In World War II, Winston Churchill famously declared that “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.” It appears that there may be even fewer to count on if a recent poll out this weekend is accurate. The Quinnipiac University poll asked Americans “what would you do if you were in the same position as Ukrainians are now, stay and fight or leave the country?” Only 55 percent said that they would stay and fight for this country. That included only 40 percent of Democrats. Overall 38 percent of Americans said that they would flee. It appears that this country is facing an existential crisis of faith and we should have a frank discussion about why so comparably few Americans are now willing to pledge their lives in defense of this country.
Quinnipiac has long been relied upon in polling in the United States and is one of the most cited polling outfits for the media.
It is important to note that, while the results were shocking overall, many did say that they would stand and defend the United States from any invader. When asked this question 68 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of Independents say that they would fight. However more than half of Democrats (52%) said they would flee before fighting for their country (Eight percent did not have an answer, a shrug that is equally alarming).
As someone who came from a liberal, Democratic family in Chicago, I was shocked by the poll. My father and grandfather fought in the World Wars and everyone I grew up with on the liberal Northside of Chicago was both intensely liberal and intensely patriotic. Indeed, I often heard my parents challenge Republican friends for suggesting that conservatives were more patriotic or more willing to sacrifice for their country.
For my maternal Sicilian family, they felt a deep bond to the country that took them in and allowed them to live in freedom. Despite the prejudice that they encountered and difficult times, my Sicilian grandparents celebrated Independence Day like a religious holiday and often discussed their pride when they became American citizens. My grandfather was a union organizer and a coal miner who developed black lung in the mines of Ohio. He could not read or write but he could proudly recite parts of the Declaration of Independence and our national anthem.
We should be alarmed by this poll because it shows a deep disconnection with this country and its protection. If you are not willing to defend this country, citizenship becomes a status of convenience; an opportunistic association that can be shed as easily as it is acquired. It is a commitment that extends little beyond annual tax obligations.
Notably, the poll did not pose a question over what might be viewed as an unjustified war in another land like Vietnam. This question asked about an invasion of our country. Indeed, despite the opposition to Vietnam, many Democrats and liberals still felt obligated to answer the call for service when drafted.
The poll shows a crisis of faith within the Democratic party, but also our country at large. People have lost faith in our common article of faith in the Constitution. That did not occur over night. There have been unrelenting attacks on our institutions and core values for years that ignore our countervailing successes. We have gone through terrible periods and faced terrible institutions and practices from slavery to segregation. However, we faced them as a people united in a common faith captured in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
We have not always lived up to those principles. Indeed, when those words were written, millions were left in slavery and millions were barred from voting, property ownership. and other basic rights of citizenship. However, we became better than we were due to a faith in ourselves and our common constitutional bound.
This is just one poll and people can have different motivations in answering such questions. However, there was clearly a desire by many to convey this disconnection with the country in their answers that suggest something more than just impish responses.
There has been a growing agnosticism regarding this country as many challenge our foundational institutions and values. It is captured in words of leaders like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who questioned the very need for the Supreme Court when it was not ruling in line with her own views: “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.” That is a worthy debate to have and our Constitution protects all sides in having it. Yet, there is an underlying message that, because our institutions did not produce the results demanded by Ocasio-Cortez, we are told to scrap them.
Elie Mystal, who writes for the Nation and Above the Law, called the Constitution “kind of trash.” In his new book, “Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution,” Mystal says that we should just ignore what the Framers thought or said. When asked “if are you arguing that the Constitution needs to be scrapped altogether?” Mystal said he would be “all for” a move to “throw out” the Constitution. Others, including lawyers, agreed with Mystal and declared “the Constitution is trash.”
It is a crisis of faith shown in academics like Georgetown Professor Eddie Glaude insisting that we need to scrap what we have and be “refounded” rather than “tinker around the edges while people are dying.” He insists that, despite the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement and anti-discrimination laws, it is hopeless to expect the system to change: “At every moment when a new America seems to be about to be born, the umbilical cord of white supremacy is wrapped around the baby’s neck, choking the life out of it. ”
The curious aspect of such comments is that we are constantly being reborn as a people. Our Constitution created an experiment in self-governance that remains a work in progress. However, it does not guarantee that you simply get what you want or you can “throw out” the Constitution like Mystal’s unwanted trash.
The people of Ukraine have given the world a symbol of defiance and faith. That is a country that has been deeply divided in the past and only gained its independence in 1991. Vladimir Putin clearly counted on many opting to stand aside rather than stand up for their young nation. Instead, opposing parties and leaders stood together and united in their common identity as Ukrainians.
It appears from this poll that many of us have lost that capacity for faith and sacrifice. Many are unwilling to take that same leap of faith in our system and each other.
President John F. Kennedy, a Democrat who was decorated for his bravery in World War II, famously declared in 1961: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” The question is whether Americans are willing to answer the same call today.
It’s easy to say this or that about what you would do if the defense of your nation is required, but when the enemy kills your mother and rapes your sister and you have to evaluate if you could have done something to stop the carnage you may live with the guilt for the rest of your life. Sometimes civil disobedience is justified but it is often used as a cover for cowardice. Such a decision must be made considering not just yourself but also your loved ones. What will you do when the enemy is at the gate?
TiT says:
“What will you do when the enemy is at the gate?”
The 1/6 committee, for instance, IS investigating the enemy within who desecrated the Capitol and attempted to forestall the counting of Electors. Furthermore, the DOJ IS prosecuting those Trumpists who broke the law. Turley has said next to nothing in criticizing the efforts of the committee’s investigation or the DOJ’s punishing Trumpists. The NeverTrumpers are doing the right thing by holding Trumpists accountable.
JeffSilberman, your rant today is Jan 6. There is more firepower in one assault weapon than fifty muzzleloaders that were used by the minuteman. However there were no firearms in use at your so called insurrection on Jan 6. This is your common practice of overstating an occurrence. Just like you have continually overstated the importance of Professor Turley appearing on Fox News.. We have come to expect your biting into a bone and never letting go even when all the meat is gone. JeffSilberman exclaims; They’re storming the ramparts at the capital!! Every man to arms!! Everyman to arms!! What! The President has to go to the Whitehouse bunker because of a riot outside. Never mind that whispers JeffSilberman with a wave of his hand.
“there were no firearms in use at your so called insurrection on Jan 6”
Some firearms were carried by insurrectionists during the riot. Just this week Guy Reffitt was convicted by a jury of illegally entering the Capitol with a semi-automatic handgun on Jan. 6. Didn’t you know? He was convicted on all charges:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1473241/download
Correction: I meant entering the Capitol *grounds*, not the Capitol building.
Anonymous, so do you detract your post and have you taken down your link?
The link correctly shows what he was indicted for and convicted of, including his weapons charge. Hardly took the jury any time to reach their unanimous verdict.
Again, ATS, you don’t know how to exist a losing position gracefully.
Meyer, it is not my goal to respond to conservative trolling gracefully.
That is understandable, but exiting a losing argument is what the discussion is about.
ATS, We are left wondering if you were practicing deception but recognized that you went too far or if you made a mistake.
I think in the 6 minutes, you reread what you said and realized your wording would be inexcusable to those with their eyes open. You have been caught too many times with similar problems.
Perhaps you don’t understand that it’s illegal for anyone other than LE to carry a firearm on Capitol grounds.
Of course, if you simply bothered to read the indictment, you could see the weapons charge for yourself.
ATS, you are being deceitful again and ducking what I said. You corrected your error which is made clear in charge three and numerous news articles. It doesn’t take a genius to search that out.
“entering the Capitol with a semi-automatic handgun on Jan. 6. Didn’t you know? He was convicted on all charges: ”
You say, convicted on all charges, including entering the Capitol with a gun. That wasn’t true. I think your initial intention was to deceive, but in the 6 minutes, you thought hard and decided someone would likely detect the lie.
The following was my initial response to you, but now I am more sure of your intentions.
—
ATS, We are left wondering if you were practicing deception but recognized that you went too far or if you made a mistake.
I think in the 6 minutes, you reread what you said and realized your wording would be inexcusable to those with their eyes open. You have been caught too many times with similar problems.
.
“You say, convicted on all charges, including entering the Capitol with a gun. That wasn’t true.”
Actually, it IS true. I should have said “clarification” rather than “correction,” as I didn’t say anything false. Perhaps you’re unaware that the grounds are part of the Capitol. For your edification: https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/buildings-grounds (AOC = the Architect of the Capitol, whose staff preserve the buildings and grounds of the Capitol). I simply wanted to clarify that he illegally carried his firearm onto the grounds, but Reffitt was not among those charged with offenses inside the Capitol buildings.
In fact, the law that Reffitt was convicted of breaking refers to “restricted buildings or grounds,” and the offense is the same regardless of whether the person is in a restricted building with a firearm or on restricted grounds with a firearm.
“Actually, it IS true. I should have said “clarification” rather than “correction,” as I didn’t say anything false. “
Right now, ATS, you are lying. In past discussions, many have gone through this same discussion where suddenly the Capitol (building) included the Capitol grounds. Many arguments ensued on this topic, so it is not a simple mistake. It was deceit followed by an attempt to weasel out of a situation you put yourself in so that you could wrongfully repeat a lie you have used many times.
I’ll repeat my comment since you are back to your links that don’t address your problems of lying and deception.
—
ATS, We are left wondering if you were practicing deception but recognized that you went too far or if you made a mistake.
I think in the 6 minutes, you reread what you said and realized your wording would be inexcusable to those with their eyes open. You have been caught too many times with similar problems.
No, Meyer the Troll, I’m not lying.
The Capitol, which is what my statement was about, includes both the buildings and the grounds. The weapons law that Reffitt was convicted of breaking applies equally to restricted buildings and restricted grounds.
You are simply so hate-filled that you’d rather pretend that I’m lying than deal truthfully with the relevant facts. FO.
“No, Meyer the Troll, I’m not lying.”
Right now, ATS, you are lying. In past discussions, many have gone through this same discussion where suddenly the Capitol (building) included the Capitol grounds. Many arguments ensued on this topic, so it is not a simple mistake. It was deceit followed by an attempt to weasel out of a situation you put yourself in so that you could wrongfully repeat a lie you have used many times.
“FO.”
The censor permitted this, but if repeated multiple times in one post or all posts, eventually, the censor will delete posts to stop the use of excessive foul language. You insult Turley all the time over that type of censorship. I think the censorship is handled well, even if an occasional mistake might be made.
No, Meyer, I’m not lying, no matter how many times you falsely claim I am. In making your false claim about me, you’re either lying yourself, or you deludedly believe your false claim to be true (in which case you’re deluded rather than lying).
You insist “In past discussions, many have gone through this same discussion where suddenly the Capitol (building) included the Capitol grounds.” Link to a couple of these discussions, and let’s see what people actually said in the discussions you allude to.
I’d previously commented on “Guy Reffitt having just been found guilty on all counts (including obstruction and entering Capitol grounds with firearm) in the first trial of a Jan. 6 insurrectionist” (https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/08/jeh-johnson-withdraws-as-vassar-commencement-speaker-after-protests/comment-page-2/#comment-2164724). Turley himself has previously uploaded one of the indictments alleging that conspirators “entered the restricted area of the Capitol grounds” (https://jonathanturley.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/us_v_rhodes_file-stamped_copy_0.pdf). See, I can link to previous discussions. Now you do it.
There’s nothing “sudden” about the Capitol including the Capitol grounds. The Capitol has always included the Capitol grounds.
Are you going to insist that the DOJ’s indictment is wrong, and the Architect of the Capitol is wrong, and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, even when they clearly know more about it than you do?
If you can’t admit that the Capitol grounds are part of the Capitol, OK, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Capitol grounds are part of the Capitol, and the law that Reffitt was convicted by a jury of breaking refers to a person who “in any restricted building or grounds … uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm.” Reffitt was convicted of bringing his firearm onto the restricted Capitol grounds.
“No, Meyer, I’m not lying”
ATS, lying is one of your bad habits.
My comments mostly had to do with whether or not you were trying to be deceptive. You prove my case. Once again, you change words to appear to others that you were right. You fail because, in sentence one, it is the Capitol. In sentence two, it is the Capitol grounds. Some will remember how you used that distinction in the past. You corrected yourself after six minutes when you recognized the likelihood some would believe you were purposely being deceitful.
I will capitalize where the word changes occur.
“Some firearms were carried by insurrectionists during the riot. Just this week Guy Reffitt was convicted by a jury of illegally entering the CAPITOL with a semi-automatic handgun on Jan. 6.”
You continue your argument with:
“I’d previously commented on “Guy Reffitt having just been found guilty on all counts (including obstruction and entering CAPITOL GROUNDS with firearm) in the first trial of a Jan. 6 insurrectionist” ”
This proves you were trying to be deceptive in your initial comment, as I explained in my comments above. I have to laugh at how transparent your deception and lies are. Keep it up, Anonymous the Stupid, so the remaining few that believe you will start laughing at you as well.
In the second half of his reply, ATS tries to prop up his argument, but it is like a soufflé and falls never to rise again. You even brought up the “Architect of the Capitol,” which is how you tried to explain your same arguments the last time. There is no problem or lack of understanding of the Capitol and Capitol grounds. Everyone understands. The problem is that you keep trying to put the man with the gun inside the Capitol building and use wordplay, deception and lying to make people believe that. You did it here, and you did it at least one time in the past. You are a liar.
No, Meyer the Troll, lying is one of your bad habits.
“in sentence one, it is the Capitol. In sentence two, it is the Capitol grounds.”
The Capitol grounds are part of the Capitol, idiot. It’s as if I were to say “birds lay eggs” and then “seagulls lay eggs,” and you complain that I changed the claim from “birds” to “seagulls,” when both claims are true. Anything that’s true of birds will be true of seagulls, because seagulls are a subset of birds. The Capitol grounds are a subset of the Capitol. Both “Just this week Guy Reffitt was convicted by a jury of illegally entering the CAPITOL with a semi-automatic handgun on Jan. 6” AND “I’d previously commented on “Guy Reffitt having just been found guilty on all counts (including obstruction and entering CAPITOL GROUNDS with firearm) in the first trial of a Jan. 6 insurrectionist” are likewise true.
You must have failed the lessons in math about subsets.
And oh, look, despite your having insisted that “In past discussions, many have gone through this same discussion where suddenly the Capitol (building) included the Capitol grounds,” when I told you to link to a couple of these discussions so we could see what people actually said in the discussions you allude to, you couldn’t do it.
“you keep trying to put the man with the gun inside the Capitol building ”
No, Meyer the Liar. I have never said that he was “inside the Capitol building.” Not once. YOU keep pretending that that’s what I did. You are a liar and a troll.
“lying is one of your bad habits.”
Anonymous the Stupid, you say that, but you cannot demonstrate how. The answer is, I won’t lie. I have principles that I adhere to, so most of what I say is consistent. Your principles and facts change based on the conclusion you wish to draw at the moment. That is why it is so easy for anyone to make you look bad.
Your initial argument proven wrong shortly after Jan 6 happened was that insurrectionists took guns into the Capitol building. You did that to demonstrate that it was a legitimate insurrection and that most were violent and could end up threatening officials with weapons. You were proven wrong.
Instead of admitting being wrong, you changed what you said and tried to spin it, saying the Capitol grounds were what you were talking about. To convince others that you were correct, you added a lot of verbiages, including a discussion of the Capitol architect. What the Capitol architect said is true, but you were talking about guns in the Capitol building, not the grounds. You did the same thing today. Let me quote you:
“Some firearms were carried by insurrectionists during the riot. Just this week Guy Reffitt was convicted by a jury of illegally entering the CAPITOL with a semi-automatic handgun on Jan 6.”
Six minutes later, you recognized that on at least one occasion before, you tried to cover your tracks and failed, so you tried to cover your tracks again by adding a correction, Capitol building. Based on your comments, I think one can clearly recognize that you were trying to deceive people and make them believe that guns were brought into the Capitol building.
You failed, but that is something you should be used to. If you stopped trying to lie and deceive, you would be better off. The worst thing done to you was giving you the ability to be anonymous and use multiple icons. That incentivized you to lie and deceive since you could always deny you were the same anonymous.
That tactic didn’t work out well for you. Admit your errors, take a unique identifier and create a set of principles you can live by. Then you will not need to lie and deceive. Your own words will not be able to be used against you.
TiT says:
“However there were no firearms in use at your so called insurrection on Jan 6.”
Did I say there were?
“This is your common practice of overstating an occurrence.”
I have never said 1/6 is an “insurrection.” I agree with Turley’s description of a “desecration” which he believes is WORSE.
“Just like you have continually overstated the importance of Professor Turley appearing on Fox News.”
That’s a matter of opinion. For the same reason, he would never appear on Infowars, he never should have signed on to Fox. Is Fox as deceitful as Infowars? No, but it’s bad enough that 2 long-time conservative commentators resigned as well as newsman Chris Wallace. Has Turley EVER stated his opinion of their fleeing Fox? No. He has avoided the topic entirely because he can’t defend his remaining at Fox when others have seen fit to leave on principle. It’s humiliating.
What’s more, Turley is too compromised to analyze the defamation lawsuits against Fox. Just recently it was reported:
“Judge says Tucker Carlson’s comments about election fraud may prove Fox News acted with ‘actual malice’ in Smartmatic’s defamation lawsuit”
https://www.businessinsider.com/tucker-carlson-could-help-smartmatic-lawsuit-against-fox-news-judge-2022-3
“In his opinion Tuesday, [Judge] Cohen wrote that Carlson, another Fox News host, may have given Smartmatic some of the ammunition it needed. Unlike Pirro, Dobbs, and Bartiromo, Carlson asked Powell to substantiate her claims that Smartmatic rigged election results and denounced her when she didn’t turn up with the proof she promised.”
“Ironically, the statements of Tucker Carlson, perhaps the most popular Fox News host, militate most strongly in favor of a possible finding that there is a substantial basis that Fox News acted with actual malice,” Cohen wrote.”
“Given that Powell didn’t give Carlson the evidence that Smartmatic flipped votes, that the Trump campaign told him the evidence didn’t exist, and that election-security specialists and government experts publicly said that claims of election rigging were nonsense, there’s enough evidence that Fox News avoided the truth to allow Smartmatic’s lawsuit to proceed, Cohen wrote.”
“Powell never provided the evidence requested by Carlson, and President Trump’s campaign advised Carlson that it knew of no such evidence,” Cohen wrote.”
——————
I suspect that Turley may be deposed as a witness providing testimony that he too was very skeptical that the Trumpist lawyers could substantiate their conspiracy theories with evidence. He may have warned his Fox colleagues and handlers that they were acting recklessly in avoiding the truth. It’s too bad that Turley is unable or unwilling to analyze this major defamation lawsuit.
JeffSilberman, you say that the protestors at the Capitol will forever be seared into your mind. There were no protestors with firearms inside of the Capitol building. In my previous post I brought up that Trump had to be moved to the Whitehouse bunker. You conveniently overlooked this portion of my post. Should it be seared into your mind that The President had to be hurried to safety because of an attack by leftist like yourself? Is it seared into your mind that a fake dossier was used to try to unseat a sitting President? Excuse me if I can’t join you with your fainting vapors over the Capitol riot. Excuse me if I can’t remember your condemnation of RussiaGate. Excuse me if I can’t remember your apology for foisting such a hoax on the American people. Excuse me if I missed your indignation when a model of Trump’s bloody severed head was held up by a leftist actor. Excuse me if I can’t find a post declaring your disgust at Johnny Depp saying he has thought about assassinating an American President? Excuse me if I find your love of your nation wanting because you desire a fulfilling of your agenda. However, I do not ask to de excused for pointing out your obvious hypocrisy. We know that in this world there are men without a conscience.
TiT says:
“Is it seared into your mind that a fake dossier was used to try to unseat a sitting President? Excuse me if I can’t join you with your fainting vapors over the Capitol riot. Excuse me if I can’t remember your condemnation of RussiaGate. Excuse me if I can’t remember your apology for foisting such a hoax on the American people.”
Turley has not echoed these Q-Anon false narratives. Turley eschews such Trumpist lies as “fake” and “hoax.” I stand with him in condemning Trump’s 1/6 speech as “reckless”- his word, not mine. I agree with his call upon Congress to censure Trump’s conduct if not impeach him.
Fact is, Turley and I see eye-to-eye on Trump. You are an outlier.
“Turley and I see eye-to-eye on Trump.”
Turley has contempt for people that act and speak like you.
Turley has contempt for Trump and Trumpists.
Jeff, you are so upset that you forgot your name.
With almost certainty, I can say Turley doesn’t have contempt for Trumpists, though you will change your definition to meet your needs like any typical bone-head would do. I think if you asked Turley directly, he would likely be polite while silently calling you a fool.
I wonder what the Pulitzer Prize winner at the NYT had to say? Matthew Rosenberg contradicts his own Jan 6 reporting:
Here he is:
“There were a ton of FBI informants amongst the people who attacked the Capitol.”
“It was like, me and two other colleagues who were there [January 6] outside and we were just having fun!”
“I know I’m supposed to be traumatized, but like, all these colleagues who were in the [Capitol] building and are like ‘Oh my God it was so scary!’ I’m like, ‘f*ck off!’”
“I’m like come on, it’s not the kind place I can tell someone to man up but I kind of want to be like, ‘dude come on, you were not in any danger.’
”
“These f*cking little dweebs who keep going on about their trauma. Shut the f*ck up. They’re f*cking b*tches.”
“They were making too big a deal. They were making this an organized thing that it wasn’t.”
“Will I stand by those comments? Absolutely.” __Mathew Rosenberg
Video at: https://www.projectveritas.com/news/pulitzer-prize-winning-new-york-times-reporter-january-6-media-coverage/
Rosenberg said:
“There were a ton of FBI informants amongst the people who attacked the Capitol.”
I hope so. And I trust they were filming those attacking the police and taking names.
Of course, the Fox prime time liars implied that this mere acknowledgment of FBI informants at the scene of the crime is an indication that they were *involved* in the desecration of the Capitol.
A complete lie, but par for the course of Turley’s despicable Fox News.
The FBI informants were aiding and abetting the protestors. The more common usage would be egging them on. When the Republicans take over the House of Representatives there will be investigations that matter. That is if they can keep the voters from Mexico without an ID from voting.
TiT claims:
“The FBI informants were aiding and abetting the protestors.”
You are a liar.
Please do name all of these FBI informants for us, and show us video of them aiding and abetting crimes. If they’ve committed crimes, I’d like them to be charged.
Investigations that matter are already occurring. It’s too bad that the Senate Republicans filibustered the bill creating a bicameral National Commission where Republicans in both chambers would have been able to choose whomever they wanted for half of the Commission members.
Anonymous the Stupid, you talk out of two sides of your mouth. Democrats have politicized Jan 6. Good people on the right believe those that violated the law should pay proportionally to what others pay for similar activities. You think that those attacking federal buildings on the left ‘should be prosecuted and that they were, but you won’t admit to the fact that only a small number were prosecuted and most let go despite billions of dollars in damage with the loss of life, property and businesses.
I am for a Jan 6 investigation that is non-political. That would require Pelosi to release all of her communications with everyone during that time frame or at any time she discussed anything that could lead up to Jan 6. I want her interrogated along with ALL the police that were involved. I’m tired of your hand-picked leftist kangaroo courts and the deceit you bring to the table.
Meyer the Troll, I want Trump questioned under oath, but we don’t always get what we want. Perhaps he’d just plead the 5th dozens of times like his lawyer John Eastman did.
Anonymous the Stupid, Pelosi was integral to Jan 6, and she is all about calling people before a committee that have nothing tying them to illegal activities. You demonstrate that you are a cheat in your own words.
Pelosi’s position of power over Capitol affairs makes everything she did and said valuable to the investigation. Trump called for more protection. If Pelosi took problems seriously or weren’t a part of the problem, she would have done what Trump asked. She is guilty of not doing her job or creating part of Jan 6.
Meyer the Troll, you want Pelosi to be questioned under oath. I want Trump to be questioned under oath. We’re just going to have to be patient to see whether either is called to testify.
Did you learn patience as a child?
Pelosi has to be questioned under oath to get to the basics of what occurred. She is likely a cause of the problem. Trump requested more security which was her domain. Her politically created committee has been calling people with no involvement to testify. That tells us she needs to testify on the political aspects as well.
I have no problem with both of them testifying. You are the one that wanted Congress to study the issue. A special non-political prosecutor needs to investigate and talk to Pelosi and Trump. Pelosi needs to answer why Trump’s request was denied. The prosecutor needs to look into Babbit’s death, instructions for the Capitol Police, all statements made, and all communications. In the end, everything should be made public.
Trump will withstand such an investigation, but I think Pelosi would fall.
Patience? You are the one that jumps to conclusions with every political utterance.
Filming went both ways. Revolver news has many interesting videos of the leadership of people who seem to be immune from FBI and police arrests. Fox had nothing to do with those videos. They are primarily raw footage with many cameras confirming similar things.
Of course, it takes a person with a bit of intelligence to look at these things without bias. You are not that person.
“Matthew Rosenberg contradicts his own Jan 6 reporting”
You haven’t quoted any contradiction.
Read in context what he wrote in the NYT and what he said.
The person who claimed “Matthew Rosenberg contradicts his own Jan 6 reporting” is the one whose job it is to substantiate the claim.
I’m not going to pay for a NYT subscription just because the person is too lazy to quote the alleged contradiction.
Anonymous – there is a site you can archive it on and then cut-and-paste the article.
Paul, Anonymous (ATS) likes to make others work and waste time. He provides partial truths under a generic alias which makes it difficult to pin him down without spending time. He is deceitful, as several have demonstrated today.
When he says, “I’m not going to pay for a NYT subscription,” one has to look back at his comments here and elsewhere to realize that he admits to not reading the NYT but comments on exactly what the NYT was supposed to have said. Doesn’t he sound like a liar?
Paul, if you’re referring to the Internet Archive, no, it doesn’t work with paywalled articles, as it only captures part of the article along with the paywall notice. If you’re referring to some other site, I don’t know what site you’re referring to.
Regardless, the person who made the claim is the one with the burden of proof for it. If someone is too lazy to substantiate their own claim with evidence, I’m seldom going to investigate on their behalf.
ATS, I provided quotes from Rosenberg. If you disagree with them, say so. There is no dispute over facts but rather an interpretation of what he said in his column and afterward. That leaves the burden up to you if you wish to prove your case.
I guess you agree with Rosenberg’s quoted statements and agree with the following: “These f*cking little dweebs who keep going on about their trauma. Shut the f*ck up. They’re f*cking b*tches.”
Meyer the Troll, if you’re the one who claimed “Matthew Rosenberg contradicts his own Jan 6 reporting,” you’ve yet to quote anything from Rosenberg substantiating that claim.
You quoted things he said on the PV tapes, but you did not quote anything from his Jan. 6 reporting. Ergo, you have not substantiated your claim that “Matthew Rosenberg contradicts his own Jan 6 reporting.” Just what did he say in his reporting that you believe he contradicted in the tape?
“if you’re the one who claimed “Matthew Rosenberg contradicts his own Jan 6 reporting,” ”
ATS, I recognize that semi-literacy impairs your abilities, so let me put things this way. Rosenberg provided an opinion that each person can interpret differently. The article made one think differently about Jan 6 than the videos of him talking about Jan 6. You like to twist things to meet your conclusions. I’m a realist and listen to what people actually say.
The progressive left has staked its globalist dream on the American peoples’ willingness to sacrifice the lives of their sons and daughters in the name of God and country. The same Americans, and the same God and country, that the left has ruthlessly mocked, degraded, and even worse. You know, Obama’s pathetic undermenschen bitterly clinging to their guns and religion. Hillary’s deplorables with their pickup trucks and gun racks. Or to paraphrase FBI special agent Peter Strzok texting to lovebird Lisa Page, the ones you can smell at Walmart.
The same young men and women whose patriotism and loyalty were openly questioned by a terrified political class as they cowered behind the razor wire bunker that was the Biden inauguration. The same young men and women that the political elites ruthlessly purged from the military for their principled opposition to the government’s forced vaccination program. Young men and women whose value system would lead them to risk their lives to defend their families and their country.
Since the onset of COVID hysteria two years ago, the progressive elites have learned to flee their offices for the safety of their second homes. From there, it is only a broadband internet connection to progressive utopias like Canada or Denmark. What the left is belatedly realizing, though, is that the loyalty of the American people doesn’t lie with the failed, divisive ideological experiment that was the radical left. That their loyalty lies with America’s shared values, our constitution, and the rule of law. A loyalty that runs much deeper than an internet connection.
Well said Epstein Didn’t Kill Himself.
I think it is interesting the number of comments, how few make their intentions clear, they would stand and fight.
Mespo would like to discuss his frank.
You seem a bit obsessed with it yourself.
Wrong beans, Anonymous. Nobody, but nobody, swings the frank like progressive icon and Chicago Mayor Lori ‘phallus maximus’ Lightfoot.
Who took the poling before the 2016 election when Hilary was supposed to mop up the floor with Trump?
I wonder what the political persuasion of the cowards might be?
As a gay man I find your homophobic comments disgusting. It is cretins like you that have caused the denigrating of gay men, making them lesser than. That you are fascinated with male appendages, like most self-loathing gays, you probably have a 3 incher and troll gay apps desperately looking for someone to blow your stump.
I’ll fight, as long as the corrupt NWO Globalist political class elites of both parties line up in the front line and fight first (politicians cause the wars, not the people).
Turley says:
“There has been a growing agnosticism regarding this country as many challenge our foundational institutions and values.”
Ain’t that the dyin’ truth. Turley might have just as well recalled what he had said about the election-lying Trumpists who stormed the Capitol to “stop the steal”:
“A Crisis Of Faith: Why We Should Be Worried More About A Desecration Than An Insurrection”
“All the images of protesters scaling the walls of the Capitol and briefly occupying Congress will remain seared in our collective memories for decades. Some called it a riot. Others called it an insurrection. Whatever you call it, it was a desecration. The rioters desecrated the most sacred moment of our constitutional system when the nation comes together to certify our next president. That is why it is too easy to treat this like an insurrection crisis. It is far more dangerous. It is a crisis of faith.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/10/a-crisis-of-faith-why-we-should-be-worried-more-about-a-desecration-than-an-insurrection/
And don’t you forget it. You Trumpist desecrators are the enemy within.
You are a moron through and through. And I suppose, to you, the destruction of Seattle, Portland, and Minneapolis was just fine because that barbarism was committed by the truly patriotic leftists you clearly identify with.
Poll’s are generally not to be interpreted as gospel but as an indication of trends. My problem with this poll is that there is no defining point of education, income, race, sex or age just to name a few important points.
I do believe political views have shown volunteers for military service has skewed towards the right.
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
10 U.S. Code § 502 – Enlistment oath:
“I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
Section 3331, Title 5, United States Code Military Officers
“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God”.
Article II, Section I, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution Presidents Oath
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
For someone who is alleged to have such a great mind, Mespo’s premises are fellatious.
Anonymous – – is “fellatious” a real word and if so give a source and definition, please.
Anonymous is a fellator. Sometimes he has trouble getting his words out.
Anonymous – well, there is nothing wrong with that as long as it is between consenting adults. 🙂
Let us not have a frank discussion. Simply call them potential traitors and remove them to the country of their choice. It would solve a myriad of problems
You’re not a fan of the Constitution, huh?
The vast majority of people are self-interested cowards who would run and hide rather than fight if given the choice. That’s just reality. If you are getting mugged or raped most people would just walk by rather than risk their own life to help. Don’t put any purchase into what people *say* they would do.
Robert Weisberg says:
“Turley mission accomplished! His usefulness to Hannity, Carlson, and the Fox & Friends clowns is reinforced, and, if challenged, he is free to say that he, uh, respectfully disagrees with,the, uh, tone of some of the comments.”
I would not strain yourself looking for any Turley criticism of Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham or, worst of all, Mark Levin. Apart from a solitary reproach of Hannity for attending a Trump rally, Turley has not made a SINGLE complaint about the hateful rhetoric of his Fox colleagues.
His silence as to these rage provocateurs while dutifully condemning less egregious instances among Fox’s media competitors is sheer hypocrisy. He gets away with it because he is sealed off from being held accountable. He will not expose himself to being questioned.
When he will face his detractors, Turley will have no excuse to justify his self-censorship of criticizing the lies of his Fox colleagues EXCEPT to claim that he signed a non-disparagement along the lines of:
“You agree that you will not disparage or encourage others to disparage Fox News, its employees or on-air talent. For purposes of this agreement, the term disparage includes without limitation comments or statements made in any matter or medium in the press and/or the media which would adversely affect any manner of the conduct of the business of Fox News without limitations to the reputation of Fox News, its employees or on-air talent.”
I don’t know it for a fact that Turley sold out his principles by signing such a waiver of his free speech, I just know it to be true.
You enjoy being a jerk. You are very successful at it.
Too many people won’t mow their own lawns, clean their own house, or think to check on their neighbors. Those are not the people who would put their lives on the line for anyone or anything. They’re the ones filming crisis with their phones so they can post it online, instead of helping or protecting a stranger.
Public schools teach now teach that personal responsibility is a form of white supremacy and a vestige of the patriarchy. If your life isn’t perfect, it’s someone else’s fault, probably an old cis-gendered white male, a cog in the colonial patriarchy. The American Flag is considered to be a hate symbol, instead of a symbol of the freest country on Earth, and one of the least racist.
Most students on college campuses today are a joke. They’re so fragile they view opposing opinions as violence, and they’re so entitled they will scream to drown out those viewpoints to ensure others cannot hear.
Snowflake.
Cancel Culture.
Microaggressions.
Narcissistic.
Anti-American with an ignorant grasp of world history.
Hates Columbus and wishes the Aztecs were never stopped.
Think diversity is skin deep and that value or guilt resides in melanin.
Think men are toxic.
These are not strong, determined people. They are the audience to which our military recruitment videos appeal with cartoons about how they need SJW soldiers with two moms.
Our culture is eroding, rotting from within.
Find your grit.
Where the hell do you get this crap from, anyway? Let’s start with WHO is anti-American: that would be Tucker Carlson, one of the pastors at the church at which you worship, whose nightly anti-American sermons are broadcast in Russia as propaganda. Who has “an ignorant grasp of world history”? That would be Trump. Everyone who ever worked with him says so: he doesn’t know much as US history either, and he is only strong and determined about garnering praise and attention. He’s no patriot, either: in fact, no one named “Trump” ever put on the uniform because they believe that only “suckers” serve in the military. No one “hates Columbus”–native Americans (who were here first, with their own culture, language, government and social systems) resent the notion that Columbus deserves to have a holiday named after him for “discovering” anything. America was here and populated with native-born people before he ever arrived, and Columbus’s motivation was to search for gold and people who could be exploited–not to expand knowledge of the world beyond Europe.
No one believes that “men are toxic”, except maybe victims of rape and sexual assault, and they don’t project their pain on the entire gender, either. Hey: aren’t you the “Karen” who posts about men allegedly being the victims of androgenic bias? I’m betting you are: you like to try to stir the pot to get attention. And, I wouldn’t bet against Americans, either. Who appointed you to speak for “our” culture, and whether it is “rotting form within” anyway? And, since you never went to college, where did you get your ideas about the alleged ‘fragility” of those seeking a higher education? It’s certainly not from personal experience, and this sort of belief is held by people like you who never attended college and who are indoctrinated to believe that you have superior values and knowledge. That’s plain from your posts in which you try to project yourself as having scientific and medical knowledge. And, college students don’t scream to drown out opposing “opinions”, either: they oppose people who have demonstrated their hatred of others, ignorance and intolerance and show that those spouting hate and whose past conduct is abusive aren’t welcome. Why would you attack a gay family, anyway? Children thrive on receiving love, education and support from loving parents regardless of their gender.
Jonathan: Quinnipiac may have “long been relied upon in polling”, as you say, but that doesn’t say much about polling in general and the fact that this is the only poll to support your false claim that Democrats have lost faith in American institutions. Q got it wrong in the 2020 elections when it predicted Biden would win both Florida and Ohio. In fact, Trump won both key states that he relished in pointing out. How realistic is a poll asking whether Americans would stay and fight a Russian invasion? The chances of such an attack are zero, zilch.
So why cite an irrelevant hypothetical poll? Because it dovetails with your continuing attacks on Democrats–they are unpatriotic. But the Q poll shows even 32% of Republicans say they would flee a Russian attack. That’s a sizable number. Now if the US was actually attacked by Putin’s Russia, as it is doing in Ukraine, how many Americans would actually stay and fight? Certainly the US military but how many average Americans would stay and defend the country. Like Ukrainian civilians millions of Americans would be streaming to Canada and Mexico.
The real question is what US institutions are worth fighting for? Why is it that, in your words, there is a “deep disconnection with this country and its protection”? You can lay the blame at the foot of Donald Trump–not the Democrats. Did Trump, the GOP and their right-wing militia types show a similar commitment to US institutions when they attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6? Trump and his supporters were willing overturn a legitimate election to keep Trump in power–a violation of the very Constitution Trump swore to protect. That didn’t show much of a “connection with this country and its protection”.
You also say “citizenship” has always been a “status of convenience” for some. For whom? Well, for Trump for one. When his “status” in NY was under threat by politicians and prosecutors he fled to Florida. If Mar-a-Lago were bombed in a hypothetical Russian attack do you think Trump would stick around and fight? Nope. Trump would flee in a borrowed jet to Scotland or another of his foreign properties. Is there any doubt about Trump’s cowardice or his lack of commitment to protecting US institutions? Trump and other US billionaires don’t have any commitment to the US. They keep much of their money offshore to avoid taxation. They ship jobs overseas in a quest for cheaper labor. What kind of support do they show toward American institutions–like working families? Nada. Billionaire David Geffen is the poster child for what happens when the super-wealthy are under attack. During the height of the Covid pandemic last year did Geffen stay and help fight the virus? Nope. He fled in his super-yacht to the Grenadines for protection where he told the rest of us: “Isolated in the Grenadines avoiding the virus. I’m hoping everybody is staying safe”. Talk about chutzpah! Speaking of super-yachts Jeff Bezos is building one of the largest super-yachts. if Russia were to attack the US would Bezos offer his yacht as a platform to attack Russian planes? No, he like Geffen and their Russian oligarch counterparts, they would sail away into the sunset to seek safer havens.
But you bizarrely claim the Q poll shows a “crisis of faith within the Democratic party…lost faith in our common article of faith in the Constitution”. As we say in Spanish “mierda de toro”. It is Donald Trump, the GOP and their supporters who are undermining the Constitution. It’s not Ocasio-Cortez or Elizabeth Warren. So let me ask you this simple personal question. Would you stay and fight? If your home were destroyed by Russian bombs you would do what any rationale person would do. You would pack the wife, kids and dogs in the family SUV and drive like hell for the Canadian border! Wait! I see Bill Barr running like hell to catch up with your SUV. Don’t leave your good friend behind.
Excellent, accurate deconstruction of a right-wing piece of propaganda.
Bill: Thx and welcome to this chat room where some of Turley’s loyal supporters and alt-righters think they reign supreme. I did forget to mention something important in my earlier comment. Turley’s employer Fox has definitely “lost faith” in American institutions and the Constitution. They have sided with Trump and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. You probably know about “Tokyo Rose”. But did you know about Mildred Gillars? She was a Broadway showgirl in the 1930s who moved to Berlin where she broadcast Nazi propaganda. After the war “Axis Sally”, as she dubbed, was tried and convicted of treason. Fox’s popular host Tucker Carlson is the modern day version of “Tokyo Rose” and “Axis Sally”. He is a big defender of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. He is so popular in Moscow that Putin has told his state media to feature Carlson’s broadcast on their TV. Carlson probably won’t be tried for treason because his 1st Amendment rights are protected here–unlike in Russia. There is another autocrat Carlson likes. That’s president Erdogan in Turkey. Under Turkish law, pushed through by Erdogan, the head of state has “privileged status”. Since 2014 when Erdogan took power he has launched over 160,000 investigations of “subversives” and other opponents of his rule. 12,280 have been convicted and sent to prison by Erdogan’s courts. The latest is journalist Sedef Kabas who has just received a more than 2 year sentence because she allegedly “insulted” Erdogan.
Now Turley is apparently proud of his “liberal, Democratic family in Chicago”. Somewhere along the line Turley turned his back on his family’s liberal Democratic values. He now works at Fox along side Tucker Carlson. Now he falsely blames the Democrats for allegedly undermining American institutions. If Turley really believed in the Constitution and defending “liberal” values he would immediately resign from Fox. But he doesn’t because he likes his Fox paycheck and his exposure to a national audience. That’s what happens when someone betrays his values for a paycheck!
In some countries, when a woman rejects a man, he disfigures her by throwing acid on her face, making her unattractive to other men. Putin is throwing acid on the face of Ukraine.
“Some countries” = Islamic culture. Putin is Christian.
Putin may claim to be Christian, but he clearly doesn’t care that his god commands him Thou shalt not kill
Anonymous – Christianity sanctions legal killings, like war or self-defense.
Starting a war is not killing in self-defense. I consider this murder.
Does Christianity distinguish between just and unjust wars?
(Unrelated, I’m still hoping that you’ll respond to my question to you here: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/11/amendments-by-acclamation-democrats-move-to-simply-declare-the-equal-rights-amendment-as-ratified/comment-page-1/#comment-2165720 )
Anonymous – Christianity does accept preemptive wars.
Paul, does Christianity consider all wars to be just wars, and all killing in war to be acceptable, or does it instead say that only some wars are just and only some wartime killing is sanctioned? Does the Bible suggest that Christians should be A-OK with Russians killing children in Ukraine?
Anonymous – to the best of my knowledge there is nothing in the Bible about either the Rus or the Ukrainians. So, to answer your question, no, the Bible says nothing about Russians killing children in Ukraine. It also said nothing about the United States invading Russia at the end of WWI
My main question (does Christianity consider all wars to be just wars, and all killing in war to be acceptable, or does it instead say that only some wars are just and only some wartime killing is sanctioned?) wasn’t about specific countries. My second question was only meant as an example of how the main question has implications for the current conflict. Sorry that I wasn’t clearer.
Anonymous – I don’t know.
Dear Infidel, the Koran and Old Testament agree with the following:
“Thou shalt kill the infidel”
Good thing you are not a Muslim or Jew. But others on the other hand….
I’m an ethnic Jew and a religious agnostic. I do not treat the religious texts written by humans as the word any gods, and we don’t know if any gods exist.
So you are Silberman then, posing as ATS because you have disgraced your own tag.
No.
YTS, you believe that there is only one religiously agnostic ethnic Jew in the world? You must not know many Jews.
It wasn’t the irreligion that made me think that. You sounded a bit stupider than usual–like Silberman.
Young, it is leap-ahead Sunday.
If you hear stupidity, perhaps you’re talking to yourself.
The comments show Turley’s shtick in action. In his column he sanctimoniously bloviates about a poll full of noisy meaningless data. He performs his role of Last Principled Liberal. He cites his libera/ethnic heritage to establish his bona fides. Having almost entirely ignored the dishonesty and heinousness of everything the right wing (including his hosts on Fox) say these days, he thinks this silly poll is a pivotal moment for American civilization, and so he takes the occasion to lambaste Democrats for betraying the liberal principles that his profound intellectual integrity obliges him to defend. Almost all the comments agree that Democrats are enemies of America, and a fair number are profane MAGA rantings. Turley mission accomplished! His usefulness to Hannity, Carlson, and the Fox & Friends clowns is reinforced, and, if challenged, he is free to say that he, uh, respectfully disagrees with,the, uh, tone of some of the comments.
+100
” “what would you do if you were in the same position as Ukrainians are now, stay and fight or leave the country?” ”
I’m not sure the respondents understood the question; ie, they may have interpreted the question to mean what they would do if they were in Ukranian’s shoes, not necessarily what they would do if the US were invaded !
“I’m not sure the respondents understood the question;…”
– RWC
______
Precisely! That’s why it was never the intent of the Founders that they vote.
____________________________________________________________
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
_______________________________________
“[We gave you] a republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, 1787
“Poll: Almost Forty Percent of Americans Say That They Would Rather Flee Than Defend the United States”
– Professor Turley
______________
______________
About 70 million of them were never intended to be here; they were certainly never intended to vote.
_______________________________________________________________________________
“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”
– Thomas Jefferson
_______________
“The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
– Alexander Hamilton
________________
“[There is no particular need for the U.S. to encourage immigration] except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions.” “The policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”
– George Washington
_________________
Emigrants typically brought with them certificates from “the religious societies to which they belonged” that testified to their good character. [I propose that] something similar be required of all those wishing to settle here.
– Rufus King
__________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations – they meant it)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…”
George – If the wealthy class didn’t benefit from one-two million new legal/illegal immigrants each year, it would be stopped. The informed/uniformed non-wealthy classes bear the costs of higher rent, food, higher priced used cars, crowded neighborhoods, more traffic on streets & roads, higher taxes to pay for more police, fire stations, EMS, hospital emergency rooms etc.
Don’t tell me, tell the Founders.
Please provide statistics to establish that as fact not folly.
America imports conquering parasites.
The Philippines provide labor around the globe – they don’t strike, they don’t vote, they go home.