An Educational Tonkin Gulf? The NSBA Apologies for the Letter that Triggered the Controversial Federal Operation

Engagement in the Gulf of Tonkin

We recently discussed the controversy following the letter of the National School Boards Association (NSBA) asking the Justice Department to investigate parents causing disruptions or making threats at school board meetings. The letter included a reference to using the Patriot Act against possible domestic terrorism. Attorney General Merrick Garland responded a few days later with an order to the entire Department of Justice to monitor school board meetings around the country and coordinate a response with local officials. Now the NSBA has issued an apology.  The question is whether Garland will now rescind or amend his much criticized memo. It has the feel of an educational version of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Should we reconsider our deployment in light of the false premise that triggered the escalation of hostilities?

The NSBA stated “On behalf of NSBA, we regret and apologize for the letter . . . there was no justification for some of the language included in the letter.”

Notably, recent coverage indicates that the NSBA coordinated the letter with the White House before it was issued.  A significant number of people at the organization (and likely some in the Administration) saw early drafts of this letter. Not one appears to have objected to the reckless and extreme language directed toward parents, citing a handful of cases.

 

 

(Source: Oregon School Boards Association)

 

For his part, Garland stated that none of these past disruptions would constitute domestic terrorism. However, as I discussed earlier, he further pledged that he will not use such laws against parents objecting to critical race theory or other issues at these meetings. However, those answers only begged the question of why the Justice Department has pledged this broad effort to monitor and respond to threats at these meetings. If these are not matters of domestic terrorism, why is the Justice Department implementing this effort? The letter does not cite any pattern of criminal threats or their interstate or federal profile.

This question was picked up in a letter to Garland from half of the eight members of the Commission on Civil Rights. They requested “specific examples” of “harassment, intimidation and threats of violence” which Garland claimed as evidence for the need for federal intervention in parent protests at schools.

Now even the NSBA agrees that its letter was over-the-top and extreme.

247 thoughts on “An Educational Tonkin Gulf? The NSBA Apologies for the Letter that Triggered the Controversial Federal Operation”

  1. The Left is funny.

    During the “summer of love” riots, whenever there was a documented case of violence, their knee-jerk reaction was: But they’re “mostly peaceful protesters.” Don’t you believe in free speech?

    Now, during the school-board protests, their knee-jerk reaction is: They’re violent protesters, organized by a cabal of domestic terrorists. Free speech? Not for thee.

      1. Anonymous………”why can’t protesters …………work within the system”

        You mean, work within the system, like this? “The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one’s government, without fear of punishment or reprisals. … The right to petition in the United States is granted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (1791).”

  2. Comments By Trumpists Contradict Turley

    This column on school board disruptions, and a similar column days earlier, have generated volumes of posts by pro-Trump commenters.

    Most of these posts convey a sense of rage. Most are incensed that history is being twisted against White people. Most believe gay lifestyles are somehow being encouraged.

    These comments strongly suggest that school board meetings are being disrupted indeed by very angry White people. One should pity non-White school board members. They are dealing with some very bellicose elements.

    1. It’s not surprising given how far they go to firewall themselves from evidence and truth about the issues discussed by Turley. I believe that such rage or anger is not solely of their own sentiment, but from being stoked and provoked by others who are intent on making them feel that way. People like Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and other conservatives of similar character seem to use these gullible individuals as a means to gain some sort of legitimacy to what they spew. It’s clearly the height of ignorance and gullibility that makes these people so susceptible to being manipulated.

          1. >>”That is why you are always caught without proof while sucking your thumb.
            >Proof? It’s shown here on this blog every day. It’s not that hard to miss.”

            We see your thumb, but we don’t see your proof.

  3. REGARDING POST THAT DISAPPEARED:

    Brevard County Florida Has Been Scene Of Violent Disruptions

    School Board Member Wrote Op-Ed Piece Detailing Harassment

    More protesters arrived at my home. They claimed to have been sent by Fine, who had been standing beside the governor at the news conference. “Be careful, your mommy hurts little kids!” one shouted at my daughter. “You’re going to jail!” they chanted. As I read my daughter a bedtime story inside, they walked outside her bedroom window toward their parked cars. I went out to ensure that they were leaving. One coughed in my face while another shouted, “Give her covid!” A third swung a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag near my face.

    The next day, a large “FU” was burned into my lawn with weed killer. The bushes in front of my house were hacked down. That was the day the Department of Children and Families investigator showed up.

    Edited From:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/10/20/jennifer-jenkins-brevard-school-board-masks-threats/
    ……………………………….

    Professor Turley would have us believe the people disrupting school board meetings are simply good Christians protecting traditional values. ..Nonsense..!! These disruptors are terrorists taking culture wars to the next level. Incited by rightwing media they think harassing perceived enemies is a ‘no-brainer’. They are brainless indeed!

    The story posted by Gray Anonymous, about the school girl with Downs Syndrome, could easily be manufactured. Yet if a child does indeed have Downs Syndrome, they are highly vulnerable to Covid. Masks and vaccination should be mandatory for them.

    Furthermore, posting the principal’s phone number, on this blog page, is naked intimidation. I am shocked that Turley allows that to stand.

      1. Anonymous:

        Yes, the comment was removed. But we know who posted it. This individual has had free license here for at least 3 years at this point. The appearance of semi-official status has been very apparent.

    1. “Masks and vaccination should be mandatory for them.”

      Government compelling parents to force *their* child to undergo a medical procedure.

      And you wonder why parents are protesting tyranny.

      (Your pending what-abouts are fallacious diversions.)

      1. Vaccinations (MMR, TDP, chickenpox, etc.) have long been mandatory for students in public schools and some private schools. If a parent doesn’t want their child to be vaccinated, their choices are to homeschool or find a school that doesn’t require vaccination.

        1. Rather than citing (bad) precedent, why don’t you try making an argument in defense of the idea that it’s proper for the *government* to compel an individual to undergo a medical procedure. (That it’s done so in the past, with a court’s blessing, is not an argument. It’s an appeal to tradition and to authority.)

          1. Instead of asking to be spoon fed, why don’t you read the arguments that the government itself has already presented in legal cases about vaccination?

            You talk about this — “to compel an individual to undergo a medical procedure” — as if the government is holding someone down against their will. It is not. Again: If a parent doesn’t want their child to be vaccinated, their choices are to homeschool or find a school that doesn’t require vaccination.

            1. “. . . as if the government is holding someone down against their will.”

              Government (federal, state, local): “We have the guns. Get vaccinated. Or else.”

              Innocent citizen: “‘Or else’ what?”

              G: “Or else we will use our police powers to deprive you of significant values — such as your job, your access to businesses, your child’s schooling.”

              *That* is government compelling an individual to undergo a medical procedure, at the threat of punishment.

              Yet to grasp that, you need to see government bureaucrats in white coats, strapping someone down, and forcibly injecting them with a needle?!

              That is mind-numbingly anti-conceptual.

              1. “That is mind-numbingly anti-conceptual.”

                No, it isn’t. It recognizes that people can make choices, even when the government is using legal leverage to encourage one choice over another. They’re not going to use those guns to shoot you if you choose not to be vaccinated.

                You don’t have a right to be employed by the government. The government rule for other employers is for businesses with at least 100 employees, requiring workers get fully vaccinated OR be tested weekly for Covid-19. The government can and does limit access to businesses in some ways (e.g., minors can’t buy alcohol, people can’t purchase prescription drugs without a prescription, concert organizers cannot sell more tickets than a venue will legally hold). The government can and does limit access to public school in some ways, including by vaccination status, but I’m pretty sure that all state vaccination laws also provide for medical exemptions.

                1. “. . . when the government is using [physical force] to [compel] . . .”

                  There. Fixed your dishonest description.

                  And that is the fascist’s equation: We regard vaccinations (and masks) as good. Therefore, we will force those “values” on you.

                  1. They are not using physical force.

                    Ironic that you claim “Fixed your dishonest description” when you instead introduced a dishonest description.

                    1. “They are not using physical force.”

                      Really? A law is just a suggestion, not backed by the government’s police powers (physical force)?! People are free to choose to ignore the law, without the government using physical force (its police powers) to punish them?! The government is just using persuasion and debate? It’s not using its police powers (physical force) to fine, shut down, jail dissenters?

                      Who knew that the government is really just running a chat room.

                    2. Again: If a parent doesn’t want their child to be vaccinated, their choices are to homeschool or find a school that doesn’t require vaccination.

                      Tell me where the physical force is. No one is fined or jailed if they do not get a vaccination themselves or choose not to vaccinate their kids.

                2. Of course you do not have the right to be employed by the government – you do not have a right to be employed by anyone.

                  You cite other ways government limits freedom – as if government is free to limit freedom however it pleases or that those existing limits are legitimate.

                  Why can’t people buy any drug they wish ?

                  BTW Concert organizers CAN sell more tickets than a venue can hold.
                  Airlines do that all the time.

                  What may not be done is to subject people to a risk they did not agree to, or to fail to meet a contractual obligation.
                  Those are typically violations of Civil law, they are also fundimental violations of the social contract which is the basis for the legitimacy of government.

                  Why does government run schools ? It does not run gas stations or grocery stores. We have seen how badly that goes every time it has been tried. Why is it unsurprising that Government education has risen in cost as it has declined in value over the past 50 years ?

                  Finally, you are under the delusion that all legitimate powers of government are legitimate powers of the federal government. They are NOT. While some stupid SCOTUS decisions almost a century ago have vastly expanded the powers of the federal government beyond anything in the constitution, Public Health is still the domain of State governments – to the extent it should be a legitimate power of government at all.

                  You can be pretty sure of whatever you wish. The FACT is that pretty much everything everywhere regarding Covid is NOT law – it is the excercise of emergency powers by state executives.
                  There is no statutory law specifying Covid vaccine mandates, there is no statutory law requiring medical exemptions.

                  In most instances there is not even emergency regulations – there is just edicts from executives.

                  Whether those edicts provide exemptions varies from state to state, even municipality to municipality.

  4. “The country’s largest school board association collaborated with the Biden White House before sending a controversial letter calling on the FBI to investigate parents as potential domestic terrorists, according to previously unreported emails.”

    The Biden administration will not tolerate dissent. So it creates a pretext to destroy free speech. This has Obama’s/Rice’s sleazy tactics all over it (with the execrable one cackling in assent).

    When they banish the free marketplace of ideas, what exactly do they expect people to fight with?

    “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” (George Washington)

    1. Free speech continues to be protected. Threats may or may not be protected speech, depending on the nature of the threat.

      1. That is why suddenly the FBI is labelling mothers as domestic terrorists to intimidate people from speaking out at school board meetings. That comes right from the White House. The administration is having private corporations and social media companies doing their bidding along with the media. “Let’s go Brandon.”

        SM

        1. S. Meyer,

          “ That is why suddenly the FBI is labelling mothers as domestic terrorists to intimidate people from speaking out at school board meetings.”

          They are not doing that. That’s just BS. It was one statement from the national school board association that has since apologized for using the term.

          The reason why they used that term in the the first place was because there were parents who were being violent and assaulting teachers and students. Since the proud boys have been stoking and prodding parents to be more confrontational at these meetings and promoting the baseless claims about CRT, mask mandates and vaccination requirements AND because they are a national organization that has openly advocated violence. The FBI has the responsibility to keep an eye on these groups. Parents can still threaten all they want, they can protest all they want. Nothing has stopped them. What it HAS done is made those parents aware that certain types of threats are crimes and they CAN be prosecuted for making them.

          That “chilling” effect is only making parents aware of the consequences of making threats that go too far.

          1. That statement was written in conjunction with the White House. They didn’t get away with it because it was so blatantly anti-free-speech.

            Parents were not violent. Maybe there were some acts that shouldn’t have occurred, but to date no one has presented those incidents. Why? Because they don’t exist unless you can prove them.

            Learn the difference between words and violence. Check out what agents of the left have done. They use violence along with intimidating words.

            “Since the proud boys have been stoking”

            If you think the proud boys are guilty of federal violations, go after the proud boys, but we know the FBI already did. That is your problem. You don’t know what you are talking about. You make all sorts of statements that are untrue.

            1. S. Meyer,

              “Parents were not violent. Maybe there were some acts that shouldn’t have occurred, but to date no one has presented those incidents. Why? Because they don’t exist unless you can prove them.”

              Parents were indeed violent. Even you casually admit it when you acknowledge “Maybe there were some acts that shouldn’t have occurred”. Acts that were committed by…parents. I have presented those incidents in another of Tuirley’s columns.

              Here are a few.

              From The HIll, Turley’s own publisher of his columns. “As the first day of school comes and goes, there are always hiccups along the way, especially during this trying time,” Amador County Unified School District Superintendent Torie Gibson wrote in a letter to families.

              “Unfortunately, a parent took it upon himself to verbally assault a principal that led to a serious physical altercation between him and a teacher as the teacher intended to protect the principal,” Gibson added.

              The teacher suffered “lacerations on his face, some bruising on his a face and a pretty good knot on the back of his head,” according to NBC affiliate KCRA of Sacramento.”

              https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/567891-parent-attacks-teacher-over-school-mask-mandate


              An angry parent allegedly ripped off a teacher’s mask. It’s not the only physical altercation over masks in schools.

              By Caitlin O’Kane

              August 18, 2021 / 11:08 AM / CBS News

              A parent in Austin, Texas has been accused of physically assaulting a teacher during a back-to-school event – over mask wearing. It’s not the only incident of its kind. Several incidents at schools and local school board meetings have gained national attention as debates over mask requirements turn heated, some of them resulting in physical violence.

              Superintendent Tom Leonard of Austin’s Eanes Independent School District confirmed in a letter to parents and staff this week that a parent “physically assaulted a teacher by ripping a mask off her face,” at a “Meet the Teacher” event.”

              “A 50-year-old Florida father was arrested and charged with one count of child abuse on Wednesday after authorities say he pushed a female high school student and twisted her arm over a mask dispute outside Fort Lauderdale High School.

              Dan Bauman, the father of another female student at the high school, was already known to local authorities as a vocal anti-masker and frequent disrupter, according to an arrest report released by Fort Lauderdale Police Department and reviewed by Insider.”

              They exist S. Meyer.

              1. “Parents were indeed violent. Even you casually admit it when you acknowledge “Maybe there were some acts that shouldn’t have occurred”. “

                You are so messed up. A parent yelling should not occur, but it is not an act of violence. You demonstrate a lack of intelligence with that type of statement.

                “A parent in Austin, Texas has been accused of physically assaulting a teacher during a back-to-school event – over mask wearing.”

                Accused, not convicted of a charge that is handled by local police departments. That is not a crisis or domestic terrorism. Your statements make you sound foolish and uninformed. This goes for all of the things you mention.

                We have lots of reports of teacher abuse of students including rape by teachers. Do you wish to call teachers domestic terrorists? Don’t you ever feel foolish?

                So far you haven’t provided a single incident that has been proven. Nor have you demonstrated a need for the involvement of the FBI. You admitted earlier that you approved of it because at the very least it intimidates people from speaking out.

                1. S. Meyer.

                  “You are so messed up. A parent yelling should not occur, but it is not an act of violence. You demonstrate a lack of intelligence with that type of statement.”

                  Nope. It is you who has no intelligence here. The examples I have provided to you not only include verbal assault but physical assault. Those parents were arrested because they did commit assault. One teacher went to the hospital because a parent beat him up. That’s violence under the law. A lack of conviction because their cases have not been decided by a judge is not proof that they didn’t commit violence. The police arrested those parents because they committed an act of violence which was witnessed by multiple people.

                  Nobody is claiming these parents should be called domestic terrorists. The national school board association already issued an apology for making the statement. So your claim is moot.

                  “So far you haven’t provided a single incident that has been proven. Nor have you demonstrated a need for the involvement of the FBI. ”

                  Yes I did. You just don’t want to acknowledge it. You’re being deliberately obtuse which is not surprising and yes I have demonstrated the need for the FBI to be involved, the involvement of the proud boys in school board meetings merits the FBI’s involvement. The proud boys are well known to have been one of the groups spearheading the assault on the Capitol on Jan 6.

                  ” You admitted earlier that you approved of it because at the very least it intimidates people from speaking out.”

                  I’ve never admitted anything as such. What I did say was that the FBI’s involvement only made parent’s AWARE that making threats that are NOT protected under free speech CAN be prosecuted. Making threats suggesting injury or harm ARE prosecutable and making such threats ARE under the purview of the FBI because it is a nationwide problem. Not just a local one.

              2. S. Meyer,

                “If you think the proud boys are guilty of federal violations, go after the proud boys, but we know the FBI already did. That is your problem. You don’t know what you are talking about. You make all sorts of statements that are untrue.”

                The statements I’ve made are indeed true. The proud boys who are very well known to the FBI for being an anti-goverment militia outfit who has openly advocated for violence are promoting their brand of “opposition” at school board meetings. This is exactly why the FBI is keeping an eye on these meetings. The proud boys are encouraging parents to be confrontational in these meetings and using those confrontations which end up in parents being violent or issuing criminal threats as a means to recruit more members.

                Here are a few examples for your proof requirements,

                “Multiple Florida schools have also seen an influx in outsiders crashing their meetings on masking. Last month, a group of men with Proud Boy uniforms and anti-masking signs attended a Palm Beach County, Florida school board meeting, CBS12 reported. Members of the group sat inside the meeting, and stood on a street corner with a banner bedecked in the Proud Boys logo and the slogan “unmask the children.”

                https://www.thedailybeast.com/proud-boys-are-teaming-up-with-anti-maskers-to-threaten-school-boards-over-covid-mandates

                “Proud Boys have protested this NC school district. School board calls them ‘racist.’

                Read more at: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article254932397.html#storylink=cpy

                “Extra security was present at Monday’s Orange County school board meeting at AL Stanback Middle School amid reports that the Proud Boys were protesting the district’s COVID-19 and LGBTQ policies. The group has held other protests at district events, and several members of the group spoke at and attended the school board meeting Monday.

                Remember these are a group that has openly advocated for violence against the government. This is why the FBI is monitoring these school boards. It’s not the parent’s that are the target. It’s these groups that are associating themselves with these parents and misinforming them about what is going on at schools.

                1. Too idiotic to comment on. If you think the Proud Boys are guilty of domestic terrorism then call in the FBI to investigate the Proud Boys.

                  1. They ARE already under investigation by the FBI. The Canadian government actually has them listed as domestic terrorists. What is being stupidly conflated here is that the FBI is keeping an eye on parents because they want to ‘intimidate’ them into silence. Not true. It’s an attempt to make a false narrative. It’ is the proud boys involvement in school board meetings and the violence that some parents have done to teachers and students as a result of their involvement that prompted the FBI to monitor such meetings. They are concerned about the violence. Not the complaints the parents are making.

                    1. You supported labelling parents as domestic terrorists. They are not the Proud Boys. You have to learn who is who.

                      “What is being stupidly conflated here is that the FBI is keeping an eye on parents because they want to ‘intimidate’ them into silence. Not true. It’s an attempt to make a false narrative.”

                      At 2:30 you seemed to agree with that intimidation (chilling effect) when you said “That “chilling” effect is only making parents aware of the consequences of making threats that go too far.”

                      Most people think before they write. You have a trick that causes you to bypass your brain.

                    2. S. Meyer,

                      “You supported labelling parents as domestic terrorists. They are not the Proud Boys. You have to learn who is who.”

                      I never said that nor supported that. Now you’re just plain lying.

                      “At 2:30 you seemed to agree with that intimidation (chilling effect) when you said “That “chilling” effect is only making parents aware of the consequences of making threats that go too far.”

                      Nope. You’re the one who is having comprehension problems. The fact that you had to say ” you seemed to agree” when I never even said I greed nor I supported shows you are just now lying or just not comprehending what you are reading. It’s called an observation S. Meyer. Not an agreement or support of the activity. Surely you are smart enough to understand that distinction, are you?

                    3. “You supported labelling parents as domestic terrorists. They are not the Proud Boys. You have to learn who is who.”

                      I never said that nor supported that. Now you’re just plain lying.”

                      OK then you now agree with me that labelling parents as domestic terrorists was stupid by the DOJ. Glad to hear that.

                      “when I never even said I greed nor I supported “

                      At 2:30 you seemed to agree with that intimidation (chilling effect) when you said “That “chilling” effect is only making parents aware of the consequences of making threats that go too far.”

                      I can’t seem to match your two statements. They are contradictory. The Wh and the organization realized what they did was foolish but I guess it takes a lot more time for that to get through your brain.

                    4. Anonymous SM,

                      “OK then you now agree with me that labelling parents as domestic terrorists was stupid by the DOJ. Glad to hear that.”

                      First, the DOJ didn’t label the parents domestic terrorists. That was the National school board association. You claimed the white house and the NSBA did. Now you claim the DOJ? Clearly you are shifting blame randomly.

                      “I can’t seem to match your two statements.”

                      Of course you can’t. Because you are not tying to comprehend. You’re just being obtuse as usual. Sheesh.

                    5. “First, the DOJ didn’t label the parents domestic terrorists. That was the National school board association.”

                      Should I say you are lying, in error or something else? The NSBA did what they did with the White House that controls the DOJ. Both have admitted their mistake, but you are still waiting to be notified.

                      Your two statements conflicted with one another. Both statements give the impression that the actions taken by the WH and DOJ were meant to intimidate. In one you tried to distance yourself from the DOJ’s actions and then in another statement you showed a benefit to such action.

                      That is OK. We are all used to you not knowing what you are talking about.

                      SM

                    6. S. Meyer,

                      “Should I say you are lying, in error or something else? The NSBA did what they did with the White House that controls the DOJ. Both have admitted their mistake, but you are still waiting to be notified.

                      Your two statements conflicted with one another. Both statements give the impression that the actions taken by the WH and DOJ were meant to intimidate. In one you tried to distance yourself from the DOJ’s actions and then in another statement you showed a benefit to such action.

                      That is OK. We are all used to you not knowing what you are talking about.

                      SM”

                      Only the NSBA made the statement about parents being treated as domestic terrorists. The DOJ did not make such a statement at all. The GOP is trying to falsely claim the DOJ did so under a memo that garland penned regarding harassment and threats to school staff and school board members. It was the GOP that insinuated that the DOJ which is independent of the White House sought to investigate parents under the patriot act. They never said that and only cited the harassment and threats being made.

                      My statements were were observations that the “chilling effect conservatives are complaining about is nothing more than the FBI’s involvement is making parents AWARE that certain threats ARE PROSECUTABLE. Meaning it’s causing some parents to be more careful about what KIND of threats they are making. Not that they can’t threaten school officials with the kinds of empty threats that are too ridiculous to not be considered to be protected by the first amendment.

                      What you are experiencing in this seeming “contradiction” in my statement is your inability to comprehend what you are reading. I’m not the one who has constant reading comprehension problems S. Meyer.

                    7. “Only the NSBA made the …”

                      This nonsense you write is why you are always caught without proof while sucking your thumb.

                      MMN (Man of Many Names, You forget that the NSBA wrote the letter in consultation with the White House. Unknown to you, the White House controls the DOJ and FBI. Shall I say you are lying or making an error? I don’t think you know enough to lie with such frequency, so I chalk your incorrect response as one of your typical mistakes.

                      You are reading into what the GOP said and coming up with, as usual, the wrong conclusions.

                      “My statements were were observations that the “chilling effect ”

                      Such chilling is known as intimidation. As I told you before, you need a dictionary. That won’t help your reading comprehension or your lack of knowledge, but it will be helpful to you in understanding the meaning of the words you commonly use.

              3. I will treat you like Natacha and not bother with more than a few beginning sentences yes. It’s not worth the time. There is violence by a lot of people including teachers and school administrators. I don’t k now if any of the claims of physical violence you talk about occurred and neither do you. Generally your information is wrong.

                I won’t bother with that because its stupid. One doesn’t call parents domestic terrorists and call in the FBI to intimidate parents at school meetings. Where ever any of these incidents might have occurred there are police departments to handle that type of problem. Authoritarians think like you.

                The White House was involved in this stupid decision. That demonstrates severe problems in the executive branch and overstepping by the DOJ.

                You don’t seem to care about students raped and battered by teachers. You have a serious problem.

                1. S. Meyer,

                  “There is violence by a lot of people including teachers and school administrators.” But you know we are talking specifically about parents who are being violent and you are deliberately avoiding it by generalizing it.

                  “I don’t k now if any of the claims of physical violence you talk about occurred and neither do you. Generally your information is wrong.”

                  No, you’re just ignoring the evidence before your very own eyes. I posted to you actual reports of parents being arrested AND charged. That is proof that they occurred. The arrest is evidence of the occurrence..

                  1. “No, you’re just ignoring the evidence before your very own eyes.”

                    There are two problems with your logic.

                    1) you provided alleged problems.
                    2) If what happened, happened as the articles say, that is a police issue not an FBI issue.

                    Surely you can understand that the entire thing done by the DOJ was stupid. If you can’t understand that simple fact, then …

                    1. S. Meyer,

                      “There are two problems with your logic.

                      1) you provided alleged problems.
                      2) If what happened, happened as the articles say, that is a police issue not an FBI issue”

                      Actually the problem is YOUR logic.

                      They were not alleged problems. In journalism it is common to used the word “alleged” because despite the act having occurred it is not definitive until the a conviction. It doesn’t mean the violence didn’t occur. The fact that there was an arrest points out that there was probable cause to arrest based on witnesses. Those parents accused of the crime have not disputed the fact that they indeed committed an assault.

                      “If what happened, happened as the articles say, that is a police issue not an FBI issue”

                      There was no dispute about who has jurisdiction over the assaults. The FBI was involved because of the nature of the threats leveled at school staff and the fact that the proud boys have been organizing such school board protests thru facebook. It involved a national effort by the proud boys and that puts those issues within the purview of the FBI.

                    2. Call me when your cases are proven and when they occurred at school board meetings.

                      “The FBI was involved because of the nature of the threats leveled at school staff”

                      Tell us the nature of the threat level created by the parents at school board meetings. You can’t. The Proud Boys were being investigated by the FBI before any of this came up, so your linkage doesn’t exist, and you couldn’t figure that out by yourself.

                      A ten-year-old recognizes the need for proper timing, proof, location and all the things that are necessary to prove a case that others recognized was ridiculous. You may have been taught to write, but you were never taught to think.

            1. You finally got smart and realized you didn’t know what you were talking about. Then you changed the subject.

              Better an empty wheel than an empty head.

        1. You must be vying to be king of odious hyperbole.

          What are you prevented from saying in the public square (other than long-standing exceptions like defamation and immediate incitement to violence)?

    1. Garland would join with others of his religious beliefs to throw baby (i.e. one-child delegated) and parents under the bus in a bid to planned parent/hood to reduce “burdens”.

  5. That’s not what “to beg the question” means. To beg a question means to avoid a question using circular reasoning, not beg for the question to be answered. Please look it up. Correct language matters. If the thing itself speaks, it should do so correctly.

  6. It is time to stop using the word “progressives” and start calling this radical faction what they really are. Communists or Marxists or Marxist Communists.

    This wing of the party is not recognizable by a civil libertarian or a traditions democrat. These are radical activists who hate this nation. They despise independent thinkers.

    What we are witnessing is extremely well organized, agenda-driven activism that appears to be an attempt to overthrow this nation. The current President was never the sharpest tool in the shed. What we see now is the shadow of the man and one who has no moral compass. The things he fought for and his stated core beliefs he articulated not so many years ago have gone down the drain. He believes nothing and is told by those running him what to read on the teleprompter.

    Who would attack a parent who pays the taxes for the schools and who has a vested interest in what their children are learning? Their children’s safety. This is deeply disturbing and terrifying.

    Children need a safe environment and they need to master the core skills. It is not the job of the schools to go beyond their stated purpose. It is the job of the parents to stand up to this craziness and insanity being pushed on their children and their schools.

  7. Progressives loudly and constantly lied claiming that Trump used AG Barr as his own personal defense and prosecution office. What a crock.

    Here we have progressive unions representing school board members using the Democrat National AG as their own personal attack dog to silence any and all critics, esp. those same private citizens forcefully coerced to pay taxes supporting the AG and the school boards.

    Mafioso Dons would blush if they woke up and found they had so much power.

  8. “The only thing that has kept the race of men from the mad extremes of the convent and the pirate-galley, the night-club and the lethal chamber, has been mysticism – the belief that logic is misleading, and that things are not what they seem.”

    G.K. Chesterton

  9. Well, that’s it then. The United States has gone down in flames.

    To get or renew your USEF judging license for equestrian sports now requires training in DEI, which originated with CRT. All breeds. Dressage, Hunter/Jumper, Endurance, Eventing, Carriage Driving, Combined Driving, Reining, Western, Vaulting…All disciplines.

    https://www.usef.org/forms-pubs/OYhdrG9wIEM/licensed-officials-policies-and

    “All applicants must complete Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training as assigned by the Federation.”

    Before you can judge a horse’s conformation or a jumping round, you’d better check your privilege. In all seriousness, for there to be equity in equestrian judging, then every rider and every horse would have to receive the same score. Otherwise, it’s not equity, but a meritocracy.

    What a racket. People are making so much money in the racist CRT fad.

      1. Yes, diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment), not limited to color, sex, in a bid for class-based affirmative discrimination.

        1. NN – I await the day that stallions enter the filly conformation ring, when everyone gets a perfect score in their dressage test, and a rail down is no longer penalized with 4 faults.

          Mind you, a bitless bridle is still not permitted in a dressage test, but by golly, that judge will be trained in diversity, equity, and inclusion, as long as that does not include tack.

    1. “several challenges that US Equestrian will likely face when working to create more equitable, diverse, and inclusive spaces in equestrian … Stakeholders who might be resistant to change, especially DEI efforts”

      1. Meanwhile, as equestrian sports veers hard Left into “progressive” ideology, riders still wear the Shadbelly of the Regency Period to compete in Dressage, and a hunt coat in hunter/jumper.

        1. You think it’s a “hard Left” veer for the association to believe that the sport should be more inclusive?

    2. Alternatively, the Supreme Court finds the rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities of Americans have been universally and egregiously denied and violated, and they begin dismantling the entire communist American welfare state because it is irrefutably, entirely unconstitutional. Perhaps someone will remind the Justices that they swore a binding and solemn oath to support the United States Constitution, not the Communist Manifesto.

      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.

      Look around you. Do you see any Central Planning, Control of the Means of Production (i.e. regulation), Redistribution of Wealth or Social Engineering?

      Oh, look, there’s some right over there.
      _______________________________

      Alas,

      ” But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

      – Declaration of Independence, 1776

    3. Karen S,

      “ Well, that’s it then. The United States has gone down in flames.”

      Good grief woman, you’re being as dramatic as one of those whacked out Karens you see on YouTube.

      If that’s the case leave, stay and hunker down, or just stop taking everything so seriously.

      “ To get or renew your USEF judging license for equestrian sports now requires training in DEI, which originated with CRT. All breeds. ”

      DEI started in the 60’s. CRT was conceived in the late 70’s

      This is just stupidly bad grammar and proof of massive ignorance. DEI did not originate with CRT. It has zero to do with CRT. CRT was not even known when DEI was first conceived. Here’s the actual history of DEI.

      “In the late 1960s, a time when traditional social relations and educational practices were being challenged the world over, Carnegie Mellon University started making significant changes of its own. In the intervening years, the institution launched a number of programs with diversity as their goal. Each was wellintentioned and effective to an extent. We made progress. But we knew the university could do more to reinforce a deeply rooted and broadly embraced commitment to change.
      In 1968, for example, responding to a nationwide call for equal opportunity, the Carnegie Mellon Action Project (CMAP) was founded with the aim of boosting recruitment and retention among African American students. Today CMAP, now CMARC, serves African American, Hispanic, Native American and First Generation students not by providing remedial services, but by guiding and reinforcing talent through services including recruitment, academic and professional counseling, tutoring and assistance in job placement.“

      https://www.cmu.edu/diversity/commitment-and-progress/history.html

      “ The basic tenets of critical race theory, or CRT, emerged out of a framework for legal analysis in the late 1970s and early 1980s created by legal scholars Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, among others.”

      https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05

    1. Has anybody noticed that all the lefties on this blog like to trash Donald Trump, but they never say anything positive about Joe Biden. I wonder why that is?

      1. I found that curious, too, and got to thinking about it. One reason could be that they are tacitly recognizing Trump’s 2020 victory, and thus feel the pressing need to continue demeaning him as they did during his first term. That, and of course the usual reason of deflecting the focus away from their own egregious issues to avoid having to comment on them.

        1. No. Trump lost.

          I’m not a fan of Biden’s, but I voted for Biden because I think Trump is a danger to our democracy. The GOP continues to embrace Trump, so he remains a danger to our democracy. Trump’s Big Lie is one of the reasons I think he’s dangerous. I assume you have a different opinion than I do. But don’t lie to yourself and pretend for a millisecond that I believe Trump’s Big Lie.

          1. Yep!

            President Donald J. Trump lost when the Deep Deep State switched the Trump votes to Joke Biden at 2 AM.

            Actual Americans can’t win anymore in their own country.

          2. Not only do I not lie to myself, I don’t even have a clue of what you are talking about. However, speaking of dangers to democracy, you’re going to have to do a heck of a lot better than the Biden regime to assuage those fears.

            1. You said “One reason could be that they are tacitly recognizing Trump’s 2020 victory …,” and I’m telling you that he wasn’t victorious, and his claim of being victorious — his Big Lie — is big part of what continues to make him dangerous to our democracy and why I continue to draw attention to him.

              1. Biden’s constant removal of citizens’ rights, unconstitutional activities and not upholding the law is a threat to our Republic and our Constitution.

                One has to be soft in the head to believe an OPINION you don’t like is a threat to our democracy. It is a threat to leftist Stalinist-type power that you object to. That is why in Stalin’s Russia, people with opinions that differed from his were sent to the Gulag, yet those with guns upheld his authoritarian actions.

                You do not understand that democracy is based on honest voting and honest actions when people sit in office. The present President, Biden, has been dishonest his whole political life, and today is senile, requiring the most odious people to pull the strings.

                1. S. Meyer,

                  “ You do not understand that democracy is based on honest voting and honest actions when people sit in office. The present President, Biden, has been dishonest his whole political life, and today is senile, requiring the most odious people to pull the strings.”

                  So Trump lying about winning not being honest and his dishonest actions are democracy?

                  The much anticipated Arizona audit showed Trump lied and just recently a nonpartisan audit in Wisconsin proved their election was not fraudulent or there was proof of mass fraud as Trump claimed.

                  Trump’s own lawyers are already in deep trouble for perpetrating Trump’s own claims he won the election. That’s not honest. So by your own words Trump and his supporters including republicans don’t understand democracy.

                  1. “So Trump lying about winning not being honest and his dishonest actions are democracy?”
                    his opinion.

                    Only foolish people don’t know the difference between opinion and lying. You are not supposed to be foolish, so I await your quote of Trump’s in context, proving he is lying. Everyone should know about the lawlessness that happened during that election, so I assume a smart guy like you would know of this as well. It was the lawlessness of the left that has caused all this confusion.

                    SM

                    1. S. Meyer,

                      “ Only foolish people don’t know the difference between opinion and lying. You are not supposed to be foolish, so I await your quote of Trump’s in context, proving he is lying. ”

                      This is what trump said directly, his own words,

                      “It is clear, in Arizona that they must decertify the election, you heard the numbers,” Trump said. “It’s a disgrace. We won on the Arizona forensic audit yesterday on a level you wouldn’t believe.”

                      The Arizona audit didn’t say Trump won. In fact they discovered he lost by a couple hundred more votes than Biden.

                      “ The partisan ballot review in Maricopa County released last week reaffirmed Biden’s victory. But Trump and the Arizona GOP officials who backed it ignored that conclusion and the highly problematic nature of the review itself, run by a company inexperienced in election audits and which failed to follow standard auditing procedures, and instead touted other issues raised in their report — even though they were quickly rebutted by election experts and county officials.”

                      https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/09/27/despite-actual-findings-trump-says-audit-shows-we-won/amp/

                      Trump lied.

                      Cyber ninjas themselves stated Biden won. Trump told his supporters at a rally that the audit proved he won. That’s one giant lie.

                    2. Though you may not realize it, the date of such a statement is important. Circumstances change with time, so what is said at one time might be correct, but wrong after more information is found. There is context behind his statement and that context has to do with what was known at the time.

                      Everything that you write is riddled with factual or logical errors. Learn how to evaluate your claims. Check the date, context, accuracy, responsibility, source and a whole host of things. Your statements are meaningless because you don’t take any of these things into account.

                    3. S. Meyer says,

                      “Though you may not realize it, the date of such a statement is important.” yes it is. He made that statement AFTER the Arizona Audit posted it’s results showing Trump lost.

                      LOL!! you can’t bring yourself to admit trump lied even when he clearly did.

                      “Circumstances change with time, so what is said at one time might be correct, but wrong after more information is found. There is context behind his statement and that context has to do with what was known at the time.”

                      They still haven’t changed S. Meyer. The Arizona audit didn’t produce any more data that proved trump won. Trump hasn’t changed his claim that the audit said he won. He is still lying.

                      The context behind the statement is that Trump said the audit showed he won AFTER the release of the audit’s findings showing he lost. There’s your context. A “smart” guy like you should know that trump lied. If you still don’t think so prove me wrong.

                      Show me Trump saying he accepted the audit’s findings. Give me actual quotes.

                    4. What Trump said earlier reflects on what was shown at that time. You conflate so many things together that one needs pages to separate them.

                      Make your claim based on what Trump was talking about at the time. You have no understanding that history needs to be understood based on the circumstances of the times. You have been very poorly educated.

                    5. S. Meyer,

                      ““So Trump lying about winning not being honest and his dishonest actions are democracy?”
                      his opinion.”

                      A lie is not an opinion. It’s just a lie. It seems it’s you who can’t discern the difference between opinion and a lie. When trump told a crowd AFTER the audit finding he LOST that the audit proved he WON is a lie not an opinion. You’re being quite foolish by your own standard. I gave you Trump’s quote in context. Here’s more context for you.

                      “”Interesting that the Unselect Committee of political hacks ‘dropped’ their subpoena request the night before Arizona is expected to announce its findings from the Forensic Audit on voter fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election Scam,” Trump said in his original statement, which was sent around 11 p.m. ET on Thursday.

                      “This is what they do, this is what they are good at — but everybody will be watching Arizona tomorrow to see what the highly respected auditors and Arizona State Senate found out regarding the so-called Election!” the statement continued.” This statement was made on Thursday.

                      “Shortly after 10 a.m. ET on Friday, Trump released a new statement calling attention to the “huge findings in Arizona.” “However, the Fake News Media is already trying to ‘call it’ again for Biden before actually looking at the facts—just like they did in November!” the statement continued. It also said that the audit “uncovered significant and undeniable evidence of FRAUD!”

                      In fact, the Cyber Ninjas review concluded that the group’s recount of ballots cast in Maricopa County in the 2020 election had “no substantial differences” from the county’s own official, certified tallies, which were conducted in November.

                      Maricopa County Board Chair Jack Sellers said as much in a statement about the draft. He said that “the tabulation equipment counted the ballots as they were designed to do, and the results reflect the will of the voters.”

                      At a rally LATER in Georgia Trump made this claim, “We won at the Arizona forensic audit yesterday at a level that you wouldn’t believe,” Trump told the crowd in Perry, Georgia. “They had headlines that Biden wins in Arizona, when they know it’s not true. He didn’t win in Arizona. He lost in Arizona based on the forensic audit.”

                      That statement has trump saying that the arizona audit says he won. Context? Trump is pointing out the results of the Arizona audit run by Cyber ninjas. The result. They didn’t say he won. They said he lost by a couple hundred more votes. Trump lied.

                      Are you now willing to admit Trump lied S. Meyer?

                    6. “A lie is not an opinion. It’s just a lie.”

                      AS you have been told many times, you don’t know the difference between a lie and an opinion. Without question we all lie at one point or another, but we normally call things lies when they are important and not outbursts, opinions, errors etc. You focus on the latter. If one were to do the same to you, one would have to state that almost everything you write is a lie. I consider it lack of knowledge and education. You fail in those departments.

                      I mostly deal with what you write early on, so make sure that you make your point at the beginning and leave out the long articles

                    7. S. Meyer,

                      “What Trump said earlier reflects on what was shown at that time. You conflate so many things together that one needs pages to separate them.

                      Make your claim based on what Trump was talking about at the time. You have no understanding that history needs to be understood based on the circumstances of the times. You have been very poorly educated.”

                      He lied. It’s pretty clear. I did make my claim based on what trump was talking about at the time. He made his comments directly related to what the Arizona auditors the Cyber Ninjas said about the results a WEEK before. I gave you the context and time frame that makes Trump’s statement a lie. There is no other way around that fact.

                      The history shows that AFTER the audit’s final report was released by the Arizona Senate showing that indeed Trump lost in that state Trump at a rally in Georgia A WEEK later that same month publicly stated that the audit showed that he won. Obviously that is a big fat lie.

                      You just can’t bring yourself to admit that Trump really lied about the audit saying he won. You are calling me poorly educated despite the fact that you CAN’T admit that what trump said was not true. You can keep asking for context till you are blue in the face, but the reality is all the context is there in front of you. You are just being willfully ignorant because you KNOW it is true.

                    8. “He lied. It’s pretty clear. “
                      What is clear to you is clear because you can only choose from a maximum of two ideas and are inaccurate in that choice. You talked about what we know today or think we know today, but Trump was talking after it was reported that 75,000 ballots had a problem in one county. To this day we don’t know the complete truth and never will because the Democrats destroyed evidence and refused to provide all the things necessary to prove the election was secure. They broke Constitutional guidelines on the voting process in many states and had unequal rules for different places.

                      If you can’t understand that, don’t call someone else a liar, call yourself stupid.

                      SM

                    9. Anonymous SM,

                      ““A lie is not an opinion. It’s just a lie.”

                      AS you have been told many times, you don’t know the difference between a lie and an opinion. Without question we all lie at one point or another, but we normally call things lies when they are important and not outbursts, opinions, errors etc. You focus on the latter. If one were to do the same to you, one would have to state that almost everything you write is a lie. I consider it lack of knowledge and education. You fail in those departments.

                      I mostly deal with what you write early on, so make sure that you make your point at the beginning and leave out the long articles”

                      You keep asking for context, but you then state that you only deal with what I write early on. In order to put things into context you HAVE to read the “long articles” in order to comprehend the context that YOU are demanding. Then you accuse me of lying when you don’t even bother reading for context the “long articles” that give you exactly what you are asking for. You are defeating your own demands out of ignorance or mental laziness.

                      I focus on the simple fact that the statements in and of themselves are proof that trump lied. I know you are capable of researching it for yourself, but you are deliberately evading the evidence before you. It’s quite that simple. You are making nonsensical rationalizations to avoid the simplest of points that you requested. Trump lied S. Meyer and there is nothing you can say that will change that statement other than willful avoidance of the truth simply because you don’t want to acknowledge it.

                    10. “You keep asking for context, but you then state that you only deal with what I write early on. In order to put things into context you HAVE to read the “long articles” in order to comprehend the context that YOU are demanding. ”

                      First you provide your point then why you think your evidence will prove your case. Then you can provide the evidence. One time I delved into your evidence it wasn’t a PhD that wrote what you provided, but a student. You didn’t even know he was a student. You didn’t know the paper either. You continue not to know what your evidence shows. You need somebody else to do the thinking for you. Start providing your thinking at the top. Most of the time it is non existent or left to float around in a lot of useless verbiage.

                      Take note, the important thing is not what Trump said about the election. It is that the election was lawless. You are lost in focusing on Trump instead of what happened.

                      SM

                    11. S. Meyer,

                      ““He lied. It’s pretty clear. “
                      What is clear to you is clear because you can only choose from a maximum of two ideas and are inaccurate in that choice. You talked about what we know today or think we know today, but Trump was talking after it was reported that 75,000 ballots had a problem in one county. To this day we don’t know the complete truth and never will because the Democrats destroyed evidence and refused to provide all the things necessary to prove the election was secure. They broke Constitutional guidelines on the voting process in many states and had unequal rules for different places.

                      If you can’t understand that, don’t call someone else a liar, call yourself stupid.

                      SM”

                      BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Good grief man. You are actively trying to lie to yourself in order to avoid the simple fact that you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that trump lied. First you demand context and then you are given context on two different examples. Then you choose to ignore the context because it is too long a read for you despite demanding that context be provided.

                      I talked about what we know today and what Trump said directly in response to the Arizona audit which stated that trump did indeed lose the election in Arizona. They didn’t find anything that would change the outcome of the election which was in line with all prior audits. Then you make a nonsense statement about democrats destroying evidence despite the fact that it was an audit run by republicans and a very trump friendly legislature. THEN you go on a rant about other states breaking rules which have NOTHING to do with the fact that trump still lied about what the Arizona audit said. They didn’t say trump won, which is what trump said they did say. That is the lie. At no point have you provided any proof that what trump said was not a lie. All you did was complain about context and timing which have been clearly shown to you that Trump lied when he stated that the Arizona audit SAID he won AFTER they released the results saying Biden won. That pretty much gives anyone the right to call Trump a liar. Even a 5th grader can recognize that as a blatant lie. But you can’t seem to do so because you seem intent on lying to yourself more than accepting a simple truth that is right in front of you.

                    12. “BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ”

                      MMN, was your crying the reason the six-year-olds threw you out of their sandbox?

                      “you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that trump lied.”

                      But I can. I have said that many times in the past. Unfortunately, your mind is so full of junk you don’t know when. Most of us lie at one time or another, which is valid with Trump, but his lies are generally petty and not significant to the nation’s wellbeing. You are a poor listener. Perhaps that is due to your substandard reading comprehension, or maybe you have difficulty remembering things.

                      You are a petty guy that confuses his underwear with a lethal weapon, so one cannot take much of what you say to mean much of anything.

                      On the other hand, Joe Biden lies a lot. I can’t think of a week where he hasn’t lied, which hurt the American people. Most of his platform when running for the Presidency was a lie.

                      You continue with a lot of awkward logic and completely mess things up when dealing with the past. When you do deal with the past, you are a historical dunce. You fail to account for what was happening at the time, so you make remarks that sound like the present day is indistinguishable from the past. It’s awful.

                      Next time you respond, include the 75,000 votes said to be questionable in one county and deal with that while dealing with Trump’s words. Right now, you look pretty foolish.

                  2. “Wisconsin proved their election was not fraudulent”

                    Quite the contrary. The auditors found 30 recommendations for improvement and 18 items for the legislature to address.

                    You keep making things up. What they found was “inconsistent administration” of election law by officials across the state, and a need for “uniform rules” regarding drop boxes.

                    Though they didn’t find provable election fraud both of those problems could have hidden enough fraud that the Wisconsin election results could have been reversed.

                    The same goes for the rest of what you write. You embellish the information you have which isn’t opinion. One could call it a lie, but I will chalk it up to your inexperience in dealing with complex election issues. That goes for most of your comments.

                    SM

                    1. S. Meyer,

                      ““Wisconsin proved their election was not fraudulent”

                      Quite the contrary. The auditors found 30 recommendations for improvement and 18 items for the legislature to address.”

                      Recommendations are not proof of fraud S. Meyer. Improvements should always be welcome, but that is still not proof of fraud as Trump claims.

                      “Though they didn’t find provable election fraud both of those problems could have hidden enough fraud that the Wisconsin election results could have been reversed.”

                      They didn’t find provable fraud because there is no fraud to prove. Then you go to the old stand-by, of whatboutism or could have should have argument without any proof or….context. I know how fond you are of context.

                      Trump is lying to you man. Not a single audit. even by trump supporters, has proved his claims true.

                      “The same goes for the rest of what you write. You embellish the information you have which isn’t opinion.”

                      I have not embellished anything, but you are right about one thing. It wasn’t opinion, it was facts.

                    2. “Recommendations are not proof of fraud S. Meyer.”

                      That is correct. That is not proof of fraud, but it is proof that the elections weren’t held securely. That opens the election results to doubt.

                      “that is still not proof of fraud as Trump claims.”

                      Though you are ignorant that fraud has been proven multiple times, the amount of proven fraud was not sufficient to change election results. That doesn’t mean that the fraud committed during the election, but left unproven, couldn’t have changed the election. That so many problems have been found all over the country, especially in areas suspected of fraud at other times, means we have no way of proving one thing or the other.

                      “that is still not proof of fraud as Trump claims. ”

                      You deny that fraud existed. However, fraud has already been proven multiple times. Your denial is factually incorrect.

                      The audits proved a lot of irregularities, and those irregularities prove Trump’s opinion is not out of the blue. But you wouldn’t know that because you are ignorant of what happened during the election.

                  3. Svelaz, I think it’s seldom productive to engage with Allan / S. Meyer / SM … (he has used several names). Here, he is trying to pretend that if Trump makes a false claim, he’s just expressing an opinion. But Trump’s false claims aren’t a matter of opinion. They’re false, and if they’re knowingly false, then they’re lies. S. Meyer seems to decide whether something is an opinion vs. a lie based on his feelings about the person who made the statement.

                    1. Anonymous,

                      “Here, he is trying to pretend that if Trump makes a false claim, he’s just expressing an opinion. But Trump’s false claims aren’t a matter of opinion. They’re false, and if they’re knowingly false, then they’re lies. S. Meyer seems to decide whether something is an opinion vs. a lie based on his feelings about the person who made the statement.”

                      As you always say Allan, aka, S. Meyer, aka, Anonymous, is a fine example of what you would call a walking contradiction and a master class in cognitive dissonance. It may not be productive but is sure exposes his own hypocrisy and hypocrisy should be addressed whenever it appears.

                    2. “Here, he is trying to pretend that if Trump makes a false claim, he’s just expressing an opinion. But Trump’s false claims aren’t a matter of opinion. They’re false,”

                      MMN and Anonymous the Stupid, take note, OPINIONS CAN BE FALSE. For example, ATS thinks he is more intelligent than average. That is his opinion, even though he has proven himself to be dumb. By accepting ATS’s logic, you have demonstrated a lack of critical thinking skills. I like dealing with the two low IQ folk together. It’s like going out for dinner and paying for the first one while getting the second one for free.

                2. S. Meyer,

                  “ Biden’s constant removal of citizens’ rights, unconstitutional activities and not upholding the law is a threat to our Republic and our Constitution.”

                  What rights have been removed? Isn’t removing unconstitutional activities necessary because they are…unconstitutional? You make no sense.

                  The executive branch can choose not to enforce certain laws just as police officers can choose not to give you a ticket and issue you a warning instead.

                  Trump did it when he was in charge. Why wouldn’t the same principle not apply to Biden?

                  1. “What rights have been removed?”

                    You say you are intelligent so you should already know. I recently posted intimidation of speech at school board meetings, so I am sure you can understand what that means. That intimidation started at the White House.

                    There are numerous others that are attempting to remove the rights of citizens.

                    SM

                    1. S. Meyer,

                      You made the claim. I don’t need to show you what rights are being removed because you made the claim that they are. All you have to do is state which ones you are referring to? Intimidation of speech? What is that. How do you intimidate speech? I understand how you can intimidate a person, but how do you intimidate speech? You state that I say I’m intelligent. Here you are proving me right.

                      Again you are making no sense.

                    2. “I don’t need to show you what rights are being removed because you made the claim that they are.”

                      Theoretically, no rights are violated when you believe in an authoritarian government as you do unless the government says they are. When one lives in a free country, the government sometimes does criminal things, but citizens have little avenue to fight that act.

                      Intimidation can be a criminal charge, and that is what the government did to peaceful and lawful parents of school children. I could explain it to you further, but from experience, you wouldn’t understand, so ask one of the lawyers on the blog. It isn’t worth my time to try and explain such a thing to someone who accuses the other of “making no sense” when the accuser is doorknob dumb.

          3. Yeah, he’s a real danger. 15 months ago we were energy independent and now we’re buying 600.000 barrels of oil a day from the Russians. Biden stopped the pipeline and all oil and natural gas production and exploration on federal properties. Can anyone say “COLLUSION”!

            1. Yes, any President who was attempting a self-coup — to stay in power beyond the period of time he was elected to — is a danger to our democracy. That is how autocrats come into power.

              He lost the election, and instead of accepting it, he pushed the Big Lie that the election was stolen. He encouraged Mike Pence to act unconstitutionally and certify Trump as the winner. He encouraged his supporters to come to DC and prevent or delay the certification of the EC vote. He engaged in all sorts of harmful norm-breaking, such as accusing multiple Democrats of “treason” and encouraging his supporters to chant “lock her up” for someone who had not been charged with any crime. He attempted a quid pro quo in pushing a foreign government to investigate a political opponent in exchange for assistance. Not only did he refuse to put his businesses in a blind trust, he visited them on average every 3 days and encouraged others to use his businesses to his benefit. He pardoned multiple people who’d worked on his campaign. He pardoned a war criminal. This is only a partial list of how I believe he endangered our democracy.

              You are free to have a different opinion about it.

                1. Most Americans don’t doubt that Biden won the election.

                  Many who doubt it do so because of Trump’s endless promotion of the Big Lie. Trump is a danger to our democracy.

              1. “Yes, any President who was attempting a self-coup”

                The coup was from the left based on their lawlessness coming from the Obama and Biden administrations along with the lawlessness of the left in the election process.

                The reason why the left fights voter ID and other changes is because they wish to cheat and steal elections. ATS will say differently, but his proof is thin and he thinks the black population not capable enough to have ID required for a library card, WalMart or to get on a plane.

              2. I remember Bill Clinton pardoning Mark Rich. The FBI begging him not to pardon Rich. Rich was the biggest tax cheat in US history. He also was very busy in international arms business. Mrs. Rich gave 2 million dollars to the Clinton foundation. Let’s go Branden.

                1. I’m not a fan of either of the Clintons, and Bill Clinton shouldn’t have pardoned Marc Rich.

                  But Rich did not work on Bill Clinton’s own campaign and was not pardoned for protecting Clinton, and Rich wasn’t a convicted war criminal.

          4. Anonymous – how, exactly, do you think that Trump is a danger to our democracy?

            He complained about it, but he relinquished the White House at the appointed time.

            No new wars.

            Economic prosperity FOR ALL, with black unemployment at record lows, and almost all middle class taxpayers getting a tax cut.

            He worked on returning more manufacturing to the US, prophetic in light of the supply chain bottleneck China proved to be during Covid.

            He truthfully discussed how the pandemic arose out of the lab at China, and how China hid the initial outbreak and allowed it to go global, at a time when the media was gaslighting us.

            4 Middle East peace deals that John Kerry said were impossible.

            He held up to 4 press conferences a day, gleefully quarreling with journalists in mutual hatred.

            Meanwhile, Joe Biden refuses to hold press conferences, and refuses to answer questions from anyone other than a preapproved list with preapproved questions. Bungled Afghanistan which will cause global repercussions and a certainty of a major future terrorist attack. Iran is now moments away from a nuclear bomb. China is making threats against the US and moving against Taiwan. Taxes on everyone are going up. Gas prices are quickly becoming unsustainable. Biden reversed our energy independence, making us reliant upon foreign nations. He scuttled our pipeline with our ally Canada, costing so many jobs, but approved Russia’s pipeline. His son Hunter Biden has him embroiled in very serious pay to play allegations.

            Access to our country is on the art gallery auction block, Americans were left behind and murdered by terrorists in Afghanistan, our airstrike murdered Afghan men, women, and children instead of terrorists, he turned over “airport security” to terrorist who prevented our people from leaving, taxes are rising, inflation is a very real threat, terrorists are coming through our open border along with enough fentanyl to kill everyone in the US, and you think Trump is the threat to America? Are you mad?

            1. We most certainly haven’t returned to civility; we’ve returned to Democrats bashing conservatives with impunity. Dog faced pony soldiers. Neanderthal thinking. Do you even read the insults? This is normal as long as it’s against Republicans, but heaven forbid a Republican is vulgar and rude to Democrats.

              1. Karen, S. Meyer posts insults about me every day with impunity. Please don’t pretend that it only occurs on one-side.

                1. Why shouldn’t you be insulted? You are a trickster and a liar. Not only that , but you insult a lot of people on the blog even Karen who doesn’t deserve your condescension or insults. She writes beautifully in easy to understand terms, but you try and deflect from what she writes rather than answer truthfully.

            2. “Anonymous – how, exactly, do you think that Trump is a danger to our democracy?”

              Karen, I already said in my 11:31 AM comment why I think this. What part of that comment do you not understand?

              Trump tried to convince Pence to award the presidency to Trump, even though Trump lost the election. Trump brought in a lawyer, John Eastman, to help Trump convince Pence to award the presidency to Trump. Trump spent months lying to his supporters claiming that the election had been stolen and then invited his supporters to a rally in DC based on that Big Lie, choosing the date, time, and location of his Jan. 6 rally to coincide with Congress certifying the Electoral College vote. Trump and his allies repeatedly announced the date to his supporters ahead of time and asked them to show up to the rally. At the rally, Trump and his invited speakers riled the attendees up, and then he encouraged them to go to the Capitol in the midst of the certification and lied to them that he’d go with them. The insurrectionists broke into the Capitol, fought with law enforcement and injured many officers, forced the Secret Service to take Pence away from the Senate to a secure location and forced all members of Congress to stay away from the floor of the House and Senate. They succeeded in delaying the certification of the EC vote by Congress.

              As someone else said “far-right groups planned to breach the Capitol during this planned protest. The consequences of that are foreseeable, but it’s somehow not an attempt to overthrow the government because they didn’t have a clear plan for what came next. It was a putsch! This is what a putsch IS! Conspirators rally a mob in an attempt to overthrow a government! The mob itself is not, like, part of the advance planning.”

              Trump tried to stay in power despite having lost the election. Just because he failed doesn’t mean he isn’t a danger. If bank robbers try and fail to rob a bank, they still broke the law. Trump continues to spread the Big Lie and the GOP continues to defer to him. He is still a danger.

              And I’m going to remind you that I’ve more than once given you evidence about the violence, weapons use, and other dangerous behavior in the Capitol on Jan. 6, and each time, you’ve been unwilling to discuss it. Can you admit how many violent and other criminal acts occurred in the Capitol on Jan. 6 in the attempt to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power?

              1. “Trump tried to convince Pence to award the presidency to Trump,”

                First state Trump’s exact words. Then say what you didn’t like. Then recognize nothing of that nature happened. Your intent is to lie.

                In essence you are changing the words, context and the event. Trump thinks out loud and didn’t give Pence any written script. You are a liar.

                I need not go any further.

                1. Allan / SM / S. Meyer / Mark N. / your other sock accounts:

                  I do not believe that you are a good-faith discussant, and I am not going to treat you like one. As always, your insults only reflect on you.

                  But just so others can see some of what Trump said to and about Mike Pence, encouraging Pence to act unconstitutionally with respect to certifying the Electoral College vote, here are just some of the totally false things Trump said publicly in his attempt to pressure Pence:

                  “Our Vice President has several options under the U.S. Constitution. He can decertify the results or send them back to the states for change and certification. He can also decertify the illegal and corrupt results and send them to the House of Representatives for the one vote for one state tabulation.”
                  “I hope Mike Pence comes through for us, I have to tell you. I hope that our great Vice President comes through for us. If he doesn’t come through, of course, I won’t like him very much.”
                  “The Vice President has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors.”
                  If Vice President @Mike_Pence comes through for us, we will win the Presidency. Many States want to decertify the mistake they made in certifying incorrect & even fraudulent numbers in a process NOT approved by their State Legislatures (which it must be). Mike can send it back!
                  “States want to correct their votes, which they now know were based on irregularities and fraud, plus corrupt process never received legislative approval. All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!
                  “I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so. Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is, this is from the number one, or certainly one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it. … All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president. … I just spoke to Mike, I said: ‘Mike, that doesn’t take courage. What takes courage is to do nothing.’ … Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us, and if he doesn’t, that will be a, a sad day for our country. … They [Pennsylvania] want to recertify their votes. They want to recertify. But the only way that can happen is if Mike Pence agrees to send it back. Mike Pence has to agree to send it back.”

                  By “this is from the number one, or one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country,” he’s referring to John Eastman, hired by Trump and author of the 6-page memo encouraging Pence to act unconstitutionally. He spoke prior to Trump at the Jan. 6 rally. Eastman has already been referred to the Bar: https://statesuniteddemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/10.4.21-FINAL-Eastman-Cover-Letter-Memorandum.pdf

                  Pence did not have the legal power to do what Trump asked him to do. Trump was trying to pressure Pence into doing it anyway. In the midst of the insurrection, while insurrectionists were looking for Pence and chanting “hang Mike Pence,” Trump complained about Pence’s refusal to act illegally on Trump’s behalf during the start of the certification process — a process that was interrupted by the insurrectionists: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution.”

                  This is just a small piece of why I consider Trump a danger to our democracy.

                  1. Anonymous the Stupid, we all have objections to things people say or want to have something done about, but that doesn’t mean they did anything wrong.

                    Let us start with your garbage sentence by sentence for just a few sentences.

                    “Our Vice President has several options under the U.S. Constitution.”

                    True.

                    “He can decertify the results or send them back to the states for change and certification. He can also decertify the illegal and corrupt results and send them to the House of Representatives for the one vote for one state tabulation.”

                    This is a statement of what he believes the law is. It is not criminal. I don’t know if there is or isn’t legality in what he said, but none of that happened or could happen without another party’s actions.

                    “I hope Mike Pence comes through for us, I have to tell you. I hope that our great Vice President comes through for us. If he doesn’t come through, of course, I won’t like him very much.”

                    Where is the criminal action? What criminality occurred?

                    The actual criminal or lawless actions occurred in the states where election laws were changed unconstitutionally.

                    “The Vice President has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors.”

                    He has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors, but I don’t think he had any exclusivity of power.

                    This is your typical garbage. Trump thinks aloud and can be objectionable, but he did a lot of good for our country. He reduced the number of rapists and murderers coming in illegally from our southern border. He reduced the Fentanyl that crossed the border as well.

                    You must hate Trump for preventing murderers and rapists from entering the country illegally. Were you upset that the price of illicit drugs would go up if the southern border were sealed. Trumps actions on the southern border, bringing peace in other parts of the world, improving our economy were things that Trump actually did. What you talk about are things Trump restrained himself from doing. To date almost all your prior lies about Trump and Russia, Ukraine etc. were bogus and you don’t have the balls to admit you were wrong, You are a liar.

                    1. I said “Trump tried to convince Pence to award the presidency to Trump.”

                      You quoted that and responded “First state Trump’s exact words.”

                      I gave you multiple quotes from Trump — “Trump’s exact words” — showing that Trump tried to convince Pence to award the presidency to Trump.

                      As for “I don’t know if there is or isn’t legality in what he said,” if you chose to read one of the many analyses of the Vice President’s legal obligations under the Electoral Count Act, you’d know that it’s illegal. Do you need a citation for one of them?

                    2. “He can decertify the results or send them back to the states for change and certification. He can also decertify the illegal and corrupt results and send them to the House of Representatives for the one vote for one state tabulation.”

                      That is not, as you say, “awarding” Trump the presidency. It is sending the question elsewhere and demonstrates he thought illegal ballots were counted or illegally not counted. You are wrong, Trump didn’t try to get “Pence to award the presidency to Trump. ”

                      As for the legality behind what Trump said, as I said before, I don’t know if there is any legality in his words, but what he said is not criminal and was a statement of his beliefs mixed with displeasure over a lawless election. Let us assume that corruption was evident at the time and clear enough for some action to be taken. What could Pence do? What could others do? I don’t know, but it would take many parties for anything to happen, not one man.

                      “Do you need a citation for one of them?

                      Based on my uncertainty, if criminal actions had occurred and were satisfactorily proven, what Pence could do is uncertain in my mind. Since you offered citations, go ahead, but provide the sources that answer my question and what I said. I don’t need citations to answer what you say I said.

                      SM

                    3. Trump:
                      “All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president.”
                      “All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!”

                      Pence choosing to send it back to the states would have been unconstitutional.

                      “as I said before, I don’t know if there is any legality in his words”

                      You’re choosing not to know, but legal scholars across the country do know, and Pence didn’t do it because he knew it would be unconstitutional.

                      “Let us assume that corruption was evident at the time and clear enough for some action to be taken. … provide the sources that answer my question”

                      You are free to investigate your hypothetical yourself. I will not join you in discussing it, and I did not offer to provide you with sources for *that*.

                      I am discussing Pence’s actual legal responsibilities on January 6, 2021, and Trump’s efforts to get Pence to act contrary to Pence’s actual legal responsibilities on January 6 and sworn duty to the Constitution. Since you seem disinterested in Pence’s actual legal responsibilities on January 6, I won’t provide a source for it.

                    4. “You are free to investigate your hypothetical yourself. I will not join you in discussing it, and I did not offer to provide you with sources for *that*.

                      That is correct. You want to cite the answers to your questions, but you cannot cite the answers to mine which you say are wrong. That proves my questions were legitimate and yours fallacious based on the fact that you distort what others say.I will say it again, you are a liar and a trickster.

                      Stick to the shallow talking points of the left. Once you get outside of them you sound ignorant.

                    5. S. Meyer,

                      ” “He can decertify the results or send them back to the states for change and certification. He can also decertify the illegal and corrupt results and send them to the House of Representatives for the one vote for one state tabulation.”

                      This is a statement of what he believes the law is. It is not criminal. I don’t know if there is or isn’t legality in what he said, but none of that happened or could happen without another party’s actions.”

                      Here is where you show your ignorance as crystal clear as you can. Believing in what the law says and KNOWING what it actually says are two very important differences. Trump believed the law said Pence could just send the results back to the states. But the law doesn’t say that he can do that. Then you admit you don’t know either what the law says but you ascertain that what trump asked pence to do is not illegal. It is illegal. He was telling pence to do something illegal. It’s like telling Mike pence to go rob a bank because he believes he can despite the fact that it is illegal to rob a bank. Trump was inciting Pence to commit an illegal act. Encouraging someone to commit an illegal act is considered aiding and abetting.

                    6. “Believing in what the law says and KNOWING what it actually says are two very important differences. ”

                      MMN, that is very important. However, you never seem to know how the law functions. It is the incentives that tell one what will occur. You don’t look further than the name and what the promoters tell you. That is a foolish way of looking at things, especially since we frequently find that the incentives cause the law to act opposite from the law’s intentions.

                      Trump is not a lawyer, and sometimes it can be frustrating to listen to him thinking aloud. I raised the question of what happens when something in the election process is noticeably illegal while more than adequate proof exists. What would happen then?

                      Anonymous the Stupid had no answers, and I don’t think you have any more intelligence than him, so I think you will be stuck as well.

                      Contracts, for the most part, plan for what people think will happen but frequently leave wide gaps in areas that everyone thought could never happen. The Constitution is a type of contract.

                      “It’s like telling ”

                      If I told you to take off all your clothes and stand on a major street in Hollywood while you rubbed circles on your stomach and with the other hand rubbed circles on your head, would you do it? No, not unless you were a lot more incapacitated than you presently are. That makes that command moot and leaves you looking for something else to say.

                      “Encouraging someone to commit an illegal act is considered aiding and abetting.”

                      One cannot be accused of aiding and abetting a crime unless the crime is committed. Pence was his own man, so you cannot claim incompetence on his part that might lead to such a claim. Trump wasn’t hiring a hitman and wasn’t forcing anyone to do anything.

                      You are going to have to try again because your arguments are meaningless.

Leave a Reply