Rep. Cicilline Demands The Censuring Of Colleagues For The “Mischaracterization” Of The Jan. 6th Riot

We have been discussing the effort in Congress to punish dissenting viewpoints among members on issues ranging from the Jan. 6th riot to the pandemic to racism. This has included sweeping calls for members to be disbarred or expelled for their criticism of the 2020 election or continued questioning of election irregularities. Rep. David Cicilline (D., R.I.) has been one of those calling for punishment of members who have the temerity to disagree with his view of the election or the riot.  Now, Cicilline is asking Democratic colleagues to sign on to a resolution to censure three House Republicans who are accused mischaracterizing the Jan. 6 riot, including refusing to call it an “insurrection.” It is the latest attempt to regulate how members and others discuss issues, dictating viewpoints by controlling speech used to express views.

Cicilline is demanding a resolution to censure Republican Reps. Andrew Clyde (Ga.), Jody Hice (Ga.) and Paul Gosar (Ariz.) for remarks that he felt downplayed the violent attack on the Capitol during a House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing this week. This included the failure to use the seemingly mandatory reference to the riot as an “insurrection”:

“The members who testified that January 6th was ‘not an insurrection’ and undermined the damage that was done put their own political agendas above their country. In doing so, they recklessly disregarded the future harm they could cause by legitimizing a violent attack on our democratic institutions – a conscious and harmful decision calling into question their dedication to their role as Representatives'”

The obvious problem is that rejecting the term “insurrection” is not “legitimizing a violent attack.” Many of us refer to the violence as a “riot” because it makes fewer assumptions as to the motivations of all of those present. It is not to downplay the violence or its implications for our country.  I condemned Donald Trump’s speech while he was still giving it and condemned the violence as it was unfolding. However, there were thousands of people at the protest and most were not violent and did not enter the Capitol. Those who did enter the Capitol revealed a mix of motives and actions as reflected in the charges brought by the Justice Department. Some meandered around the Capitol while others engaged in violent and destructive acts.  There was clearly a core of determined and violent individuals who engaged in a premeditated efforts to stop the certification of the votes from the election.  Recognizing such varied motives and actions does not legitimize the violence or dismiss the seriousness of the attack. As I have previously written, even if this was not technically an insurrection, it was a desecration of our constitutional process.

The most important point is that people of good faith can differ on how to characterize or understand what occurred on January 6th while still condemning the violence. The comments of Clyde received the most attention in the press. Here is what he said in pertinent part:

CLYDE: Thank you, Madam Chair. This hearing is called the Capitol Insurrectionlet‘s be honest with the American people. It was not an insurrection, and we cannot call it that and be truthful. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines an insurrection as, and I quote, “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence” and then from the Century Dictionary, “the act of rising against civil authority or governmental restraint specifically the armed resistance of a number of persons to the power of the state.”

As one of the members who stayed in the Capitol and on the House floor who with other Republican colleagues helped barricade the door until almost 3 PM that day from the mob who tried to enter I can tell you the House floor was never breached, and it was not an insurrection. This is the truth.

There was an undisciplined mob; there were some rioters and some who committed acts of vandalism but let me clear, there was no insurrection, and to call it an insurrection, in my opinion, is a bold-faced lie. Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes taking videos and picturesYou know, if you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.

There were no firearms confiscated from anyone who breached the Capitol. Also, the only shot fired on January 6th was from a Capitol Police officer who killed an unarmed protester, Ashli Babbitt, in what will probably be eventually be determined to be a needless display of lethal force.

Notably, Clyde then undermined his distinction between a riot and an insurrection by stating that the real insurrection was the Russian collusion scandal:

I agree with that 100 percent, you know, but the only insurrection that I have witnessed in my lifetime was the one conducted by members of the FBI with participants from the DOJ and other agencies under the banner Russia, Russia, Russia. High-ranking employees from these federal agencies and members of an independent counsel coordinated and fed a false narrative for over two years that the 2016 election was stolen and illegitimate.

Democrats were on the news almost every night saying the evidence is there, and the mainstream media amplified the fake news. This was indeed a very coordinated and well-funded effort by a determined group of people to overthrow our duly elected President Donald J Trump.

The statement taken as a whole is self-contradictory and ultimately incoherent.  However, Clyde was not defending the rioters but objecting to the characterization of their criminal conduct as an insurrection.  Members like all citizens are allowed to draw such a distinction. I disagreed with the challenge on the floor and the claims over the authority of Vice President Pence to “send back” the votes.  However, members reflects different constituencies and viewpoints.  They have a right to voice those views. Indeed, members are protected in doing such by not just the First Amendment but the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution.

Clearly, the Congress has the right to censure any member. Under Article I, Section 5  “[e]ach House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” However, to do so over such a question is an abusive of the legislative process.

Rep. Hice focused on defending former President Donald Trump from allegations that he incited an insurrection, the basis for his second impeachment. That is an issue that still divides this country with good arguments on both sides.

As for Rep. Gosar, he criticized the handling of the investigations and prosecutions by the Justice Department as excessive and pointed out how the lead prosecutor boasted on television that they sought to hit defendants so hard as to create “shock and awe” to deter others. He specifically questioned the handling of the investigation into the death of Ashli Babbitt, a case that raised concerns for many including myself.

Again, I do not agree with some of the characterizations or rhetoric of these members.  However, the attempt to censure colleagues for holding such opposing views is a disgraceful use of legislative authority.  Cicilline wrote:

“These three members dangerously mischaracterized what happened that day and showed more sympathy for the domestic terrorists than the Capitol police officers who died during the attack…These members cannot be allowed to rewrite history at their convenience by disrespecting the sacrifices made by Capitol police officers and downplaying the violent, destructive intent that rioters carried into this sacred building,” Cicilline added. ‘The January 6th insurrection was an attack on our democracy that we must continue to defend against today.’”

Read that over a few times. Cicilline wants to censure colleagues for “dangerous mischaracterizations [of] what happened that day.” Putting aside the irony given challenges to Cicilline’s own often over-hearted rhetoric (including as a House impeachment manager), he is seeking to punish colleagues for holding an opposing view of what occurred on that day.

As support for this abusive measure, Cicilline cited the expulsion of 17 members of Congress during the Civil War for “disloyalty to the United States.”  Cicilline is historically correct about the expulsions but absurdly off-base in his analogy to the current controversy.

The move to expel these members occurred on March 1861. That was a month after the start of the war with the firing on Fort Sumpter. On April 15, President Lincoln declared an insurrection. By that time, most Southern members rushed back to support the Confederacy, leaving vacancies in Congress. Maine Sen. William Pitt Fessenden thought it was insane to hold the seats for members who left the Senate to join a rebellion.  The Senate agreed and struck the names of the senators.  In July 1861, The 10 senators were expelled in July 1861 for being engaged “in a conspiracy against the peace and union of the United States Government” for their support of the Confederacy, according to the Senate.  Keep in mind that the first Battle of Bull Run occurred on July 21, 1861.

One senator was expelled on Dec. 4, 1861 because John Breckinridge, of Kentucky, had waited to see if Civil War could be avoided but then “joined the enemies of his country, and is now in arms against the Government he had sworn the support.” What is interesting is that, in October 1861, Breckinridge sent a formal letter of resignation to the Senate but months later Michigan Sen. Zachariah Chandler still moved to expel him. Ultimately, 14 senators were expelled.

Those were members who supported a civil war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives, including some like Breckinridge who took up arms in the Confederate forces. Cicilline sees no distinction with colleagues who condemned the violence but characterized it as a riot rather than an insurrection. Again, Cicilline insisted “We cannot allow this abhorrent mischaracterization to go unchecked.”

Just as our Constitution protects against the tyranny of the few, it also protects against the tyranny of the majority. As Madison said, “It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers; but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”

While a censure is unlikely to prompt judicial review (which is why it likely appears to Cicilline), it is still an offense to our constitutional values.  The Cicilline resolution should be condemned by members of both parties as an abuse of legislative authority and inimical to the legislative process.  He would open a Pandora’s Box of politically retaliatory measures that would see no end in our age of rage. There remain members on both sides who continue to fuel our divisions and capitalize on our tragedies for political purposes. No party owns the rights to Jan. 6th or the national pain caused by the attack. It remains an open wound for our nation as a whole. We will continue to debate the causes and the characterization of that attack on Congress. However, members cannot dictate how others reference or interpret these events.


325 thoughts on “Rep. Cicilline Demands The Censuring Of Colleagues For The “Mischaracterization” Of The Jan. 6th Riot”

  1. If not the term insurrection, at the very least, does anyone disagree that Trump was promoting a constitutionally “subversive” outcome? Trump was subverting the “constitutional democratic republic” model of American government. Trump lost over 60 individual lawsuits by mostly Republican appointed judges.

    Reminder: the term “subversive” is the designation used by the U.S. Department of Justice on past enemies to the United States. Groups that try to gain power by unconstitutional and undemocratic means, instead of gaining power at the ballot-box (communists, fascists, etc). Of course the DOJ didn’t follow that rule with constitutionally subversive programs like Cointelpro subverting voters and the U.S. Constitution. It’s still a dangerous label to wear for any group.

  2. The Judicial Branch federal courts all the way to the U.S. Supreme ruled against Trump’s election claims. Over 60 individual federal judges ruled Trump lost. Since Obama was denied about 100 federal judges and a Supreme Court pick by Mitch McConnell, most federal judges are Republicans that ruled against a Republican president. At some point Republicans need to accept this reality – it was a fair outcome.

  3. Like most Northerners, Turley demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the true nature of the war between the Federalists who remained in the Union and the “rebels” who left it. Bear in mind that the eleven states of the Confederacy LEFT THE UNITED STATES!!! They were no longer a part of it. It was not an “insurrection” because they did not seek the overthrow of the United States. They no longer wanted to be a part and each of those states voted to secede. Lincoln had the mistaken idea that he could somehow force them back into the Union and refused to abandon Fort Sumter after South Carolina asked him to withdraw his troops then used the resulting action (that caused little harm) as an excuse to raise an army and invade the seceded states. (That action led to the secession of four additional states.) There were members of Congress who opposed his actions and Lincoln did, in fact, expel an Ohio Congressman because of his outspoken opposition to Lincoln’s actions.

    As for the events of January 6, they were merely American citizens exercising their Constitutional right to protest. They did not “invade” the Capitol, they were let in by the Capitol police. They did not cause known bodily harm to anyone – all of those who died were actually Trump supporters and all but one died of natural causes or accident. One was killed by an overzealous black cop who has yet to be identified, in contrast to the handful of white officers who have killed blacks in the line of duty. The “damage” to the Capitol consisted of breaking out a couple of windows and damaging a desk in the entrance. Yet Democrats and their media hacks blew it all out of proportion and the Capitol police refuse to release video from security cameras while the media showed heavily edited segments from video shot on cell phones or by journalists. Two Capitol police officers have since committed suicide and their deaths are attributed to the “riot” by Democrats and the media. As for Rep. Clyde’s comments about how the FBI and the media attempted to undermine the duly-elected President of the United States by creating the myth of Russian involvement in the 2016 election, it was DEFINITELY an insurrection, an attempt to undermine the Constitution and prevent the president from carrying out his duties. All wars and insurrections don’t necessarily involve bloodshed. By the way, no blood was shed at Fort Sumter. By the way, at the time of the battle, the Confederacy did not exist. The fort was attacked by South Carolina militia exercising their Second Amendment rights to respond to tyranny with arms.

    1. “Two Capitol police officers have since committed suicide and their deaths are attributed to the “riot” by Democrats and the media.”

      If nothing had happened on Jan. 6th, I’d wager that they’d both still be alive. Officer Brian Sicknick, too.

      1. “If nothing had happened on Jan. 6th, I’d wager that they’d both still be alive. Officer Brian Sicknick, too.”

        With your betting instincts avoid Las Vegas.

      2. Sicknick suffered from a progressive medical condition that preceded the event a la Floyd. The progressive path and slope occurred because congressional leaders refused federal aid to conduct crowd control. The bear spray a.k.a. pepper spray, but ironically better regulated, that was never deployed. The assembled who were and were not “Trump supporters”. Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed woman, surrounded by security personnel, the only person murdered by a security officer for an undisclosed reason. Did her murder provoke the unrest? The witch hunts and warlock trials, the violation of civil rights, in progress. The insurrection that wasn’t.

        1. “Sicknick suffered from a progressive medical condition that preceded the event a la Floyd. ”

          Proof? Cite?

              1. Anonymous the Stupid, are you too stupid to understand that paid experts will say whatever you want.

                In this case, from the article: “Wecht has not examined the records directly”

                Anonymous the Stupid thinks that one can make this type of determination based on news articles. What a stupid guy.

                  1. Anonymous the Stupid, he is paid for some things and not paid for others. However, he is paid because he is known to be consistent and to hold his views based on the facts. When he represents clients as a lawyer he does so as a lawyer.

                    You are too dumb to understand these things. Furthermore, none of this matters because you have no ethics or morals. You are a non-person.

                1. lol

                  Well, we know that no one is going to be asking Allanonymous the Stupid what he thinks. He’s got nothing.

                  He believes whatever he hears from his right-wing rags.

                  1. Anonymous the Stupid, from your link: ““Wecht has not examined the records directly”

                    Yet you think he knows the case better than the physician that did the autopsy. You are a fool.

            1. “The autopsy is enough.”

              Bullright, Anonymous the Stupid isn’t smart enough to look at an autopsy. Further, he wouldn’t understand what it said. He is little more than a common moron.

              1. Allanonymous the Stupid runs his big yap. His mission in life is to do away with anonymous comments and yet he claims to be a free speech guy.

                1. I’m for free speech, but whether you post or not is up to Turley. You use your anonymous label to protect yourself from being associated with all of your stupid remarks. That is why you are known as Anonymous the Stupid.

                  Actually, I don’t care that you post. I care that what you post has to come from a moron.

            2. @ Bullright

              ‘The medical examiner noted Sicknick was among the officers who engaged the mob and said “all that transpired played a role in his condition.”’ — Washington Post



              In March, two men — Julian Elie Khater, 32, of Pennsylvania, and George Pierre Tanios, 39, of West Virginia — were accused of assaulting Sicknick with chemical spray during the riot.

              At the time of the arrests, the autopsy had not been completed. Tanios’s attorney, Beth Gross with the federal public defender service, declined to comment on the ruling. Attorneys for Khater on Monday did not respond to inquiries.

              Arrest papers allege that Khater and Tanios were at the Lower West Terrace of the Capitol at 2:14 p.m. on Jan. 6, where Sicknick and other officers were standing behind metal bicycle racks.

              “Give me that bear s—,” Khater said to Tanios on a recorded video, according to court documents.

              About nine minutes later, those documents say, after Khater said he had been sprayed with something, Khater is seen on video discharging a canister of a toxic substance into the face of Sicknick and two other officers.

              — Washington Post

              My understanding is that Judicial Watch has filed a suit for the full report.

              1. Anonymous the Stupid doesn’t realize that the autopsy has since been completed.

                Anonymous the Stupid is late on his leftist talking points.

      3. We know that Sicknick’s death was unrelated to the events, pursuant to the the coroner’s report. Those who committed suicide can only lead to the questioning of who are these people and why did they feel compelled to do so? There is no data available that would suggest that suicide was proximately related to what happened on Jan 6. You can’t just conclude that two people are dead and it was caused by a few harmless people getting out control in a protest. That is a lie not a factual determination. If suicides happened, did either of these people leave a suicide note or declaration? That might add something to the mix, but the mere timing is not sufficient.

        The one death that we can definitely attribute to these events was the brutal murder of Ashli Babbitt without cause. Which Pelosi, et al., have refused to hold the killer responsible for. WE can only hope the courts will behave better.

        1. “Sicknick was sprayed with a chemical substance outside the Capitol, the office said. He collapsed eight hours later and died the following evening.”


          At approximately 2:20 p.m. on January 6, Sicknick was sprayed with a chemical substance outside the Capitol, the office said. He collapsed eight hours later and died the following evening.

          Despite being sprayed with a chemical substance, Sicknick’s manner of death was determined to be “natural,” the medical examiner’s office said. In the interview with the Post, Diaz said the autopsy found no evidence of internal or external injuries, or of an allergic reaction to the chemical substance — but did say “all that transpired played a role in his condition.”

          The “natural” classification is used “when a disease alone causes death,” the medical examiner’s office said in the summary. “If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural.”

          The medical examiner’s office has not publicly released the full report.

          — CBS

          “Spray victim on life support:

          “Doctors said Kim’s stroke was probably triggered by shock and stress from the attack rather than by the spray, Lee said.”

          So, let’s say it wasn’t the bear spray… Maybe Sicknick’s death was also hastened and “triggered by shock and stress.”

          Anyone who can’t see or admit the possibility that Sicknick might still be alive — were it not for the events of Jan. 6th — is likely wearing blinders.

          1. Cyril Wecht weighs in, along with others:

            “Sicknick death ruled ‘natural’ but experts say stress can set off strokes”

            By Jen Christensen, CNN Apr 20, 2021



            The medical examiner’s declaration that the manner of death was “natural” after such events doesn’t sit right with forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht. While Wecht has not examined the records directly, he said media accounts about the ruling puzzled him.

            He was “shocked, amazed — hell, I don’t know where the hell he’s coming from,” he said.

            The news release from the examiner’s office said that the term “natural” is “used when a disease alone causes death. If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural.”

            “It’s not a natural death because of the contributing factors that were quite significant in precipitating his death. They contributed in a real significant way,” Wecht said.

            He said with a workers’ compensation kind of case, for example, if someone experienced severe psychological stress that led to a compromise like a stroke, that would constitute a significant contributing factor.

            “That moves it out of the category of natural death,” Wecht said.

            If he were to make a ruling, if there was a strong case against the people involved in causing that stress it “could well be a homicide.”

            “If the circumstances are less definitive, then at the very least you will call it accidental. But no way do I agree this is a natural death,” Wecht said. If the office wanted to “punt,” he could at least have chosen “undetermined.”

            “Natural does not seem like the right fit,” Wecht said.

            CNN reached out to the medical examiner’s office but did not get a response.

            — Gwinnett Daily Post


          2. “The medical examiner’s office has not publicly released the full report.”

            That is the key Anonymous the Stupid. You read old news and report on that. You are too Stupid to know that when old news changes you have to look at the new news.

              1. Anonymous the Stupid, how much dumber can you get. You link to a story that talks about the death based on the knowledge known at that time. You linked to an old story that had to change because since then the coroner provided his report. You don’t recognize the significance of the newer report.

                Anonymous the Stupid, don’t tell me how well Patton is doing based on your link. WW2 ended about 75 years ago.


              1. ““Sicknick death ruled ‘natural’ but experts say stress can set off strokes”

                You are stupid, Anonymous the Stupid. Virtually everyone is subject to stress. That means everyone can blame stress on their stroke.

                Anonymous the Stupid, let me teach you something about water you may not know. Water is wet.

        2. “We know that Sicknick’s death was unrelated to the events, pursuant to the the coroner’s report.”

          Don’t tell that to Anonymous the Stupid. He doesn’t rely on fact or the coroner. He makes things up so whatever he is willing to bet on he thinks has to be true. He is an idiot.

      4. “If nothing had happened on Jan. 6th, I’d wager that they’d both still be alive. Officer Brian Sicknick, too.”

        This is how Anonymous the Stupid gathers his facts.

          1. Dummy, can’t you read? “Wecht has not examined the records “ The coroner actually did an autopsy.

            Is there anyone more ignorant than Anonymous the Stupid?

            1. Allanonymous has trouble following… He gets everything all mixed up and tries to shift the blame for his faulty conclusions.


              ‘D.C. medical examiner report

              On April 19, 2021, the office of the chief medical examiner of the District of Columbia, Francisco J. Diaz, concluded that the manner of death was natural, arising from “acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis” (two strokes at the base of the brain stem caused by an artery clot).[3][38][39] Diaz told the Washington Post that there was no evidence that Sicknick had an allergic reaction to chemicals or was otherwise injured, but stated that “all that transpired played a role in his condition.”[3][40]

              The medical examiner’s determination makes any potential murder charges unlikely.[3][41] Because stress and traumatic events can lead to a stroke, some neurologists and other experts questioned the medical examiner’s classification of the manner of death as natural; for example, Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, said that Sicknick’s manner of death should have been classified as accidental, a homicide, or “undetermined”.[42]

              After the ruling, the Capitol Police issued a statement saying that the ruling “does not change the fact Officer Brian Sicknick died in the line of duty, courageously defending Congress and the Capitol.”[3]’

              — Wikipedia

              Allanonymous needs to check his dates and revisit what the ME said about his autopsy and his conclusions.

              The full autopsy report has not been released to the public.

              The ME said this:

              “all that transpired played a role in his condition.”

              “Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, said that Sicknick’s manner of death should have been classified as accidental, a homicide, or “undetermined”.”

              1. Allanonymous is also known as Allanonymous the Stupid. He sometimes signs his posts ‘SM’ (but very rarely) — which stands for S. Meyer. Before Trump lost the election, he went by the name of Allan. He spins and twists the truth.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid keeps bragging how he figured out my initials SM represented my name S. Meyer. What a dope.

              2. Anonymous the Stupid, one can’t get more stupid than you. We can say that all causes of death should be undetermined because we never can be sure. Whoever wrote the Wikipedia article was spinning. Stress is in everyone’s life so if someone should press his car horn too long you might suffer stress and if you so happened to have a stroke afterwards you could blame the car horn. You are too Stupid. You listen to twisted data and don’t even understand what it says.


                1. Every time Allanonymous the Stupid opens his mouth, he confirms his stupidity. A
                  The ME said this:

                  “…all that transpired played a role in his condition.”

                  So Wecht is right, one can’t rightly conclude that he died from “natural causes.”

                  1. Water is wet, though Anonymous the Stupid doesn’t get the point.

                    ““…all that transpired played a role in his condition.””

                    That can be said about any death. Thus water is wet.

                    The logic Anonymous the Stupid provides is for stupid people like him that have ho ability to think.

                    1. Confirmed:

                      Allanonymous the Stupd at 10:59 is the one and only Anonymous the Stupid.

                    2. Anonymous the Stupid, are you still contemplating that water is wet?

    2. ” They did not cause known bodily harm to anyone” That right there is the most ridiculous statement I’ve heard today, even worse than the behavior of the Trump supporters was no different than tourists. I’d go to the effort of posting videos but who hasn’t seen them. Hundreds of Capitol police officers were injured but you say nobody got hurt. #Sad

    3. “Crazy Abe” Lincoln was a despotic, totalitarian, criminal dictator, responsible for the deaths of up to 1 million Americans, the ultimate nullification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the commencement of the imposition of communism in America. Many of Karl Marx’s associates fled to Illinois from crackdowns in Germany.

      “The failure of the 1848 revolts, and the brutal crackdowns that followed, led many leading European radicals to take refuge in the United States, and Lincoln’s circle of supporters would eventually include some of Karl Marx’s closest associates and intellectual sparring partners, including Joseph Weydemeyer and August Willich.”

      – ISI Review

      Everything “Crazy Abe” Lincoln did was unconstitutional, up to and including the “Reconstruction Amendments,” which are unconstitutional and illegitimate to this day. Nowhere does the Constitution provide for intimidation, physical violence and military force as part of the amendment ratification process.

      The CSA seceded.


      End of story.

      “Crazy Abe” had no constitutional authority or legal basis to deny the right to secede, commence a war of aggression against a sovereign foreign nation, suspend Habeas Corpus, deny freedom of the press, confiscate private property, fail to obey the law to deport illegal aliens, to force the ratification amendments under the duress of post-war military occupation.

      “Crazy Abe’s” unconstitutional emancipation proclamation changed the status of slaves from that of “property” to “illegal alien,” requiring immediate deportation under the Naturalization Act of 1802; a “cold case” still awaiting resolution.

      Before laws are modified and amended, laws must be obeyed.

      No nation in history ended slavery by war.

      Americans may do anything they like in the free markets of the private sector including advocacy, boycotts, divestiture, etc., as means to effect the termination of slavery.

    1. Has he read the Constitution???

      That’s precisely the question the Leftists want conservatives to ask. It’s long past time to ask what are they reading? The reason is very simple, if they are not following the constitution and our founding principles, then what are they following? If we don’t wake up and ask those questions, if we don’t study and expose the ideology they are following, then we will never understand stopping them is not likely to be found in the constitution.

      The Spectrum of Awareness

      When I detect Leninist ways of thinking today, people respond: surely you don’t think all those social justice warriors are Leninists! Of course not. The whole point of Leninism is that only a few people must understand what is going on. That was the key insight of his tract What Is to Be Done? When Leninism is significant, there will always be a spectrum going from those who really understand, to those who just practice the appropriate responses, to those who are entirely innocent. The real questions are: Is there such a spectrum now, and how do we locate people on it? And if there is such a spectrum, what do we do about it? There is no space to address such questions here. My point is that they need to be asked.

      1. I suspect the Dems are concentrating on one particular text of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, which denies to those who have engaged in insurrection against the United States or given aid and comfort to enemies of the United States the right to serve as President or Vice President or in Congress, and gives Congress the power to enact legislation to enforce this and other provisions of the amendment. Pressed to its limit, this should make it possible not only to prevent the election of Trump in 2024, but to expel lots of Republicans from Congress.

        This may explain the Dems’ peculiar insistence on using the obsolescent word “insurrection”.

        1. I suspect the Dems are concentrating on one particular text of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment

          It would be a mistake to assume they are concentrating on anything other than power. If they happen to cite the constitution in anything they do, it’s merely to use it as a political weapon and not a constitutionally-principled means to a rule of law end.

    2. One too many representatives, the majority of Democrats, are stuck on the Twilight Amendment, “penumbras and emanations”, at the Twilight Fringe, that legally rationalize the wicked solution(s), diversity dogma, political congruence, Obamacares (i.e. progressive prices and availability), etc.

      1. n.n.
        We need to stop thinking that Democrats are playing for a constitutional win. They are playing like the guards in The Longest Yard and Republicans (conservatives) are stuck in the 1st half, complaining about all the bad policies and rule of law violations. It’s time to go on offense and play by their rules.

  4. Cicilline is the same idiot who took off his mask to sneeze. I am amazed that he is able to dress himself.
    That said, an imbecile is often dangerous and he is a danger to us all.

  5. Yeah, Dave gets a little excited from time to time but…

    The real wonder is why anyone, anywhere would take anything said by Gosar, Hice or Clyde seriously. And I will not stop bringing up the *glaring* lack of commentary by Turley on the party wide move to silence the free speech of Liz Cheney on the election. Or the Republican party efforts to suppress voting (free speech) opportunities based on the assertion there were voting irregularities they have no proof of and that can’t stand up in court. But they *just know* it happened, believe it!! Wait until it all comes down!! Mueller will spontaneously combust and Durham will bring in the big charges!!!


    1. EB, we don’t have to take someone seriously, to defend their right to speak freely. Besides, Cilliline’s argument is absurd. Is he going to define the terms for us? What a clown.

    2. Elvis Bug. No one is censoring Liz Cheney. Her speech has grown even louder as she has become the poster girl for you and all your leftist friends. Your statement concerning the legitimacy of the election has some worthwhile points that we should consider but then you destroy your credibility by telling us that Cheney is not being allowed to speak. We understand, it’s baked into your lexicon.

      1. “Elvis Bug. No one is censoring Liz Cheney. Her speech has grown even louder as she has become the poster girl for you and all your leftist friends. “

        The Bug can’t figure these things out. Right now he is looking for a talking point from the left. if he doesn’t find one he will respond with a word salad.

    3. When one looks at what Bug has said one sees a bunch of words with little meaning or content.

      When he makes a claim, there is nothing to back it up.
      When he dismisses certain persons he does so absent fact.
      When thinking is needed the Bug is out to lunch.


      1. Allanonymous says — about himself:

        “When one looks at what Allanonymous has said one sees a bunch of words with little meaning or content.

        When he makes a claim, there is nothing to back it up.
        When he dismisses certain persons he does so absent fact.
        When thinking is needed the Bug is out to lunch.


        SM is S. Meyer

        1. “SM is S. Meyer”

          Wow, Anonymous the Stupid must believe he is a genius to figure that out. It’s amazing, the initials match mine. How many times have I said why I use the initials. Anonymous the Stupid is too stupid to figure these things out.

  6. What I find the most irksome and tiring is how stupid things are these days. This congressman is just dumb and there is no getting around it. We have Senators like Blumenthal and Hirono DEMANDING that others be stifled. We have idiots like Maxine Waters DEMANDING that people she disagrees with be accosted in the public square. We have dim bulbs like Pelosi saying outrageous things with zero pushback from the former media. We have AOC, Tlaib and Omar siding with a group that our own state department has labeled a terrorist group. How can this be? How can we have the “Squad” siding with Hamas and their Speaker and President saying that some Republicans are terrorists? How can we have comity when one side, and please note that it is only one side, calling their political opponents traitors?

    If I were in Congress as a Republican I would have had enough and I would declare unequivocally that I will not work with Democrats on ANYTHING until Cicillini and his ilk are brought to account for their rhetoric. Want to play games with language, well let’s play games.

  7. All the comments have validity and the underlying theme is a general frustration at the elected class for gross ineptitude. And its not just the inability to carry out actions without shooting a toe off, Its ineptitude of failing to define a problem correctly. Without defining the problem all solutions will only add to the crisis.

    It wouldn’t take long to create a long list of examples of the Harris/Obama administration mislabeling the problem Not so subtle word play. Infrastructure? The Border is Closed. Almost everything out ot the CDC. There is no gas shortage. Just thousands of gas stations dont have gas. Inflation is not happening. Expanded unemployment does not encourage people to stay home because they can get the same amount of money from NOT working.
    The list of abuse of definitions of simple words is almost endless. This is way past spin, its gaslighting. Telling people the stuff happening in plain sight is not really happening.

  8. No surprise. Censorship is what people are learning to do in university. They think it’s great.

  9. OT: No one should question an election, but what does one do when the election is not held properly. The Stupid contingent on this blog shout out all sorts of insults and the Democrats make all sorts of false claims seen in despotic countries. Here is a small tidbit that seems to be getting bigger.
    Arizona 2020 election audit allegedly finds deleted data, unsecured ballots, missing chain of custody

    The Republican audit of Maricopa County, Arizona 2020 election ballots has already turned up “three serious issues.”

    According to a letter from Karen Fann, President of the Arizona State Senate, sent to the Maricopa Board of Supervisors, the county continues to flout valid, legislative subpoenas, refusing to hand over virtual images of routers. The county has also allegedly failed to provide the passwords necessary to access vote tabulation devices for the audit.

    “…attorneys for Maricopa County have refused to produce virtual images of routers used in connection with the general election.”

    Karen Fann, Arizona Senate President
    A second issue flagged by the audit has to do with “anomalies” in chain of custody processes for ballots. The letter says the county has yet to provide chain of custody documentation, bags storing the ballots were not sealed, batch dividers are missing, and ballot boxes were sealed with regular tape rather than tamper evident seals.

    The third issue mentioned is the alleged deletion of “the entire ‘Database’ directory from the D drive of the machine ‘EMSPrimary’.” That would mean subpoenaed data has been removed. According to the audit, there is also evidence that the “main database for all election related data for the 2020 General Election has been removed.”


    1. “Inside Arizona’s election audit, GOP fraud fantasies live on”

      May 10, 2021


      It also appeared that the task of entering recount results into an electronic spreadsheet was performed by a single person rather than a team of people from both political parties, the letter stated.

      Mr. Bennett, the liaison between Republicans in the State Senate and the company conducting the vote review, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

      But Ms. Hobbs concluded her letter to him by saying, “you know that our elections are governed by a complex framework of laws and procedures designed to ensure accuracy, security, and transparency. You also must therefore know that the procedures governing this audit ensure none of those things.

      “I’m not sure what compelled you to oversee this audit, but I’d like to assume you took this role with the best of intentions. It is those intentions I appeal to now: either do it right, or don’t do it at all.”

      — AP

      1. Anonymous the Stupid, there were three issues bought up. Tell us how your blurb makes those three issues fantasies?

        You can’t. That is why you are Anonymous the Stupid.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, you linked to something but that link didn’t deal with the three points. Boy are you stupid.

  10. Biden. Speak up in favor of Israel and provide them military support against the terrorists firing rockets into Israel. Denounce Dems who support the terrorists. Otherwise I will leave the Democratic Party.

    1. Liberty2nd. Biden has already sent $235,000,000 to Palestine (Hamas). With that kind of money they can buy a lot of rockets. He told them to play nice and use the money for humanitarian purposes. Good old Joe, how was he to know that they would go back on their word? Or did he know?

  11. Fascism has bled into every nook and cranny of the Democrat party. They lack any respect for our Constitution. He is just another example. What may be more disconcerting is how Dems lack the baseline of intelligence to realize they are obvious hypocrites . I suggest we expel him and all of the Dems for supporting :
    – the lie that Ofc Sicknick was killed with a fire extinguisher
    – the 6′ arbitrary distance rule disproven by a peer reviewed study.
    – CDC lies that outdoor spread was 10% when it’s more likely 0.1%, or 100 times fake.
    – the Imperial College estimates
    – lies that Trump colluded with foreign entities
    – Hunter and Joe Biden’s graft in China, Ukraine and Russia

    He is an embarrassment.

  12. Thoughtcrimes are in vogue. Democrats are searching for their new home. They are trying to figure out which comes closest to what they want, Stalinism, Maoism or Nazism.

    1. SM, all 3 are based on the original Leninism. This is the direction Democrats are trying to drag this country.

      So far as I know, never before had the law prescribed lawlessness. Do as you wish, or else. Lenin had ascribed the fall of the Paris Commune to the failure to eliminate all law, and so the Soviet state was absolutely forbidden from exercising any restraint on arbitrary use of power. Indeed, officials were punished for such restraint, which Lenin called impermissible slackness and Stalin would deem lack of vigilance.

      The same logic applied to rights. On paper, the Soviet Constitution of 1936 guaranteed more rights than any other state in the world. I recall a Soviet citizen telling me that people in the ussr had absolute freedom of speech—so long as they did not lie. I recalled this curious concept of freedom when a student defended complete freedom of speech except for hate speech—and hate speech included anything he disagreed with. Whatever did not seem hateful was actually a “dog-whistle.”

      As far back as 1919, Soviet parlance distinguished between purely formal law and what was called “the material determination of the crime.” A crime was not an action or omission specified in the formal code, because every “socially dangerous” act (or omission) was automatically criminal. Article 1 of the Civil Code of October 31, 1922 laid down that civil rights “are protected by the law unless they are exercised in contradiction to their social and economic purposes.” Like the “material” definition of crime, the concept of “purposefulness” (tselesoobraznost’) created a system of Thelemite rights: the state was absolutely prohibited from interfering with your rights unless it wanted to.

  13. If the GOP had the majority and sought to censure Schiff and Waters for their actions, oh how the MSM would howl. NTL, it is the right of the majority to censure MOC who stray from the path of righteousness, If only that path was not so political.

  14. Speaking for myself, I am completely healed from the trauma caused by watching the confusion and violence of people busting into the Capitol Building on January 6. 2020. In fact I was fairly numbed by January 6th from watching months of unimpeded violence on US cities in the previous months and the real trauma that was caused by realizing it was being permitted and encouraged by people in power.

  15. I know I’m not as smart as a Congressman, but when I have a disagreement about the definition of a word, I have always solved that by looking up the word in an appropriate Dictionary.

    1. Iowan,

      Don’t belittle yourself. I am certain that you are much smarter than most of the people who were elected to serve as Congressmen and women. Today, dictionaries are not used because the meaning of words and terms change, to suit the narrative of the politician. This is true, most especially by the far left officials, who feel emboldened by the MSM and Big Tech, who rarely, if ever, bother to fact check them.

    2. Good point, Iowan! To me, it seems to be another effort by the Dems to control all aspects of our lives. Now they are telling us that their nomenclature must be followed, It’s outrageous, but not surprising in this current, toxic political environment.

  16. Most politicians tend towards tyranny if unchecked, but the Dems are particularly self indulgent these days.

  17. Can we just come to the common sense conclusion that these Dingbat Democrats have a narrative that is hostile to any “Free Speech” that doesn’t agree with them? Nuf said!!!

    1. Agreed. The time for splitting hairs has passed – the dems are no longer viable representatives of ethics or fairness. It’s been long enough, expecting the party to magically ‘see the light’ tomorrow is a fool’s errand. I have never seen the reckless and calculated dishonesty that is now the dem modus operandi on such a scale in this country in my lifetime, and it is emanating exclusively from one quarter. Those that disagree not just be damned, but castigated and punished as well. If that isn’t excommunication protocol, I don’t know what is.

      1. Heaer hear! Not to mention they also chronically, instinctively make the wrong decisions on issues. That is not coincidence. How could anyone elect people who always make the wrong choices on issues? And why would they?

Leave a Reply