top 25 largest cities in the entire country.

          I’d be fine with retrocession. But the Constitution guarantees states rights, and MD doesn’t want it.

          It’s wrong for hundreds of thousands of American adults to not have voting representation in Congress.

          “Explain why the seat of government should get more power over government.”

          Have you ever spent time in DC? The majority of the city — by residents and land — is not the seat of the government. And the seat of the government (the WH, the Congressional buildings, …) would not be part of the new state of DC.

          “There is no reason to carve out a tiny section of the country …”

          It is ALREADY carved out. And the people there lack voting representation in Congress.

          You seem fixated on the physical size. That’s not really key. Land doesn’t vote. Land doesn’t have rights. People have rights, and the people in DC lack voting representation in Congress.

          “It’s not sparsely populated ranching and farm land.”

          If it were sparsely populated, then it wouldn’t be an issue for the residents to not have voting representation in Congress. It was sparsely populated with it was formed.

          “People who oppose the electoral college in the Constitution, would disenfranchise those sparsely populated farming, ranching, and other areas of natural resources, subverting them to king making NY and CA.”

          Nonsense. Doing away with the EC doesn’t disenfranchise anyone. It simply counts all popular votes equally. What you’re saying is that you want the vote of someone in a state like WY or AK to count MORE than the votes of someone in NY or CA.

          If you’re going to talk about disenfranchisement, don’t twist the meaning. Having votes count equally is not disenfranchisement.

          “The only conceivable reason to make this absurdly small piece of land an actual state, rather than giving it back to the donor state, is for Democrats to get more power. ”

          Nonsense. Once again, you focus on LAND, which has no rights, instead of PEOPLE, who do have rights. The size is largely irrelevant. And once again, it CANNOT be given back to MD without MD’s agreement because our CONSTITUTION gives states rights. Do you believe in state rights? If so, why can’t you accept that the decision is Maryland’s to make? This is one of my gripes with Turley’s columns about this: over and over, he ignores Maryland’s legal rights in the matter.

          “the SCOTUS expansion a glaring example”

          The size of the Supreme Court has changed several times in our history.

          “But as long as their loyal voters won’t object, nothing will check them.”

          The same is true for the Republicans, isn’t it?

          “How would you feel if Trump carved out a small city, packed with Republicans, and declared he was going to make it a state in order to gain more Congressional seats? ”

          Again: it is ALREADY carved out. And for a long time, the Republicans wanted Puerto Rico — which is also ALREADY carved out — to become a state for the same reason. There was a lot of talk of adding the 2 new states at the same time, with the assumption that it would add 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans to the Senate. But Trump f’d up the response to Hurricane Maria so badly (and Republicans allowed that), that they’re no longer as confident that Puerto Rico would elect Republican Senators.

          “How about if he’d expanded SCOTUS and created more seats, rather than just legally appoint vacancies? Would you be sanguine about that?”

          I’m not asking you to be sanguine. I’m asking you to accept that it’s legal and deserves discussion. I accepted that McConnell’s power grab with SCOTUS was legal and deserved discussion.

          “You know you’re doing something wrong if you would be upset if the other side did it.”

          So you believe that when McConnell single-handedly decided not to allow Senate hearings or a vote on Merrick Garland’s SCOTUS nomination, that was wrong? (Because I think you’d have been upset if Democrats had done that.) Personally, I’m not convinced that your standard is correct. If issue X is on the ballot, one side or the other will win, but that doesn’t make voting wrong just because I may be upset if the other side wins.

    5. S. Meyer, size is irrelevant. The Vatican is a nation comprising one city within a city. Monaco is the same thing.

      The people of Washington DC want to become a state. They already have a representative, the only thing missing is the representative’s vote not counting. It doesn’t matter what other people want. What matters is what citizens of Washington DC want. No state wants to inherit a mess that is Washington DC with its arcane rules and regulations imposed by congress.

      1. It doesn’t matter what other people want.

        While this is still a republic of 50 states, it does matter how adding a new state to this union will impact the security of rights of the other states and their citizens.

        1. Svelaz writes: “It doesn’t matter what other people want. What matters is what citizens of Washington DC want. “ There is no thought behind the writings of Svelaz. According to the written word of Svelaz, if the citizens of X want to bomb Canada that would be OK.

      2. Svelaz, as usual you think linearly and as soon as you hit something you like you stop and think no more. That is a sign of ignorance not intelligence.

        SM

  4. PROFESSOR TURLEY’S CONSTITUTION
    _________________________________

    Professor Turley allows more freedom of speech than any outlet in America.

    Freedom of speech came about in a time when critical speech against kings, colonial governors, administrators et al. could cost a subject his life.

    Freedom of speech allowed newly minted “citizens” to question, mock, criticize and denigrate, in any fashion or form, authorities and politicians of every type and level.

    Freedom of speech is still enjoyed by Americans today; or not.

    Professor Turley denies the Constitution and publication of the n-word (i.e. not the prole and pejorative slang, but the scientific nomenclature and Spanish word – knee grow, alternately with an e) as an abject denial of freedom of speech in America.

    Please edify us, Professor.

    Is America reverting to a ruling monarchy in the form of the “dictatorship of the proletariat?”

    Is freedom of speech, which is not qualified by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, absolute or allowed only at the whim of dictators?

  5. “…LINCOLN’S PLAN TO “SOLVE” AMERICA’S VEXING RACIAL PROBLEM…”

    LINCOLN’S ‘RACE WAR’ – THE SECOND “COLD CIVIL WAR” FOR AMERICA
    ____________________________________________________________

    “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”

    – George Santayana
    ________________

    Frederick Douglass, a gifted African American writer and activist who knew Lincoln, characterized him in a speech delivered in 1876:109

    In his interest, in his association, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of the white man. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the [black] people, to promote the welfare of the white people of this country.

    (excerpted below)
    ______________

    Lincoln’s Fear of ‘Race War’

    A short time before his death on April 15, 1865, Lincoln met with General Benjamin F. Butler, who reported that the President spoke to him of “exporting” the Blacks.107

    “But what shall we do with the [blacks] after they are free?,” Lincoln said. “I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the [blacks] … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves.” Along with a request to Butler to look into the question of how best to use “our very large navy” to send “the blacks away,” the President laid bare his fears for the future:

    If these black soldiers of ours go back to the South, I am afraid that they will be but little better off with their masters than they were before, and yet they will be free men. I fear a race war, and it will be at least a guerilla war because we have taught these men how to fight … There are plenty of men in the North who will furnish the [blacks] with arms if there is any oppression of them by their late masters.

    To his dying day, it appears, Lincoln did not believe that harmony between White and Black was feasible, and viewed resettlement of the Blacks as the preferable alternative to race conflict. ” … Although Lincoln believed in the destruction of slavery,” concludes Black historian Charles Wesley (in an article in The Journal of [Black] History), “he desired the complete separation of the whites and blacks. Throughout his political career, Lincoln persisted in believing in the colonization of the [Black].”108

    Frederick Douglass, a gifted African American writer and activist who knew Lincoln, characterized him in a speech delivered in 1876:109

    In his interest, in his association, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of the white man. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the [black] people, to promote the welfare of the white people of this country.

    Allan Nevins, one of this century’s most prolific and acclaimed historians of US history, summed up Lincoln’s view of the complex issue of race, and his vision of America’s future:110

    His conception ran beyond the mere liberation of four million colored folk; it implied a far-reaching alteration of American society, industry, and government. A gradual planned emancipation, a concomitant transportation of hundreds of thousands and perhaps even millions of people overseas, a careful governmental nursing of the new colonies, and a payment of unprecedented sums to the section thus deprived of its old labor supply — this scheme carried unprecedented implications.

    To put this into effect would immensely increase the power of the national government and widen its abilities. If even partially practicable, it would mean a long step toward rendering the American people homogeneous in color and race, a rapid stimulation of immigration to replace the workers exported, a greater world position for the republic, and a pervasive change in popular outlook and ideas. The attempt would do more to convert the unorganized country into an organized nation than anything yet planned. Impossible, and undesirable even if possible? — probably; but Lincoln continued to hold to his vision.

    For most Americans today, Lincoln’s plan to “solve” America’s vexing racial problem by resettling the Blacks in a foreign country probably seems bizarre and utterly impractical, if not outrageous and cruel. At the same time, though, and particularly when considered in the context of the terrible Civil War that cost so many lives, it is worth pondering just why and how such a far-fetched plan was ever able to win the support of a leader of the stature and wisdom of Abraham Lincoln.

    – Robert Morgan

  6. Thank you for the insult. I know my history. Maybe you should learn yours. There is a reason our founding fathers wanted D.C. set up the way it was set up.

    Hmm. let me see, the Democrats want to kill the filibuster so they try multiple tactics and say they have to kill the filibuster to make it work. This includes making D.C. a state. Once again, why the sudden rush? Why isn’t retrocession being more discussed? Because the Democrats are losing the game playing the by the rules and they want to changes the balance sheet to favor them.

    You do not find it odd that the only method being voted on is statehood? it would add up to three Congressmen to Maryland, but no Senators, which is the real reason. Calling it anything other than a naked power grab is hogwash. What makes you think Maryland would not take back three Congressmen and a prosperous city? it is not the Washington of old, although i do agree it would be at best a tight vote. Land was retroceded back to Virginia and that is the precedent that should be followed if the residents of D.C. really want to be part of a state.

    Yet, that is not what this is really about.

    1. “Thank you for the insult.”

      What insult?

      “There is a reason our founding fathers wanted D.C. set up the way it was set up. ”

      It was set up with land from VA too, so it is no longer what the Founders set up. The proposal would still leave federal land that’s not part of any state. The Founders created a means for things to change constitutionally; that’s what’s proposed. The Founders owned slaves. The Founders didn’t allow women to vote. The Founders are admirable but imperfect. It’s past time to change this.

      “the Democrats want to kill the filibuster”

      Yep. It’s not part of the Constitution, and they’re free to advocate for legal changes, just like the Republicans. The filibuster has already changed (e.g., it was originally a talking filibuster), and it can change again.

      “Once again, why the sudden rush? ”

      It isn’t a sudden rush, as I already pointed out.

      “Why isn’t retrocession being more discussed?”

      Again: It can only occur with the agreement of the Maryland legislature, and MARYLAND ISN’T INTERESTED. Do you not believe in states’ rights? It’s Maryland’s right to refuse.

      “Calling it anything other than a naked power grab is hogwash.”

      Call it whatever you want. Republicans engage in naked power grabs (like refusing to hold SCOTUS hearings on Merrick Garland and then rushing Coney Barrett through), so either accept that both sides do it, or condemn the Republicans too. What you’re saying is that Republicans can’t make a good argument for DC residents voting for Republicans.

      “What makes you think Maryland would not take back three Congressmen and a prosperous city?”

      I’ve lived in the area and talked to Marylanders and read what locals have to say about it. You do know that this has been discussed in local papers, meetings, etc., right?

      And it’s not as if you’re describing the only changes that would occur in your proposal. You think MD’s Republican governor wants a big influx of Democrats? You think the residents of DC want their non-federal tax structure to totally change to fit MD’s state tax structure? …

      “that is the precedent that should be followed”

      That is A precedent that Could be followed. If Maryland agreed. It does not. How many times do I have to point this out. MARYLAND ISN’T INTERESTED, and the 10th Amendment leaves that decision to them, not you.

            1. No one forces you to read anyone’s comments. You are spared all the imbecility you wish here, by your own choices.

              1. ATS, the particular type of imbecility you provide is embarrassing to most humans. Whether they read it or not the embarrassment exists. I am sure this comment will be followed by the imbecility of Anonymous the Stupid’s pretend friends that swarm when ATS is being laughed at. We can laugh at your antics but it is still embarrassing.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, you have that wrong. I publicly say what I feel. Our friend Diogenes suggests that if you talked to yourself instead of to the blog you wouldn’t sound like an Imbecile.

            +100 for Diogenes.

  7. The district was not set up for long term occupation. I like the idea that the people living in the district vote in either Virginia or Maryland elections, case closed.

  8. You’re absolutely right. Their ability to vote would be secured if the ground were simply retroceded to Maryland. This bill is strictly about securing 2 Senate seats from the Democrats. It’s complete fraud to argue it’s needed to give the residents the power to vote.

  9. “Frederick Douglass, a gifted African American writer and activist who knew Lincoln, characterized him in a speech delivered in 1876:

    ‘In his interest, in his association, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of the white man. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people, to promote the welfare of the white people of this country.'”

    (excerpted)
    _________

    Lincoln’s Fear of ‘Race War’

    A short time before his death on April 15, 1865, Lincoln met with General Benjamin F. Butler, who reported that the President spoke to him of “exporting” the Blacks.107

    But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free?,” Lincoln said. “I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves.” Along with a request to Butler to look into the question of how best to use “our very large navy” to send “the blacks away,” the President laid bare his fears for the future:

    If these black soldiers of ours go back to the South, I am afraid that they will be but little better off with their masters than they were before, and yet they will be free men. I fear a race war, and it will be at least a guerilla war because we have taught these men how to fight … There are plenty of men in the North who will furnish the negroes with arms if there is any oppression of them by their late masters.

    To his dying day, it appears, Lincoln did not believe that harmony between White and Black was feasible, and viewed resettlement of the Blacks as the preferable alternative to race conflict. ” … Although Lincoln believed in the destruction of slavery,” concludes Black historian Charles Wesley (in an article in The Journal of Negro History), “he desired the complete separation of the whites and blacks. Throughout his political career, Lincoln persisted in believing in the colonization of the Negro.”108

    Frederick Douglass, a gifted African American writer and activist who knew Lincoln, characterized him in a speech delivered in 1876:109

    In his interest, in his association, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of the white man. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people, to promote the welfare of the white people of this country.

    Allan Nevins, one of this century’s most prolific and acclaimed historians of US history, summed up Lincoln’s view of the complex issue of race, and his vision of America’s future:110

    His conception ran beyond the mere liberation of four million colored folk; it implied a far-reaching alteration of American society, industry, and government. A gradual planned emancipation, a concomitant transportation of hundreds of thousands and perhaps even millions of people overseas, a careful governmental nursing of the new colonies, and a payment of unprecedented sums to the section thus deprived of its old labor supply — this scheme carried unprecedented implications.

    To put this into effect would immensely increase the power of the national government and widen its abilities. If even partially practicable, it would mean a long step toward rendering the American people homogeneous in color and race, a rapid stimulation of immigration to replace the workers exported, a greater world position for the republic, and a pervasive change in popular outlook and ideas. The attempt would do more to convert the unorganized country into an organized nation than anything yet planned. Impossible, and undesirable even if possible? — probably; but Lincoln continued to hold to his vision.

    For most Americans today, Lincoln’s plan to “solve” America’s vexing racial problem by resettling the Blacks in a foreign country probably seems bizarre and utterly impractical, if not outrageous and cruel. At the same time, though, and particularly when considered in the context of the terrible Civil War that cost so many lives, it is worth pondering just why and how such a far-fetched plan was ever able to win the support of a leader of the stature and wisdom of Abraham Lincoln.

    – Robert Morgan
    _____________

    “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”

    – George Santayana

  10. The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are like Pac-Man. They want to eat up the entire country, nay, the entire world, nay, the entire universe; enslave people under the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and acquire personal power as despots. Socialist communists-in-waiting are communists nonetheless.
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “The goal of Socialism is Communism.”

    – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
    _________________

    The American Founders gave Americans the one and only thing they could: Freedom. They gave Americans freedom of speech, thought, religion, belief, press, propagation, assembly, segregation and every other, conceivable, natural and God-given right and freedom per the 9th Amendment. Government exists to provide maximal freedom to individuals while it is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.

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

    The Supreme Court and the remainder of the judicial branch have utterly failed in their sworn duty to correct the legislative and executive branches and support the clear meaning and intent of the Constitution. America is lawless and the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) will stop at nothing to impose the Communist Manifesto and take it over. Washington D.C. statehood is but another perverse, incremental step toward communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) conquest.

    You can’t see the forest for the trees – or, at least, you’re doing nothing about the forest.
    _____________________________________________________________________

    “He who hesitates is lost.”

    – Cato

  11. Turley is again highly predictable: anything to keep Republican power as long as possible, despite the fact that most Americans do not support the Republican party since Trumpism came into being. Turley’s real objection to D.C. statehood is his assumption that its representatives would mostly vote Democratic. Hence, being a paid mouthpiece for the Hate Network, that’s a bad thing. Now, if he thought that most D.C. residents would elect Republican Senators and Representatives, he’d be all for it. Turley prefers that all but the land on which certain federal buildings sit, which would remain as the District of Columbia, cede back to Maryland. Most Americans support D.C. becoming a state.

    The question of D.C. statehood is far from new. I recall such discussions even as a high school student. We all know what the arguments are, and that the Republicans, who continue to lose support overall in the U.S., will do everything possible to hold onto power: gerrymandering, restrictive voting laws, and opposing D.C. statehood. Everything Republicans do is calculated to undermine President Biden and to hold onto power.

    1. “…most Americans do not support the Republican party since Trumpism came into being.”

      – NUTCHACHA
      ____________

      Most Americans or most anti-American, anti-Constitution, communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) and illegal alien foreign invader hyphenates? The American Founders established America under a severely restricted vote with severely restrictive immigration and naturalization policies (far beyond anything proposed by the somewhat conservative President Donald J. Trump). To overturn those would be to controvert, subvert and insurrect. What NUTCHACHA wants to do is complete the unconstitutional imposition of communism in America, which, incidentally, her faux “success” depends on.

      NUTCHACHA fails in freedom.

    2. Natacha – the “hate network” is the disgusting MSLSD as anyone who can actually stand it knows. Fox News is the Love Network which is why it is the most watched and most trusted cable news network.

    3. Natacha – America is a Red country. The disgusting commies on MSLSD or the Commie Newz Network, CNN, are the anti-American propaganda networks. The American people know this. Why don’t you?

        1. In a backa$$ed way Anonymous the Stupid is correct. We used to call the Soviet Union the Reds. Now that Biden is in office, if that is the meaning of red, Anonymous the Stupid is correct. Our government is now a fascist oligarchy being run mostly by leftists.

          Do they believe the Constitution is meaningful? No and the proof is they will attempt to increase the size of the Supreme Court to any number they need to bypass the Constitution.

    4. President Biden is not in charge of anything. He reads the teleprompter in front of him and signs whatever they put in front of him. HE is not the man in charge of literally anything. America is in big trouble under the Biden regime. We all know it. Why don’t you?

Leave a Reply