In a major but likely controversial victory for free speech, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned the conviction of a retired Air Force colonel for using a racial epithet at the shoe store on the Marine base at Quantico, Virginia. Jules A. Bartow, who is white, was arrested after a bizarre and disgraceful exchange with an employee, including the use of the “n word” with the African American woman. The highly offensive and repugnant language of Bartow was denounced by the court, but the unanimous panel still reversed T.S. Ellis III, Senior District Judge of the Eastern District of Virginia on First Amendment grounds.
Free speech advocates must often defend those who are despised or language that is deeply offensive. The First Amendment is not designed to protect popular speech or popular people. Such speech and such people rarely need protection. That means that we must resist attacks on free speech in cases where we find speech to be repugnant and repulsive. That is the case with retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jules A. Bartow.
In November 2018, Bartow entered the Quantico Marine Corps Exchange to shop for boots. He was quickly assisted by Cathy Johnson-Felder, an African American, who innocently said “[G]ood morning. May I help you?” Bartow responded bizarrely with “If I had indigestion, diarrhea, or a headache, would you still address me as good morning?” Undeterred Johnson-Felder again asked “[C]an I help you, sir?” Bartow then responded, “I’m not a sir — I’m not a male, I’m not a female, if I had a vagina, would you still call me sir?” Bartow reportedly was speaking louder and louder as he berated this employee for simply trying to help him. That drew a white uniformed Marine lieutenant colonel who began to argue with Bartow over his disgraceful treatment of Johnson-Felder.
During this continued argument between the two men, Bartow continued to try on boots as a crowd formed. An African-American in civilian clothes also argued with Bartow and explained that “the reason that [employees at the Exchange] say ‘sir’ or ‘ma’am’ is because you are purchasing merchandise on a military installation.” Bartow then said: “If I called her a [n****r], would she still say good morning?”
A security officer was called over and Bartow was escorted out of the door and then arrested by base security officers.
Bartow was charged under Virginia Code § 18.2-416, which reads in pertinent part:
“If any person shall, in the presence or hearing of another, curse or abuse such other person, or use any violent abusive language to such person concerning himself or any of his relations, or otherwise use such language, under circumstances reasonably calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.”
The language of the statute in my view is unconstitutional due to its sweeping criminalization of any “curse or abuse” that could “provoke a breach of the peace.” However, the appellate panel correctly noted that such laws are narrowly construed in light of controlling precedent. This includes Virginia state court rulings that the statute must be confined to speech that has “a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, [the language is] addressed.” Mercer v. Winston, 199 S.E.2d 724, 726 (Va. 1973). As the United States Supreme Court ruled in National Ass’n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 445 (1963), the protection of speech is maintained under the First Amendment “without regard . . . to the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs [that] are offered.” National Ass’n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 445 (1963).
Even with the Supreme Court’s allowance for the criminalization of “fighting words” in cases like Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942), the Court has sharply abridged the application that exception. It is no longer enough to show how such speech can “inflict injury,” but must be “shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious 7 substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.” Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 4 (1949). The Court has rejected the criminalization of “abusive language” that provokes a “breach of the peace” and “violent resentment” in another person. Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 524 (1972).
Accordingly, the panel ruled:
Everything about Bartow’s remarks was offensive and bizarre, and their meaning was difficult to discern. His words were laden with references to various bodily functions, sexual diseases, genitalia, and ultimately, a noxious racial epithet. The video shows that, while Bartow was speaking, people stopped to watch the scene unfold, and some engaged with him. But most of the observers left to carry on with their shopping before security escorted Bartow from the store. And those who stayed continued to try on shoes, as Bartow did. There are no signs of violence. No one reported, and the video does not reveal, that Bartow was likely to, or actually did, invoke a violent response. The Supreme Court has made clear that to obtain a conviction for use of “fighting words,” the Government must offer evidence of the “likelihood that the person addressed would make an immediate violent response.” Gooding, 405 U.S. at 528. Here, it has not.
In my view (as will surprise few on this blog), the decision is correct. Consider the alternative if we allow the criminalization of offensive speech. Once we place free speech on that slippery slope, we are unlikely to find terra firma as different groups and individuals declare themselves offended and triggered by slurs and insults.
I have written for years on the effort of European countries to expand their crackdown on free speech. The criminalization of speech has expanded in countries like France, Germany, and England though hate speech laws and speech regulation. Most concerning is the call for European style speech limits in this country.
Free speech demands bright lines. One of the greatest threats to free speech is the chilling effect caused by ambiguous or vague standards like the one contained in the Virginia statute. Every case of an obnoxious or repugnant individual invites us to make an exception or adopt some nuanced excuse for not following our principles. The temptation is particularly great in cases like this one when defending free speech can be confused with supporting bigotry.
It is never popular to fight for the free speech rights of individuals like Bartow. Indeed, after being quoted in a Washington Post article in favor of this ruling last night, I received emails denouncing me as a de facto racist, including one from an attorney condemning me for “defending bigotry under the guise of constitutional freedom.” It is a common attack on free speech advocates to claim that we defend bigotry as opposed to free speech in such cases. The “guise of constitutional freedom” is in fact the First Amendment’s protection of unpopular speech. Indeed, Justice Thurgood Marshall famously declared in Police Dep’t of Chi. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972), that the “government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”
Bartow is the price we pay for freedom of speech but it is not nearly as high of a cost as abandoning the bright line protecting us all for criminal speech codes.
Here is the opinion: United States v. Bartow
While I am somewhat relieved by the decision I am still still disappointed over the total lack of for better words thicker skin in society today as is evident by the many comments which half heartedly agree with the decision while simultaneously offering alternative penalties such as barring from the base or assault charges in place of leveraging the Virginia statute as if that would somehow better champion free speech principals. Since when did we become such pansy’s that we outlaw bad behavior? I grew up in the 60s. We saw bad behavior then too, only we didn’t call the cops or launch litigation in response to it. We “shook our heads” and said things like “some peoples children”. We understood people have bad days and we would have the sense to walk away, move on, step to the next aisle, etc. The decision was correct and I concur with professor Turley on it without reservation or alternative “punishments” to suggest. In fact given the professors proclivity to draw analogies to old movies, something I myself am often prone to do, I am reminded on this one for some reason of a scene from one of my favorite Paul Newman films, “Nobody’s Fool”.
In it Newman plays an aging 60 year old unemployed jack of all trades, master of none living in a sleepy upstate town called “Bath”. In one scene a local small town cop named “Raimer” (played brilliantly by the late Philip Seymour Hoffman) attempts to stop Paul Newman from driving his pickup on the sidewalk and discharges his firearm. In response, a shocked Paul Newman (aptly named “Sully”) punches Raimer in the nose knocking him down. When they appear before the Judge in an informal hearing to address the incident the local Judge not wanting to make a big deal out of an already diffused situation and hands out a little advice to both parties, first admonishing Sully for his reckless and belligerent behavior and dismisses the matter (with time served) leaving Raimer this precious tidbit of wisdom. He looks at Phillip Seymour Hoffman who is sporting a massive swollen shiner and swollen nose and asks “what do you usually do when someone takes a poke at you?” Hoffman, looking confused by the question responds after a moment someone sheepishly; “duck?”. The judge looks at him sternly and replies, “next time, do that”.
The entire premise of Law & Order (for over 2000 years) and the American written constitutional rule of law system is that we have overt advertised (not secret) written laws passed a legislature and executive Branch agencies follow those written laws.
In other words law-abiding citizens know where the legal lines are and try to comply with those laws. Police-chiefs and agency heads follow these overt advertised laws also.
How can citizens trying to be law-abiding follow secret laws they aren’t aware of? The First Amendment tells citizens that is perfectly legal to attend a BLM protest or a Trump protest as long as you don’t participate in violence, trespassing or property damage. None of these groups publicly advertise to subvert our constitutional system of government. The First Amendment publicly tells citizens, except for rare instances, you can say or write almost anything as long as the U.S. Supreme Court has deemed it legal. You can attend any church, of any religion, you please or choose no religion at all.
Police, FBI or any other agency does not have probable cause to search any individual based on their legal First Amendment activity. When police-chiefs and agency heads do this it actually destroys the concept of Law & Order. They penalize law-abiding citizens trying to comply with publicly advertised laws. It’s not illegal or wrong to support BLM,Trump or any other group.
Robert Jackson (Nuremberg Prosecutor, Attorney General and U.S. Supreme Court Justice) was likely America’s greatest Law & Order expert. Jackson concluded, from procecuting Nazis during WWII to American domestic law, that the greatest tyranny by police, prosecutors and government officials was “warrantless arbitrary searches”. The arbitrary search authority was essentially the foundation that most other tyrannies are built upon.
Jackson’s conclusion was basically the right of citizens to be left alone and not everything is the government’s business. That’s many times the opposite mission of police, FBI and security agencies – although every American official swears an Oath of Office as a condition of holding authority. Jackson would probably be appalled by the post 9/11 laws and authorities being implemented without the legally required constitutional-amendment.
The U.S. Constitution is a wartime governing charter created between the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 (which historian Ken Burns terms “America’s 2nd Revolutionary War”). During this wartime era, America was a weak nation fighting the world’s then superpower or national-state. Neither a so-called War on Drugs nor a loose group of terrorists supersedes our wartime governing charter – the U.S. Constitution.
If police-chiefs and agency heads support Law & Order they should end warrantless arbitrary searches that violate the Fourth Amendment and stop violating their own Oath of Office loyalty oath. Most citizens aren’t the problem.
There’s a much bigger First Amendment crisis happening with Cointelpro-style tactics by local, state and federal officials. These crimes, by officials, are perpetrated using “non-confrontational covert blacklisting” to retaliate for overt legal First Amendment exercises. These crimes, illegal under 18 US Code 245 and 42 USC 1983, are massive in scale and largely fly under the radar of judges and the U.S. Supreme Court. What’s so evil about these crimes is it robs law-abiding citizens, exercising legal First Amendment rights, of “legal standing” in a court of law.
Since 9/11, some individuals have been harassed by local, state and federal officials for more than 7,000 consecutive days, which meets the federal torture statute and Eighth Amendment as criminal acts perpetrated by oath-sworn officials. The problem is there are no police to enforce these statutes. Apparently the DOJ shies away from policing their own agency.
What we have today is literally, in every way, a “Thought Police”. Police and officials, including federal officials, perceiving legal First Amendment activity essentially as “probable cause” to perform illegal surveillance and illegal searches. As long as they don’t arrest, fine or confront you overtly, they can punish any citizen, for any reason, for life and judges never see the thousands of crimes taking place. Although it was primarily about cell-phone tracking, “Carpenter v. US” ruling included specific wording in regards to 24/7 totalitarian surveillance: if it lasts longer than 2 weeks it is a “search” and legally governed by the Fourth Amendment. That wording, pertaining to premise of totalitarian surveillance, could apply to ALL surveillance including non-electronic surveillance.
For example: On Facebook if you simply “Liked” police body cameras (even if you supported police officers) it’s very likely you were placed under illegal surveillance and possibly blacklisted. If you simply “Liked” the legal and peaceful activities of “Black Lives Matter” you were likely surveil led or blacklisted. It cuts both ways, following the 2021 Capitol insurrection, many Trump supporters are likely being punished also.
How are punished illegally and covertly? You essentially become a 2nd Class citizen and subjected to “unequal enforcement/treatment”. It could involve jaywalking (Michael Brown case), broken tail light, speeding or being surveilled at a bar or restaurant.
Congress could fix this by requiring simply bottom line statistics of all agencies (local, state, federal) distinguishing between “probable cause searches and surveillance” (requiring warrants) vs, “warrantless non-probable cause searches/surveillance”. Congress could also mandate Oath of Office and constitutional training (annually) for all officials with policing powers. Under Article I, Congress has the authority to enforce the U.S. Constitution in local, state and federal jurisdictions.
This is real First Amendment crime wave of the 21st Century being concealed from the Judicial Branch courts. Congress needs to fix this. People on this post know this is true because it happens to us that exercise our legal First Amendment rights.
Using vulgar language is not a good idea. But it should not be illegal. Let the people be the judge in the courtroom of public opinion.
The charge that might have stuck would be Assault. Someone going off on me after ‘Good Morning’ was clearly threatening.
Glad you continue to defend free speech. That said, the cranky guy asked questions, using various words to further emphasize a point he was apparently trying to make. It appeared his choices of words were intentionally chosen according to the person he was talking to, in order to tailor the point for utmost clarity – choosing the word he thought would most offend them as his example.
Some of our greatest protections against the government were borne out of truly unsavory people acting badly.
Ernesto Miranda, and now Jules Bartow are good examples.
As previously noted. He could have been banned from the base for his behavior. It was odious behavior, but not criminal. I’m concerned however with the man’s mental health. His whole conversation and his continuing to try on boots while holding this bizarre conversation suggests that he was not completely aware of what was going on..
I hope they charged him under the UCMJ as well. Maybe that’s why he’s retired.
That conversation was literally crazy and offensive from the innocent beginning.
First thing I thought. He really sounds like a wacko, and a 1st-class A-H on top of it.
Bugs, you sent me a link without any text. I didn’t bother to read it, however on the fringe is a news article that was a wow. I chose to first get more details before concluding anything, but many will find it interesting.
The headline states:
—–
REDPILLED MEDIA EXCLUSIVE: US Capitol Special Agent David Bailey Who Murdered Ashli Babbitt is a Brazilian Immigrant and Black Lives Matter Militant — HE REPEATEDLY THREATENED TO KILL TRUMP SUPPORTERS ON FACEBOOK FOR MONTHS! (Exclusive Evidence)
Earlier today, REDPILED Media released an exclusive report identifying Ashli Babbitt’s killer as US Capitol Special Agent David Bailey — the same man who let US Rep. Steve Scalise get shot nearly to death in 2017.
http://republicbroadcasting.org/news/redpilled-media-exclusive-us-capitol-special-agent-david-bailey-who-murdered-ashli-babbitt-is-a-brazilian-immigrant-and-black-lives-matter-militant-he-repeatedly-threatened-to-kill-trump-su/
From Wikipedia:
“Republic Broadcasting Network (RBN) is a satellite, shortwave, and Internet radio operation based in the state of Texas. It is run by John Stadtmiller, who advertises it as a “truth radio station”.[1] In 2010, it received publicity in the news after one of its broadcasters was revealed to be a leader in the Guardians of the Free Republics, a Sovereign Citizen-affiliated group that had sent threatening letters to all 50 United States governors.[2][3] The network has loose ties to the Willis Carto-founded American Free Press newspaper, which was described by political scientist George Michael as “the most important newspaper of the radical right”.[1]”
Mutant food.
EB
Yes, Bugs, I recognize the fact that they are not mainstream and mentioned that. However, the manipulation of that event by the Democrats in charge without a quick release of information makes what happened far more suspicious.
Thieves don’t rob people where there is a lot of light shining. You have a problem in assessing potential dangers. That is probably because you got the same lousy education as Svelaz and you would never think of learning things on your own. You seem to require force feeding.
SM
James A, once again I can’t get to your reply with the highlighted comment button, so I am starting anew.
“anybody is questioning the legitimacy of the presidential election” is a matter of politics. It’s a factual matter, not a matter of opinion.”
James A., I don’t have that tendency to look at things in such a narrow sense. Did illegitimate or irregular things occur during the Presidential election? I believe yes. I am a Trump supporter and a conservative though I would support anyone who has my values. I even looked at one of the Democrat candidates who fell by the wayside early in 2016.
Do I believe that our President is Joe Biden? Yes. I hang around with a lot of conservatives some of whose names you might recognize. Do they believe Joe Biden is President? Yes. A few regular people talk loud without thinking, but even most of them believe Joe Biden is President. Take a listen to the number of those on this blog that said Trump wasn’t a legitimate President. The word legitimate means a lot of things to a lot of different people.
McCarthy didn’t say much of anything in that statement since one can interpret things in so many different ways. However, you called him a liar without thinking twice. In my opinion, that is not a good way to discuss things. You may want him to sort out the details for you, but that is not his job nor is it something he wishes to do. He is limited by his position. I am not.
“GOP just ousted Cheney from her leadership position because she won’t join Trump in questioning it.”
That is politics talking. The Bush and Cheney families have an intense dislike for Trump. I can understand that but sometimes they go a bit too far. That’s where politics sometimes enters the picture where it shouldn’t.
“I’m criticizing politicians who lie and people who give them a pass on lying.”
Great. We agree, but all Presidents lie to some extent. They start by making pledges they never even try to fulfill. Obama and Biden have been masters at that. Trump lived up to most of his pledges. As President, he seems to have lied less than the others and certainly was transparent when he let all the WH and his WH attorney testify. In fact, Trump tells the truth of what he is thinking out loud, frequently without a filter much to the concern of almost everyone at one time or another. However, many of those statements were excellent thoughts and became policies that turned out well. The problem is unbaked ideas are misunderstood by people and used by those that are more interested in debating politics than principles. That type of political person doesn’t seem interested in moving forward.
Allan, your comment here reminds me of an Adam Sandler movie opening (was it Happy Gilmore?) where he’s riding around in a golf cart and looking for a hallucinated penguin.
EB
Bug, are you that “hallucinated penguin”?
SM
It was not necessary to criminalize that man’s act, i.e. his speech. The Supreme Court’s ruling is of course, consistent with the US Constitution, the main law of the land.
I say “not necessary”, because all the security officer needed to do was require the man’s identification (on a military installation, he CAN legally do that), take witness statements, and forward a report to the base commander. In turn, the base commander could rightfully ban this officer from that installation. Beyond that, he could refer it up the chain of command to the Secretary of the Army or USAF, for discipline under the USMJ. While the man as a civilian is entitled to free speech, he remains as a retired military officer, forever subject to the UCMJ. There are “good order and discipline” regs that the Colonel violated. However, no sensible officer would go that far, because in fact, it was a simple case of a fairly rude man. Again, it wasn’t necessary to go beyond banning the man from the base, and I’d certainly CONSIDER doing that, if a retired officer came on my installation and did what he did. (I don’t even care about the “N” word. His actions in general were unbecoming a commissioned officer.)
It’s simply yet another case of the “woke” Democrats believing that they should control every man, woman, and child, right up to, and including their thoughts. They want to CRIMINALIZE PEOPLE for who they are and what they think and say, not just for clearly criminal actions. “Call security! Call the police!! Arrest that man! Throw him in jail, because … because …”. Well, it’s not because he did anything UNLAWFUL or illegal vis-a-vis the US Constitution. He violated THEIR own “woke” code.
This country needs to reject the Democrat’s “woke” code in all of it’s form. It is an authoritarian, or specifically, an authoritarian socialist construct. The people of the USA have never codified their code into the law or the US Constitution. And certainly, since the Constitution protects citizens rights, it would prevent a mob of leftists forcing us to do so..
The highly offensive and repugnant language of Bartow was denounced…
There have been offensive and repugnant behaviors by the Left for decades. Some of these include displaying crucifixes in urinals and depicting the Virgin Mary as a prostitute, and calling these “art”, funded by taxpayers monies, as well as storming a Catholic Church during Mass and stomping on the Eucharist in the most evil action known to Catholics. Yet the Left and the corporate media yawned, berated Catholics as lunatics, ridiculing us as mentally ill, superstitious twits.
Your faux religion is not greater than others, Turley.
Many of us will never forget the offensive and repugnant acts of commission by the Left for decades and continue till this very day. As for the “n” word, get over it. Blacks hurl the word with gusto at each other will full invective when they fight each other in their neighborhoods, not to mention in their violent rap songs.
Someone please tell me how a word that means Black in Spanish has become the holy grail of that which can not be uttered, but its A OK to say God Dam## on every movie. I mean. its a joke that a word that means Black is so vilified, if it was tat awful, black people wouldn’t use it. The truth is the Libs are using this to divide our peoples, and thus to conquer Capitalism, and we have ignorant people that fall for it. Sad.
“…to obtain a conviction for use of “fighting words,” the Government must offer evidence of the “likelihood that the person addressed would make an immediate violent response.”
The colonel is lucky his case was decided before the black Dunkin’ Donuts employee killed a white customer for calling him the n word the other day.
You have a right to be offended; you do not have the right to go unoffended.
If you’re going to introduce anti-Semitism into the discussion, you might acknowledge that there are anti-Semites on the right and left,”
Anonymous, I have brought that idea up numerous times. White Supremacists, anti-Semites and all sorts of bigotry exists all over the spectrum. Unfortunately, we argue about tweets that divide us and forget about bigotry or we use bigotry to promote political positions. We need to utilize principles and discuss exactly what our desires are.
For most of the population our end desires are pretty similar. It is the means that leads to the arguments. But the means can be evaluated through historical knowledge along with whatever knowledge we have of economics and philosophy. I think mathematics might be the sticking point. 🙂
Darren, I received James A. response in my email box and couldn’t comment at the “ commented “ spot in the email so I went to the reply and posted. Neither James nor my post appeared. Maybe it will appear later. I don’t know, but I know the problem has already arisen elsewhere so below is my response to the James A. email. If both responses come in later then perhaps WordPress is having issues with its computer system.
“Trump is pushing a Big Lie that the election was stolen”
James A., you need not get so hot under the collar. I don’t know you and you don’t know me.
“Trump is pushing a Big Lie that the election was stolen”
Are you saying that Trump doesn’t have a right to his opinion? We lived for four years with Clinton saying just about the same thing and we live with people who still say Trump didn’t win the 2016 election. Why suddenly does the loser’s opinion have so much of an impact on you?
There were serious irregularities in this election. Neither you nor I know what would have happened if none of these irregularities occurred. Maybe I shouldn’t have said that because you might stand behind a closed-door not permitting the thought of irregularities to enter your mind.
” I’m glad to hear her say “I will do everything I can to ensure that the former president never again gets anywhere near the Oval Office.”
Big deal. You are not a fan of Donald Trump. You get your vote and others get their own, hopefully in fair elections.
House Minority Leader McCarthy yesterday: “I don’t think anybody is questioning the legitimacy of the presidential election.”
Fair enough, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t investigate so that the questions that arose in this election don’t arise in the next.
But, you say “McCarthy is lying. “. That is your opinion and like everyone else including Trump you are allowed your own opinion.
Now it is time to calm down.
S. Meyer,
“James A” is a previously banned user from some time ago using another alias. Comments from banned users are summarily deleted. An effect of this is seems to be that WordPress’ threading model gets broken when [Parent] comments are deleted and their [Child] comments (that is, replies to deleted comments) become orphaned. The system appears to me not to be able to handle these orphans and consequently does not display these child, “reply” comments. A better implementation of WordPress would have been to promote a Child and the child’s children up one level if the parent comment is removed, but this seems to not be the case with the current implementation of their threading model.
As a consequence of this, ordinary regular users who might unknowingly post replies to illegally posted comments will lose their comment as well. I am not aware of a workaround to this issue. If I do find one it will be implemented if practical on our side. Thus it should be known that if a nefarious comment presents a probability it will be in violation of the Civility Policy, its not recommended that other users invest much time in posting a reply directly to it, since their reply too might go away. I recognize that it might be difficult for people on the user side of the web blog to know who is a previously banned user, since they lack to tools to know this, but it is something to keep in mind in terms of time management for their comments.
Darren, I noticed one of my responses had vanished along with the post I was responding to and I assumed it was something like this. No harm done but nice to have my supposition confirmed. Nice weekend photos, by the way. Looks like Eastern Washington, beautiful empty spaces where comfortable loneliness is nature’s gift. Traveling through at night years ago I passed through a storm and the sky on the windward side was swept clean and clear. The Big Dipper was filled with stars. I’ve never seen that before or since. It must look that way from the space station.
Darren, thank you for letting me know. Every once in a while my posting shows that the post is waiting for moderation even when there is nothing wrong with the post. Maybe that same setting can be used to block out the banned user without getting rid of the orphans.
The system seems to be deficient in how it permits you to control access to who can post. I did not realize that you had to deal with some of the programmings yourself. I doubly thank you for your efforts.
What you are saying is that when responding to an unknown name, that person might be banned, so the subsequent post will be removed as well. Therefore, at this time, to prevent orphans one needs to respond by starting a new chain.
“It’s the [votes}, stupid!”
– James Carville
_____________
Liz Cheney is a envious, wretched, narcissistic and unrepentant sinner, cringing in the prodigious shadow of President Donald J. Trump.
The Eleventh Commandment of President Ronald Reagan reads:
Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.
My Dad worked in Washington when I was a kid. He was a New England Democrat, who back then, would hang out with Republicans from the Nixon adminstration after work. He’d make me go to his cocktail parties. I met Robert Haldeman, who I knew as ‘Bob’. While Dems and Repubs would go to war over specific issues, they didn’t see each other as rival gangs. That trend was begun sometime later by Repubs who would come to utter the Reagan trash you’re refering to in your post, George.
EB
Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are not “rival gangs,” they are the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” a highly profitable and wholly unconstitutional enterprise in Washington, D.C., the District of Corruption.
Okey Dokey.
EB
You can’t grasp the scope and breadth of American freedom, being steeped in communism. Washington is irrefutably, the District of Corruption. The violent reaction of the communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) Deep Deep State to the freedom promoted by President Donald J. Trump is corruption on display. Under the Constitution, Americans are free and Congress has no power to regulate anything beyond money, commerce and land and naval Forces, or claim or exercise any form of dominion over private property. For milquetoast doubters and other communists, the “pour over” Amendment, the 9th, assures every last conceivable, natural and God-given right and freedom not provided in the Constitution. The systemic failure is the communist judicial branch.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual or specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. The same article provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the full taking of property under the principle of eminent domain.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, 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.
The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional, including but not limited to, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, SNAP, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
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.
Take a breath and adjust the tinfoil hat there, Cap. When you’re calmed down just a wee bit, realize calling someone communist with multiple family members who sacrificed their lives in American military and intelligence actions is ridiculous. And I’m *never* going to buy your completely reductionistic and nonsensical interpretations of the Constitution…
On top of that, with me having direct experience of working for someone once upon a time who was ripped off in the most sleazy of ways by Donald Trump (leading to me getting ripped off on substantial subcontracing work)…, well, the nanosecond you pair Trump’s name with freedom I laugh out loud so fiercely I disturb the neighbors.
I guess, most importantly, realize you are who the framers feared.
EB
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
3/5ths of a valid point.
EB
So your communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) hallucinations supersede the writings, the genius of Alexander Hamilton et al.
Good to know.
You are the direct and mortal enemy of Alexander Hamilton et al., the Constitution and America.
Good to know.
“3/5ths “
Sounds like you Bug. 1 fifth for breakfast, 1 for lunch and 1 for dinner.
SM
The “dictatorship of the proletariat” must be protected at all costs.
Thank you so much, comrade Vladimir Lenin.
_____________________________________
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
– William Casey, CIA Director
________________________
Oh, I almost forgot. The several state ballot audits will clarify the facts of the election. You support the discovery of the truth, I presume.
Nicholas Spinelli says:
“I surmise the judge was fearful of the mob. JT is fearless, a rarity in this culture.”
Is he now? What is rare are the Liz Cheney’s of the world. Sadly, It would appear that Turley is afraid to stand up for what is right. Instead, he may be hoping that we will not take notice of his silence. If, by tomorrow, he has yet to speak-out, he will have permanently stained his reputation- not with the cult of Trump liars- but with his fellow professors, his students, his friends and colleagues. Nor will we forgive his disgraceful obedience to the deplorable Fox News. But there will be a reckoning one day, for we will never “move on” until those who openly embraced Trumpism or silently stood by in its wake forswear Donald Trump once and for all and ask for our forgiveness.
I was beginning to lose faith in you. In the last couple of weeks you had postings without referencing Turley’s relationship with Fox. There are a few things things that can always be counted on
The Democrats are rampant hypocrites.
Water is wet.
There are only 2 genders
Biden will go down as the worst President in our country’s history.
And Jeff will try to negate Turley’ s positions on HIS blog.
Oh and one more thing.
Nobody will ever ask for the forgiveness of anti American lemmings!!
Paul,
We’ll hear the Republican leaders say it or there will never be peace between the parties because the Democrats and the mainstream media will never let you forget your lies. Republicans will have another opportunity to denounce Trumpism and disassociate themselves from him if he is ever convicted criminally. We will have the last laugh. Bet on it…
He will never be convicted of anything. Bet on it! And if by mainstream media you mean the far left propaganda machine that put forth the Russia hoax, bounties on soldiers and the soldiers are suckers and losers
B.S. , just to name a few outright lies,, I agree with you. And given the present Democratic leadership, a President who can’t remember the name of a congressman who he met with 5 minutes ago, anti Semitic leaders like Omar, China puppets like Swallwell and lying morons like Schiff and hypocrites like Pelosi, there will never be peace between parties. And there should not be.
Paul, I think the Democratic Party of today is an aberration. The only question in my mind is whether or not this aberration is the new normal. If it is the new normal we are living at the beginning of a new fascist oligarchy.
Paul,
I wish there was a way to take your bet on whether Trump will be indicted and convicted. I’d even give you 2-1 odds!
I presume that Trumpist liars will not abide a jury’s conviction. Undoubtedly, they will claim that the prosecutors “hate” Trump and the judge was appointed by Obama or otherwise a member of the “deep state,” and that the jury was overrepresented by Democrats and/or Leftists.
I declare today that I will not question a jury’s not guilty verdict. Will you declare that you will not question a guilty verdict?
I hope Trump will be put on trial if for no other reason that Turley will HAVE to come out of the shadows to weigh in on Trumpism. As a Fox legal analyst, he will be asked to analyze the merits of the criminal case. But he inevitably will run afoul of Hannity, Carlson and Ingraham when he will not parrot their conspiracy theories exonerating Trump. While Turley exercises his right to remain silent when his opinions will make him unpopular with Trumpists, as in the present case with Cheney, he will not be able to avoid incurring the wrath of Trumpists when he faces his own “Liz Cheney moment” when he has to stand up against their predictable lie that the criminal justice system was rigged against Trump.
“I presume that Trumpist liars will not abide a jury’s conviction. …
I declare today that I will not question a jury’s not guilty verdict. Will you declare that you will not question a guilty verdict? …”
Jeff, we have already learned from your discussions with me that you are not an honest broker and that what you say one moment can change in the next.
You are unable to defend your positions so you slime everyone that you perceive to be your enemy. You do so with the broadest of brushes. Your hate is seen dripping from your mouth every time you open it.
Here comes more hate while you touch the borders of libel:
“I hope Trump will be put on trial if for no other reason that Turley will HAVE to come out of the shadows to weigh in on Trumpism. “
If it were up to me, I would release your name, not here on Turley’s blog , but in a libel suit something you justly deserve.
LOL, convicted…? Of what?
Of being the single most effective and America-centric President in our history?
Of bringing to ALL Americans the best economy ever seen including the HIGHEST rate of employment in HISTORY for blacks and Hispanics AND women?
Of bringing the first PEACE to the Middle East (Which pedo joe destroyed in just 4 months)
I will agree to one thing. If it were a capitol offense to humiliate, embarrass and discredit the opposition Political Party then surely the MAGA Man would hang.
Simply put Trump will go down in history as Americas greatest leader while at the same time pedo joe will displace Jimmy Carter and Obama as the worst presidents in our history.
“What is rare are the Liz Cheney’s of the world. “
What she did is quite common. She challenged the leader and the leader she challenged was one who has been challenged on the right and the left but still maintains vibrance and loyalty of a large part of the voting population. Trump deserves such popularity for what he did with the economy, peace in places around the world, holding our enemies at bay, low unemployment, and providing the Covid vaccine when the hypocrites and experts laughed at his suggestion he could get it done in a year. He did it in less than a year.
What is common is the ignorant and hypocrites that hated Bush and Cheney that now say what respect they have for Liz. They can only say that because they have no respect for themselves or decency. In this case, we have a coward who can never prove his taunting claims, “Turley is afraid to stand up for what is right. “. Defamation is what Jeff Silberman has to offer. Yet he remains on the blog for free provided by the man he defames. That demonstrates how weak an ally or enemy he is as he will turn on anyone for he is a weakling reliant on hypocrisy and ignorance.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/13/politics/andrew-clyde-january-6-riot/index.html
EB
Make sure you watch the video clueless and gullible one.
EB
JS:
“But there will be a reckoning one day, for we will never “move on” until those who openly embraced Trumpism or silently stood by in its wake forswear Donald Trump once and for all and ask for our forgiveness.”
***************************
Ask Forgiveness? Hahahaha! All the sincerity,piety and wit of a 10-year-old vowing revenge for losing his ice cream come to a bigger, better boy. Hahahaha! You guys can’t shoulder a firearm and can’t figure out which bathroom to use and you want an apology? I think we’re fine.Hahahaha
As for standing still, that’s fine and has its virtues, too. Let’s do if those are your terms:
Nothing like a Mespo typo. They’re the absolute best!
EB
Typos? Maybe
“…All the sincerity,piety and wit of a 10-year-old vowing revenge for losing his ice cream come to a bigger, better boy.”
bahahahahahahahahahaha
EB
Mespo,
Why do I get the feeling that every time you speak you are simultaneously caressing your semi-automatic?
+100
EB
Anonymous, you made 3 points in the posting starting with “FWIW, Allan, I emailed Prof. …”
1) What is your point?
2) I want to know what you call the Big Lie. It’s been pulled, twisted and distorted so that the use of the term means different things to different people. I want to deal with what you believe it to be, not someone else, not Fox. The usage of the term Big Lie is shorthand for a much longer list and has become a giant meaningless talking point.
3)Liz Cheney: “Liz Cheney’s rejection of Trump’s Big Lie …” There is the term again but to date you have used links, used the term, and referred to other’s use of the term, but you never said what the Big Lie means to you.
I don’t debate links and I don’t debate vague references. You like both.
Read Allan’s post as >> he doesn’t debate facts.
And, for his benefit, the big lie is that trump won an election when he lost both the popular vote and the electoral college decisively. He’ll call these ‘vague references’ just because they can barely get access within the fever dreams inside his confused and deluded brain. But he knows…, otherwise he wouldn’t have begun calling himself S.Meyer rather than Allan after Trump lost. He had to hide in shame.
EB
The fraud being uncovered as I type this will blow the Dems out of the water. The media is reporting nothing of what is going on in AZ but the info is coming out anyway and it is a disaster for the Left.
Bug, why you wish to make a fool of yourself is beyond understanding. I continued to call myself Allan on the initial postings I made but I was running into trouble with the other one that ended up causing problems. I changed both the email address and my name. Anonymous the Stupid made such a fuss that I continued with S. Meyer which is a preferable name to me than the other since another Allan popped up. All over the place, it was clear that S. Meyer was Allan, but who could deny Anonymous the Stupid the opportunity to announce himself a great sleuth. That was my gift to Anonymous the Stupid who rejects the gift.
Elsewhere I discussed the Big Lie to a greater extent. I know its origins and I know how it is used. I don’t expect you to understand the messaging of “the Big Lie” by the left. That is far above your pay grade. Trump has a right to his opinion just like Hillary and a bunch of commenters on this blog. You only have an opinion, because you never learned the difference between opinion and fact. That is one of the reasons you say, “he doesn’t debate facts.”. Not an intelligent statement, but one doesn’t expect more from you.
SM
“Trump has a right to his opinion just like Hillary and a bunch of commenters on this blog. ”
Sorry, Allan. But elections are run on numbers, not opinions about numbers. Stating there was voter fraud, but having no proof of said voter fraud = lost election.
Hillary, as well as her followers, knew she a) won the popular vote, b) lost the electoral college, and c) that the help the trump campaign accepted from the Russians lay in their providing polling data to the GRU that Russian intelligence then used to target their disinformation efforts — as it was proved that vote count hacking efforts isn’t where the Russians put their attention. (Except they did make some small hacking efforts in Florida re voting tallies). All established with solid proof and not “opinion”.
Speaking of “pay grade”…, still waiting for you to be able to distinguish between op ed material and actual research/investigation data to somehow counter your remedial writing style. It’s been a long wait, bud. Think it may never happen. So that’s where we stand.
EB
“Sorry, Allan. But elections are run on numbers, not opinions “
Bug, you go from bad to worse. An opinion is not a fact. Trump believes there was massive cheating. So far with all the irregularities one has to wonder. What makes it worse is that Democrats are trying to stop any deep look into what may have gone wrong. That makes people more suspicious not less. The reason to look now is so that our elections in the future are better accepted by the entire population, not just those that wish to make the voting process vague and open to abuse.
“Hillary, as well as her followers, knew she a) won the popular vote”
In other words, Hillary and her followers believe that following the law isn’t necessary. I think that is right and that is why Democrats say riots are peaceful despite the looting and burning buildings in the background.
“still waiting for you to be able to distinguish between op ed material and actual research/investigation data “
Your problem is that your ability to understand variables, selection and all the things that go into studies is near zero. That is OK. Not everyone needs to be smart.
SM
Allan. Buddy. You’re a moron.
EB
“Allan. Buddy. You’re a moron.”
Bug, sometimes as we reach the senior level our mental facilities wane and show their age. Sometimes this occurs in younger ages as well. Those people have difficulty responding to good argument so when such argument is presented they respond with only one or two words. That is what you do, but you are frustrated by your inabilities so you demonstrate that frustration by using words to insult rather than explain.
SM
OT: When thinking of enemies, Swalwell’s Chinese mistress, Feinstein’s Chinese driver, fake news Chinese pushing their boundaries across other nation’s boundaries, threatening our ships, stated intentions and of course Covid, the Wuhan virus, one should remember that what we are seeing is only the tip of the iceberg.
—-
China has used ‘army’ of fake Twitter accounts to amplify message on social media platform, report
https://justthenews.com/world/asia/china-uses-army-fake-accounts-boost-their-message-twitter?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
Speak freely or forever hold your piece. And when you hold your piece, aim it at the bad people.