Below is my column in the Hill on the Tennessee controversy over the expulsion of two Tennessee legislators. Liberal members and pundits have lionized the two legislators who shutdown the proceedings while declaring the GOP “fascists.” The controversy perfectly captured our increasingly amplified age of rage.
Here is the column:
Nobel Laureate Albert Camus once said, “Insurrection is certainly not the sum total of human experience but … it is our historic reality.” Those words came to mind this week when Tennessee’s House of Representatives expelled two members accused of disrupting legislative proceedings in what some called an “insurrection” or a “mutiny.”
The scene on the floor of the Tennessee House perfectly captured our “age of rage.” Protesters filled the capitol building to protest the failure to pass gun-control legislation. However, they were in the minority in both the state and its legislature. Three Democratic state representatives — Justin Jones from Nashville, Justin Pearson from Memphis, and Gloria Johnson of Knoxville — were unwilling to yield to the majority. They disrupted the floor proceedings with a bullhorn and screaming at their colleagues.
It is a scene familiar to many of us in academia, where events are regularly canceled by those who shout down others. The three members yelled “No action, no peace” and “Power to the people” as their colleagues objected to their stopping the legislative process. Undeterred, the three refused to allow “business as usual” to continue.
Nothing says deliberative debate like a bullhorn. American politics, it seems, has become a matter of simple amplification.
Many on the left lionized the three for their disruption of the legislature. President Biden denounced the sanctioning of their “peaceful protest” as “shocking, undemocratic, and without precedent.”
There was little criticism of the members for obstructing the legislative business or refusing to accept the democratic process that rejected their gun-control demands.
Today, for many, there is no room for nuance. Instead, they live in a world occupied only by “fascists” and “insurrectionists.”
I have long been critical of the media declaring the Jan. 6, 2021 riot on Capitol Hill as an “insurrection” in spite of my criticism of Trump’s speech on that day and the riot that desecrated our constitutional process. Many in the public agree. Despite the efforts of the House’s Jan. 6 committee and the media referring to the riot as an insurrection, some polls show that 76 percent of the public view it as a protest that went too far. Likewise, a Harvard study showed more citizens viewed Jan. 6 as motivated by loyalty to Trump than a desire for a national insurrection.
The public sees these distinctions. Most of us are supportive of the prosecution of rioters while recognizing that most of the protesters that day did not participate in any violation of law. Likewise, most citizens are able to denounce members for taking a bullhorn to a legislative debate while rejecting calls for their expulsion.
What these Tennessee House members did was wrong — but it was no insurrection. Nor was it worthy of expulsion, as opposed to censure or other sanctions.
Yet, every controversy is now repackaged to amplify talking points, even when they cannot withstand the most cursory examination.
Take Rep. Johnson’s insistence that, as the only white member of the three, she was spared expulsion due to racism. That ignored distinctions raised by Johnson and her supporters during the debate that, unlike Jones and Pearson, she did not use a bullhorn; her counsel also insisted that she separated herself from the protesters. Johnson’s distinctions swayed one member to defeat expulsion, but Johnson then declared the result was evidence of sexism and racism: “pretty clear I’m a 60-year-old white woman, and they are two young Black men. I was talked down to as a woman, man-splained to.”
The media was also captured perfectly in this controversy. For example, it was difficult to distinguish between CNN reporter Sara Sidner and protesters. Sidner corrected Republican Caucus Chair Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby) as he tried to explain why the members were expelled for “riling up” the crowd. Sidner insisted that the crowd already was “riled up” by the failure to protect them from guns. She then explained that the public was “extremely upset that your legislature wasn’t trying to deal with the issue of keeping children safe.”
House Minority Leader Karen Camper (D-Memphis) praised the protest as “good trouble,” a reference to the words of the late U.S. Rep. John Lewis’ guiding principle on civil disobedience.
This is now our “historic reality.” Liberals and the media, long criticized for downplaying violence from the left, are now rationalizing a disruption of legislative procedure as “good trouble” because the cause is considered to be correct. Conservatives are equally quick to declare protests by those on the left to be “insurrections,” or to declare their opponents to be (in the words of Donald Trump) “enemies of the state.”
Only a few days before the Tennessee House floor fight, a confrontation occurred off the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington which captured perfectly this new political reality.
Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) was shown on videotape screaming about gun control in the Capitol as his colleagues left the floor following a vote. Various Democratic members, including former House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), tried to calm Bowman. However, when Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) asked Bowman to stop yelling, Bowman shouted back: “I was screaming before you interrupted me” — which could go down as the epitaph for our age.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at The George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
The madness continues. Thank you Mr. Turley for your reasoned comments.
Another day, another mass shooting. 5 people were killed today in a shooting at a Louisville bank.
By another crazy leftist
And the basis for your conclusion is …?
Because most of them are.
Wen Bars, say it ain’t so.
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/how-the-gun-control-debate-ignores-black-lives/80445/
The political will of the country is not focused on urban violence.
Another 1,600 days like this this year and we’ll near the number of inner city democrats killed by other inner city dems.
Another 20,000 days like today this year and that’ll equal the number of fentanyl deaths that the dem abet with their pro-illegals/open borders policies.
More kids are killed today because their mom’s are texting and driving.
But yeah, 5.
+1
Biden’s caught more illegal fentanyl than Trump did, and more kids now die from shootings than car accidents.
“Biden’s caught more illegal fentanyl than Trump did”
You leftist anonymous people have one thing in common, low IQ.The more Fentanyl that gets into the country the more Fentanyl will be impounded. It’s proportional and represents just one of Biden’s failures at the border.
Those Fentanyl deaths of children are on Joe Biden’s hands because he has made the border porous to drugs, slavery, rape, criminals, etc.
” more kids now die from shootings …”
That is right, they die daily in cities run by Democrats.
You don’t seem to know very much.
I recall this phrase.
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/how-the-gun-control-debate-ignores-black-lives/80445/
Did their lives matter?
Apparently, about 6,000 people in 2012 disagreed
Another year and another 42,000 killed by Assault Cars on America’s highways.
BAN CARS!
The killer supported BLM and was anti-Trump
George Floyd in death is a leader of the democrat party which has unleashed murder and violence.
Was this gang related?
Shootings usually are.
OT: Executives from over 250 drug companies have called for the reversal of Judge Kacsmaryk’s mifepristone ruling, warning it could disrupt the entire drug industry.
Kacsmaryk’s ruling is wrong for many reasons, not least that the plaintiff’s lacked standing.
The letter: https://docsend.com/view/2ahvmwy8djzxax3g
Shocking that a leftist is appealing to Big Pharma and hundreds of Executives!!! Shocking I tell ya!!!!
/ sarc
The DOJ has asked the 5th Circuit to stay Kacsmaryk’s mifepristone order pending appeal.
I completely aggree with Turley.
These protestors were totally wrong. Gun Control is not a solution to any actual problem. It is just and idiotic effort by the left to expand control over the lives of others.
But as WRONG as these protestors were – they had an absolute right to protest.
The Two Reps who took a bullhorn into the legislature went TOO FAR, and should be disciplined for that.
But expulsion for a first offense is massive overkill.
At the same time the massive overkill in response to J6 has many of us – certainly all of the right engaged in Tit for Tat.
In a rational world the TN legislators involved would be reasonably sanctioned – not removed.
The Few TN protestors that physically assaulted CP officers would face charges like disorderly conduct.
But for the most part loud, disruptive protests such as those in TN are and should be protected by the First amendment.
Nearly all the J6 protestors should have their cases thrown out on first amendment grounds.
Only those who physically engaged with the police or who damaged property should face any charges.
Those who merely initiated unwanted physical contact with police should be convicted of disorderly conduct without
jail time. Those who initiated actual violence should be charged with assault – whether in TN or DC.
That is very few people.
I am less sympathetic to those that bring political protests to the homes of judges or legislators.
Protest at the Supreme Court, Protest at the Capitol(s). Protest at the police station.
Not at peoples homes.
All that said Protest against Government must receive the greatest possible first amendment latitude and protection.
Whether that protest is from the right or the left.
Nor does the politics of the protesters matter.
I was once proud that in the US Nazi’s had the right to politically protest.
Today Republicans do not have the right to politically protest.
For perhaps the first time, John, I disagree. “But expulsion for a first offense is massive overkill. At the same time the massive overkill in response to J6 has many of us – certainly all of the right engaged in Tit for Tat.”
Perhaps the only way to quell Leftism IS by force; by making them reap what they sow. I don’t expect it to work initially, but the goal should be to make people think about all possible consequences BEFORE they act uncivilly. We know this truth: some people only learn ‘the hard way’. And some of those never learn the lesson at all.
“Perhaps the only way to quell Leftism IS by force; by making them reap what they sow. I don’t expect it to work initially, but the goal should be to make people think about all possible consequences BEFORE they act uncivilly. We know this truth: some people only learn ‘the hard way’. And some of those never learn the lesson at all.”
How ironic. That is precisely what the J6 protesters are learning from their actions. They didn’t think about the consequences before they acted uncivilly. They are learning the hard way now by being given heavy sentences and fines. Some have learned their lesson, while others still have not.
The J6 protestors – and much of the country are learning that the left is tyrants.
I would suggest that you might think seriously about what is actually being learned.
If protestors are going to be treated as insurrectionsist.
If they are going to be jailed for crimes they did not commit.
Then the message YOU are sending is
“Next Time Bring Guns”
JAFO has remarked – as have I in the past.
That while J6 was NOT an insurection, and to this point violence is not YET justified.
Violence is a legitimate response to Tyranny. Read the declaration of independence.
“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, ”
I do not belive we are headed for civil war, or national divorce.
I do not beleive we are headed to actual consequential violence from the right.
It is far beyond the ability of those of you on the left to avoid alienating the vast majority of people.
I expect the left to collapse on its own. Though I expect that to be a violent and messy process.
But should things continue to worsen – which is inevitable. And should the left not outright implode.
It may become necessary to remove the left by force.
I do not think that is likely. But it would still be justified.
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
John Say,
A sobering comment.
Atleast some on the left actually understand this.
That is why J6 terrified them.
That is why for months aftwards the capital was laced in barbed wire and defended by the military.
Because those in power understood they had lost the trust of a substantial portion of the people.
And that many of them might be willing to
“To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? “
“Perhaps the only way to quell Leftism IS by force”
We do not disagree as much as you think.
We are just not there yet.
Those on the right will OBVIOUSLY be held to a far higher standard than those on the left.
While I reject the idiotic narative of the left and the media regarding J6,
And want all the video made fully public ASAP
I think Carlson did an excellent job – His choice of Chansley to take down the entire Narative was inspired.
But we really need the full video to asses how much actual violence there really was and who actually initiated it.
And that is not coming from Carlson, that really requires public crowdsourcing.
“by making them reap what they sow. I don’t expect it to work initially, but the goal should be to make people think about all possible consequences BEFORE they act uncivilly. We know this truth: some people only learn ‘the hard way’. And some of those never learn the lesson at all.”
I do not think we are to the point were the right should respond tit for tat, should respond to violence with violence.
I hope we do not get there.
But we might.
I have been very careful throughout the entire debate regarding J6 to NOT get locked into the claim that violence is never justified.
All of us should read the declaration of independence. It is a JUSTFICATION for violence, for insurrection.
But it also makes clear that we must endure much before we can resort to violence.
We are not there yet.
I do not think and I hope that we do not ever get there.
But I do not and will not rule out the possibility.
John, for clarification…I disagree that expulsion from the TN legislature is “egregious”, even for a first offense. No one was jailed. No one was denied bail. No one was charged with attempting to overthrow the Tennessee state government. Egregious, as you may agree, is what happened to the mostly peaceful J6 protesters; a preplanned response by the DOJ, to create punishment for laws that were not broken. Egregious better describes the reinstatement of Jones by Nashville City council. It sends the message that State legislative decisions can be revoked by any city that wishes to do so. It’s not unlike a school board decision to expel a student for pulling the fire alarm causing unnecessary chaos being overridden by a handful of teachers, allowing the disruptive student back into the classrooms. It’s the ultimate middle-finger to the other people in the state who elected ‘their’ representatives who acted within House rules and decorum. You might say its tit-for-tat-for-tit again. Where does it end if Leftists are allowed to behave this way with no consequences? In ways they will never see coming, using their own ‘rules’ against them. You’re right, we’re not there YET. I hope it doesn’t get worse, but history says it will – it always does – eventually.
I am unaware of the City Counsel decision.
If correct it would be stupid.
I do not know TN’s constitution – nut I suspect it is similar to the US constitution.
In which case each chambers rules are not reviewable by the courts etc.
It is probable that if a Rep. Is removed the district can return them.
At the same time the state house can suspend him. or in various other ways restrict him.
What they probably can not do is permanently deny him a vote.
But they could strip him of committees. Fine him, strip him of various privileges,
Search him every time he enters the chamber.
All in all make him ineffective.
Further in confrontations between the legislatures and local govenrment.
Ultimately local government loses.
Again I do not know TN,
but in most states all local government power is at the complete discretion of the state government.
The state government could disband the local city counsel if it wanted.
This is one of the reasons that the punishment should have been less draconian to start.
If you are going to get into an escalating battle of tit for tat.
You need to appear to be the side that is being reasonable.
Another possibility is that the house could require the city to put up a bond to pay fines against future misconduct and/or to provide additional security.
Correction: Nashville METRO Council, a city-county entity, like Miami-Dade in Florida.
https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/nashville-metro-council-votes-reinstate-ousted-state-rep-justin-jones/WEB4YAUXOBF3XJR47X4LDLCMII/
Jones will not be on any committees before the next election.
“This is one of the reasons that the punishment should have been less draconian to start.”
I agree in principle, however, there must be a ‘start’ somewhere, sometime, to getting back to civility in government. This to me is the right place, time, and remedy to start enforcing, even what some may perceive as harshly, the long-established norms of civility in public office. Robust debate, even yelling at one another in session, has been the ‘norm’ for centuries. Jones and company crossed that line by denying those norms to the rest of the legislative body. They’re not interested in playing within the long established, existing rules at all. Expulsion is the right remedy against Leftists because they consider censure and suspension as badges of honor, not as any kind of punishment. Without expulsion, the former means they still have power. Limited, perhaps, but it’s still power; the only that matters to them, by whatever means they choose to justify it.
I agree in principle.
In practice the left is not interested in returning to civility and will not likely do so until the consequences are draconian.
My argument to proceed carefully has nothing at all to do with the left of the likelyhood that small consequences will have an effect.
It is that more draconian measures must be arrived at by a gradullay escalating process that appears fair and reasonable.
Otherwise it appears to be nothing more than tit for tat, and that is not a winning game.
The objective as I see it is to let the left FAIL.
Either through failed polices that alienate those not on the left.
or through bad conduct that alientates those not on the left.
I have said that I do not think this ends with violence.
The alternate to violence is that a super majority of the country disapproves of the left more than the right.
I say a supermajority because that is necescary to overcome the lefts gaming of elections.
The good news is that election games can only tilt an election by a small percent of the vote.
The larger the numbers the more blatant and likely to trigger a backlash.
Control of media and social media increases that percentage.
But it is still not infinite.
Further declining trust in media and government works to diminish that percentage.
Several talk about the left engaging in confession through projection.
That is not an accident. The increasingly extreme nature of the left REQUIRES succeffully painting the right as even more extreme.
Otherwise people will move away from the left.
We have been on this slippery slope a long time. Even more traditional liberals like Turley have painted the right as authoritarian.
Republicans have been painted as dangerous Nazi’s since Johnson’s infamous “Daisy” commercial targeting Goldwater.
That is because even The Turley style of liberalism is ultimately statist and authoritarian. It just has a tolerable benevolent veneer.
But the left has been shifting slowly further left for decades. So far they are alienating Turley and those like him.
And that is the actual goal To allow the left to piss of those like Turley sufficient the left can not hold power.
The more those hear on the left rant that Turley is not giving equal time to the offenses of the right – the more the left is alienating the center.
Turley is a form of canary in the coal mine – and it is my view that the left is losing power.
John, it seems Leftists agree with you, they’re losing power. You can tell by the blatant in-your-face dishonesty they practice, day in and day out. It’s becoming ‘desperate times’ for them, yes. However, before they became the Noisy Bunch, the politics-as-usual, feds vs states and The People was on full display. Yes, it’s been that way for decades. Nevertheless, the political class is no longer representing anything or anyone but their own self-interests and the interests of their politically-connected friends in various ways to enrich themselves through their seats in government. It stopped being a distinct two-Party system long ago. Today it’s more Urban vs Rural, Coasts vs Middle, DC vs everyone else, in social politics. So you’re correct, Leftists will be defeated at the ballot box save for unchecked, unadjudicated cheating, but the current UniParty will still remain. I genuinely can’t say that’s better. Maybe lesser of two evils. Maybe. But that system is why Trump was elected. Both sides in the Uniparty hated (and still hate) him for that. He, and the people that voted for his policies (not his loud mouth), are the real threat to Leftists and the DC Way, in general. There are maybe a dozen senators and representatives, combined, that put the well being of the nation ahead of their desire for power, influence, and their own enrichment…the rest: to hell with what the voters, The People, want us to do and to hell with our Oaths of Office. Worse yet is the swampy, non-elected, unaccountable employees at all levels of government living on taxpayers (remember them?) money.
The problem is honest people will not run for office. Certainly not with the dishonest legacy media constantly nipping at their heels. Thanks for the respectful chat.
I pretty much agree with everything you wrote.
Except” that the problem is good people will not run.”
Politics – all politics is self selecting for exactly the people you do not want having power.
The “fix” is limited government – the more power government has the more bad people will seek to rent or own that power.
The problem with “the fix” is that over time we will slowly expand the power of government no matter what.
This has been slightly mitigated by the fact that prosperity has increased meaningful individual liberty faster than government has increased power.
But that does not continue inevitably.
I do not presume that the left is evil and the right is good. Just that the Modern right is the lessor of two evils.
Another factor is inevitable political realignments.
The bipolar system we have actually assures that the parties will be closely matched.
If one party becomes dominant it will make mistakes and the other will adapt and capitalize.
The GOP today is significantly different from 40 years ago. Or even 15 years ago.
As is the democratic party.
We are seeing Democrats reincorporate NeoCons, as well as beiming the party of big business.
While Republicans become the party of labor.
There is a battle over minority voters and the GOP is slowly winning it.
Ultimately as voters shift – Both parties will have to adapt.
The current realignments are MOSTLY libertarian favorable – with respect to the GOP and unfavorable with respect to the Democrats.
But that could change in a decade or two.
I am old enough to have experienced the explosive growth of Free Speech in this country first hand.
It was driven primarily by the left. Atrleast partly by Mario Savio and the Berkely free speech movement.
Or by people like Derschowitz and the ACLU.
Now Berkeley and the ACLU are fascist. Though Derschowitz has not changed.
The current political alignment is extremely dangerous – because democrats have given power to bomb throwers.
The Democratic party has walled itself into a corner. It can not turn its back on the radical left.
But it will inevitably have to get ever crazier to hold power – until they have jumped the shark and can no longer hold power.
Tjhe great danger is that since moderating is NOT a choice, Going Full Mao is the direction they are headed.
John, this just in…https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2023/04/11/kamala-priorities-n2621766
Mr Jones has a history of assault on the GOP speaker of TN. (Allegedly, of course.)
Soes not surprise me.
But then arrest him for the actual criminal conduct.
I have no problem with charging those who disrupted the House with Disorderly conduct.
I have no problem with doing the same for many J6 protestors – that that actually were disorderly.
As well as Kavanaugh protestors.
If TN want they can pass a repect DC law that makes multiple DC’s in a 5 year period into a fellony.
But punish the Actual conduct for what it is.
JAFO and John, I agree with both of you and thank you for the thoughtful solutions. Jones does not belong in the legislature, but throwing him out makes him a martyr only to be reelected. Martyrdom can create many problems and talking points. It is possible to accomplish the same or better result without throwing him out.
Limit what he can do as much as possible. The vote is the people’s, so I don’t think they should infringe on that. The restrictions will make him ineffective, and the people wanting better representation will vote him out and find a more effective representative. That will dissuade others from pulling the same stunt.
Sorry, JFAO and John, the above was from S. Meyer.
No worries, SMeyer. You’re right though, arrests are feathers in Leftists caps, especially when corrupt DAs release them without bail. More arrests = more street cred. It’s next to impossible to shame those who have no shame to start.
They maybe street cred.
But done properly they are still worthwhile.
Just do everything possible to assure that what is being done is not political,
that it is about clear conduct.
Do not over charge,
Do not pile on.
I think trying to make DOJ choke on Jones with an obstruction of an official proceding referal would be an excellent choice.
Frankly there are hundreds of TN protests they should refer for that.
I think that Rep. Jordan should add this to his hearings.
“I think trying to make DOJ choke on Jones with an obstruction of an official proceding referal would be an excellent choice.”
Agreed. Perhaps expulsion and that referral will be the next decision TN House leadership has in mind. With Garland in charge though, it would only be an exercise in futility. Local Blue DAs are reluctant to charge Leftists for real criminal acts that harm real people. Until the tide reverses in DC it’s unlikely DOJ will do anything beyond, “What’s this? Yeah. Ok, we’ll get right on that (wink-wink).”
The goal is not to succeed. It is specifically to highight the disparity.
I want Garland on TV saying that there is nothing criminal about jones’s conduct.
“The goal is not to succeed.”
John, perhaps without realizing it you’ve just perfectly described Leftists’ endgame.
Recent news:
FOIA requests has tied the Biden WH into the Trump MAL raid. This is something they have LIED about.
Further there appear to be problems – aparently the WH interceded with NARA to grant DOJ access to Trump WH Documents.
creating some kind of “special access request”
There is LOTS of law that the press is missing in all of this.
One HUGE issue is that Even if NARA can take Trump WH Documents – by law they do not OWN them.
They merely have custody of them – they are still actually owned by Trump – even the Classified ones.
The Current president and current administration can not jusr rummage through the documents of prior presidents as they wish.
This has been one of the things i have been pointing out from the start.
DOJ/FBI/Biden MUST go to court to gain access to Trump WH documents – Even those in NARA’s posession.
With Near Certainty the courts will grant that access.
But the Biden WH has studiously – and actually illegally avoided going to court.
The reason is simple – even though they will win, what they will win is ACCESS, The court will with Zero Doubt find that all these documents are Trump’s PROPERTY
This entire process – the Subpeana, the Warrant were all means to avoid going to court whenre with certaintly Trump would have been required to provide COPIES to DOJ/…. but the courts would have confirmed Trump’s OWNERSHIP
This is also a major part of why the 11th Appellate was totally wrong.
While the effect of Trump’s lawsuit might have been similar to a motion to exclude in a criminal trial. Trump filed a CIVIL lawsuit seeking the 4th and 5th amendment RETURN of his property. No matter what Cannon did it was CERTAIN she would rule that all of this was Trump’s property.
Though DOJ/FBI would have been given ACCESS to SOME of it.
That is Clearly NOT what “the Deep state” wants.
The 11th Appelate court confused criminal and civil law, ignored existing case law on Presidential records.
Ignored the fact that THEY had no jurisdiction until a final order from Cannon.
This is also why I beleive these documents are actually the Collusion Delusion documents – or something else related to deep state malfeasance against Trump.
Jones has already been re-appointed.
He will near certainly be re-elected.
He also with near certainty will re-offend.
Republicans need to handle him and this carefully.
They should not make a martyr out of him.
They should make sure that when he does something again that it is HIS misconduct that is the focus.
They need to attempt to make sure that whatever they do it does nto appear political.
Democrats made that mistake with Trump.
If this turns into tit-for-tat we all lose and we come one step closer to violence.
I think Jones could have been charged with disorderly conduct.
Further his conduct certainly met the Fed’s J6 standard for obstructing an official proceeding.
So report that to the FEDS. Left Garland explain why he prosecuted Chansley and Not Joens.
Separately they need to do things that they can enforce. Disciplinary measures within the house.
Loss of perqs. Asign a guard to him. so that he can not bring bullhorns etc into chambers.
But work hard to make sure that whatever they do is focused on preventing disruption.
Republicans also need to figure out how to use this better.
Harris met with these guys and was ranting about free speech.
There has got to be plenty of ways to make a fool out of Harris for Championing this while Censoring people.
Regardless, Republicans should be looking to own the free speech and individual liberty issue.
And they should NOT be giving Democrats any ability to engage in whataboutism.
“They should make sure that when he does something again that it is HIS misconduct that is the focus.”
John, which part of Jones’ current and prior misconduct was not being addressed, not in focus?
“They need to attempt to make sure that whatever they do it does (not) appear political.”
The expulsion wasn’t political, per say. It was the consequences for Jones prior and then-current misconduct. It’s within the realm of possibility GOP leadership will do the same to one of their own for the same misconduct. Should similar disruption be caused by an R member and R leadership does not expel the offender, that inaction can and should be correctly labeled ‘political’. Then again, what *isn’t* political in a room full of politicians?
“Democrats made that mistake with Trump.”
Yes, they did, but only after Trump threatened to ‘drain the swamp’. The ruling-class, BOTH Parties, saw that as direct threat to their combined powers and completely against how they believe ‘how things should be done’ in DC.
“Further Jones’ conduct certainly met the Fed’s J6 standard for obstructing an official proceeding.”
Yes, it did, yet Jones wasn’t sent to solitary without access to a lawyer. He was dismissed from a political body – not criminally charged in any sense.
“Separately they need to do things that they can enforce. Disciplinary measures within the house.” Expulsion IS a disciplinary measure in the House, not unlike what the US House did to Trump, impeachment for *not* committing a crime.
“And they should NOT be giving Democrats any ability to engage in whataboutism.”
GOP has been turning the proverbial cheek for decades. They fight back one time and somehow that’s ‘wrong’? This is politics we’re talking about. About the dirtiest business there ever was.
While not the best comparison…we don’t let forest fires burn unabated. Back-fires are set to lessen the overall damage the fire causes. Don’t prevent the firefighter from accessing all tools in the arsenal necessary to extinguish the fire itself.
I have to say John, your reaction the Jones being expelled caught me off guard. You know Leftists are in the game to burn the system down. Why is this not the time to invoke your belief that ‘what goes around will eventually come around’ – why is this event NOT the correct starting point to strike back? Why should one side, political or not, take the ‘high road’ time and time without striking back HARD? “No, no. Don’t do that again”, isn’t working.
For full disclosure, I have NEVER been a member of any political Party. Not. Ever. And for this reason: before I reached the age of majority I figured out, on BOTH sides, The Party™ comes first, everything else is a lower priority for its leadership and most (if not all) Party members – even for ‘the good of the country.’
I doubt there is room to get a sheet of paper between us with regard to the left.
What disagreement we have is on strategy and tactics.
not substance, not the threat posed.
I got three lessons from 2022.
First abortion was an effective political issue for the left – though it is likely a one time issue.
The next is that the Reichstag Speech stuff from Biden worked.
That is a HUGE deal. Republicans have an image problem. Like you I am not a republican.
But that is 1000 miles from buying the nazi totalitarian nonsense dished out by the left.
But obviously enough people are buying it.
3rd is that all important demographics are going away from the left.
Even the gains amount young adult couch potatoes were dropping.
People understand that the media can not be trusted, that government can not be trusted, that democrats lie, cheat and steal.
But despite the huge disparity between republican political violence, republican authoritarianism and that of the left.
far too many people still see democrats as less dangerous.
As to
Jones – honestly putting him back in the house is a self punishing act for Democrats.
He will continue to obestruct.
And he will do so offensively. So let him.
When your enemy is destroying themselves – don’t stop them.
“But punish the Actual conduct for what it is.” John, Jones *was* punished for that earlier conduct prior to him being elected to office. He was banned from the chamber as a citizen. It clearly had the opposite of the intended effect. He ran and was elected based *on* that bad behavior. He made very clear his intent – to continue disrupting the legislature by any means until he gets *his* way. (If we did the same it too, would be unacceptable.) Repeat offenders do not deserve more chances to offend, except in the minds of Leftists.
The TN house needs to keep their cool.
Let Jones do the escalating – which he certainly will.
He is a bomb thrower.
Act within reason to constrain his clearly bad conduct.
Do so dispationately and without regard to politics.
And let him destroy himself
I don’t disagree with any of that, I only disagree that of which has already happened by the TN House should characterized as ‘wrong’. Yes, it was a purely political move and within their discretion. OF COURSE it was political. It’s what they DO: Politics. Was it the wisest, most best thing to do at the time? Maybe not, but that alone doesn’t make the decision ‘wrong’. Nor was that, as it turns out, Jones first offense. It may not have been widely known about Jones’ previous disruptions of the TN House and those of the Speaker…those issues that led to being banned near or in it when he was a citizen protester. That was and continues to be intentionally hidden by the press (imagine that 🙄). But the Speaker knew and others in the House knew and experienced first hand Jones previous ‘lack of decorum’ and this time they took FURTHER action for a literal second offense. There is no ‘forgetting’ in politics.
S. Meyer has a good thought and one which you agree will put the DOJ in an ethical conundrum: Next time Jones prevents others in the House by raising a ruckus that prevents other members from practicing their free speech or other civil rights (and he likely will since bad habits are hard to break, even habits that don’t effect other people), expel him and refer criminal charges to the DOJ. Call it felony trespass and/or other infractions if multiple laws are broken, if he doesn’t leave. But until Garland is no longer heading the DOJ, that referral will be met with nothing more than a shoulder shrug since it currently has no ethical leadership.
But what do I know? I’m Just Another F’n Observer.
If I said that what the TN house did was morally, ethically ro legally wrong – I apologize.
My position is that it is tactically and strategically wrong.
Separate regardless of what they chose to do – they should have taken more time.
They should have voted to suspend ALL 3 pending further investigation.
Then whatever they were going to do they should have spent the time making the case to the public.
Moving rapidly makes it look political.
Moving slowly gives Jones the opportunity to make things worse while suspended.
Outside the bitter politics of the moment – completely ignoring party,
I think expulsion is a close call. But not impossible.
But we do not live in that world.
I would also note that delaying results in MORE news coverage which is beneficial to the GOP.
I do not think they should have expelled.
And the final reason is that the GOP must proceded slowly and carefully on everything politically.
Republicans face a hostile press and a successful effort to falsely demonize them as authoritarian
The playing field is not level, and it is not likely to be.
The good news is that democrats can be counted on to behave exponentially more political and exponentially worse.
So LET THEM.
“Yes, it was a purely political move… ”
Purely political moves are acceptable if they aren’t blatantly in your face and have a positive impact. The move should be able to stand and not be reversed once made.
That was the problem with what the Republicans did. They went too far out on the limb, reversed, and went backward. They could have moved forward with lesser moves that wouldn’t seem so political and would be acceptable with more benefit than expulsion.
You and JAFO have excellent points. They have to learn to think into the future, and instead of thinking about what they will do, they need to go a few steps further and see what the opposition will do and what the people will say.
“You and JAFO have excellent points.”
Agreed and thank you.
Republicans have the advantage that increasingly democrats are bat $hit crazy.
They can be counted on to repeat their mistakes, even to double down on them.
At the same time Republicans – despite the dramatic lack of credibility in media and government and institutions.
still suffer from a mostly successful PR campaign to paint them as extremists.
Republicans will be judged far more critically on benign or identical acts to those of democrats.
Trump was impeached for with far better justification doing a tiny bit of what Democrats are doing.
Trump sought an investigation of credible allegations.
Democrats are seeking to prosecute allegations without credibility for political purposes.
Republicans must never forget they will be judged by standards democrats need not comply with.
One of the reasons Trump is popular – is that he does not care. He behaves pretty much the same as democrats
and gets away with it. But that is also why he is so hated by the left and why he has trouble capturing the middle.
Regardless, I am not trying to tell the GOP what to do.
But Democrats gave republicans a gift in TN, and republicans are doing their best to diminish that gift.
No apologies needed, friend, but thank you for offering them. We see the same problems the same ways. We just disagree with how and how long it will take to solve them.
Bygones 🙂
That disagreement is not critical.
We are all trying to guess what the best way to deal with the loony left.
I have offered my analysis and opinion.
It is highly unlikely that anyone will cause me to alter my positions on principles and fundimental issues.
That is not because I am dogmatic and rigid beut because I have heard read, analyzed all the arguments.
Particularly the left wing nuts here are never going to come up with a consequential argument that was not refuted a century ago.
But strategy and tactics are completely different.
I presumed Trump was DOA after he attacked McCain for being a prisoner.
That offended me. I have political issues with John McCain – but he was an actual hero.
But I proved wrong.
I have been wrong here and elsewhere about many strategic, or tactical things. I have been wrong with predictions – particularly detailed ones. I have actually been pretty good at more general ones.
I understood that all the public policies we used to thwart Covid would not work by April 2020.
I still got the scale of Covid wrong. But that is because history does not have many examples of diseases that infect nearly everyone.
But I got nearly everything else right.
Why ? Mathematics. Very early I watched a 3Blue1Brown video doing mathematical simulations.
What became evidence VERY FAST was that effective measures to actually contain a virus had to be more than 97% effective (for highly contageous viruses MUCH more than 97%) and there was just no change in h311 that any public policies could acheive that.
I had some early hope for the vaccine – but when its initial reported effectiveness with about 97% and that effectiveness had a half life less than a year – I knew the vaccine could not work either.
Again all of this is MATH.
We can debate whether there is a god.
But 1 + 1 = 2.
And nothing we did regading covid stood a chance of working, and that was mathematically demonstrable.
We can not solve all our problems with math and/or science.
ut when Math says this will not work – it wont. God is not going to change the laws of mathematics to thwart a disease.
John, I knew when FauXi changed his stand on masks without evidence, the psyop was underway. Everyone the “experts” silenced after that only supported that conclusion.
I have many “jobs”.
But the common thread that ties them together is the ability to look at the “big picture” and find simple solutions to problems.
To sort from all the available information what matters, to analyze and solve the probem.
I am frequently hired by people with much more experience in their narrow domain than I have, to solve a problem that has stumped them.
Sometimes that is because the issue is just outside their domain.
Sometimes it is because they are not creative enough.
Sometimes it is because they have been too close to their system for too long.
Regardless, from a very early age I have never accepted that there was something that was possible to understand that was beyond my ability to understand.
Whether the problem is how do I get onto that roof – because if I can not figure out how right now with the tools I have immediately available – it will cost me $1000 and another day of my time to do it another day.
Or how to use silicon doped for memory to build a processor.
I listen to “experts” = meaning I hear and weigh what they have to say. But if the issue is MY life – the final decision is mine, and if what is being considered is important. I do not ignore potential flaws in the logic of “experts”.
Further – as evidenced by the Pandemic – we have very very very few people capable for thinking outside the domain of their narrow expertise.
Not Fauxi not pretty much anyone involved in Pandemic public policy was able to think – But what other effects will this policy have, and might they be even worse than the problem we are trying to solve. We have increased suicide rates, drug overdose rates, violent crime rates.
Over the past 3 years the Death rates has significantly deviated by long term trends. 1/3 of those deaths are from Covid 2/3 are NOT.
There is a long list of potential causes for that 2/3 and probably all of them contribute. But the most important question is how many of those execess deaths would have occured had we done NOTHING. I do not have the exact answer – but inarguably the number is MORE than the Covid deaths.
I am using Covid only because it is such a huge in our face obvious example that pretty much everyone is familiar with.
BTW with respect to “masks” – aparently there was data strongly suggesting that masks worn by Doctors and nurses in hospitals – even during surgery may be very close to useless. And some of this was KNOWN before Covid.
It is possible that masks have some use with respect to other forms of infection, but they appear to be entirely useless at stopping respiratory viruses, and may cause more harm than good.
Worse still there were people who understood that and they were all dismissed as quacks.
That is another part of this that is not grasped.
Look arround HERE.
Those people – both commentors and those they cite who disagree with the powers that be, are portrayed as Quacks.
Matt Taibbi is an award winning journalist – until he deviates from left dogma. Then suddenly he is a right wing Hack.
People like Glenn Greenwald, Gabard, Weis, Schellenberger.
None of these are right wing nuts – but you would not know it from the news or the left.
The left’s response to disagreement is to defame those who disagree.
You can be a hero to the left – until you say one thing wrong – then you are forever damned and will be portrayed forever as a right wing nut.
Look at the attacks on Turley here.
Does anyone here claim that we can not trust Chris Wallace because he works for CNN ?
“It is highly unlikely that anyone will cause me to alter my positions on principles and fundimental issues. That is not because I am dogmatic and rigid beut because I have heard read, analyzed all the arguments.”
John, your positions and principles are reasonable and sound…there’s no need to alter them. The disconnect isn’t your principles, it’s Leftists and their lack of principles. You’re writings indicate that with enough time and enough failures on their part, they will change; they’ll come around to being reasonable in their actions and demands.
Think of them as drug cartels and how cartels operate. You and I may have principles out the wazoo. They know we have them and what they are. Leftists simply hate we have any at all. Here’s today’s headline on Turley’s blog: “Their Smug Civility was Infuriating”: Yale Editorial Denounces the Politeness of Pro-Life Students; Questions Right to Speak on Campus”. Leftists reaction to civility: HOW DARE THEY!
You can’t bargain with them. It may not be possible to wait them out because, like cartels, when one goes down there’s always another member chomping at the bit to get in the game, there is an endless supply of members in waiting. The ‘Joneses’ of the world have no desire, and in their minds, no NEED to conform to societal norms. I believe that’s preventing you from ‘seeing’ what they have become over the past decade, you believe it’s just a matter of time and attrition through their own failures they will either ‘see the light’ or go away. Their actions say otherwise, John. The 2020 riots were the evidence – they will burn down their own neighborhoods, kill their own people to make what point, exactly? There’s is no reasoning with that kind of mentality. Keep your principles close, they are sound. Just know they have no effect on Leftists
I was using myself as an example.
The point was not that my positions were unassailable.
But that if we are rigorous in routing out contradictions, we will eventuially reach a point at which the odds of someone credibly challenging a principle or high order value will be near nil.
While there is still room for error in strategy, tactics, and lower order values.
I can not as an example tell you PRECISELY what the most important factor in non-covid excess deaths is.
There are MANY contenders. The most important COULD be direct consequences of the Vaccine.
Or not. But it is crystal clear that but for our public response to covid we would have had far LESS deaths not more.
I am not wrong about that. but I could easily be wrong about which cause is the most significant.
The point I am making is we can actually know where we are likely to make errors and what types of errors we are likely to make.
“I was using myself as an example. The point was not that my positions were unassailable.”
I didn’t imply your position is unassailable at all. Would you kindly reread what I said about Leftists being comparable to cartels? (It had nothing to do with CoVid.)
After double-checking, my only comment about Covid was that I stopped believing the self-appointed experts when The Fauch contradicted his own masking guidance early on – the first of many signals the official response to the pandemic was little more than a nationwide obedience beta test.
I will write this.
If that had happened in 2008 or 2012, it would have made sure he was DOA, if his support for marriage equality did not make him DOA already.
Perhaps not, Michael. Trump’s election only happened because people on both ‘sides’ saw then (and continue to see now) the disconnect and total disregard DC has for the rest of the country, including their own constituents who can’t afford, wink-wink, pay-for-play. He promised and I believe he won on a commitment to “Drain the Swamp”. The 2016 election results sent the clear sign that The People had lost trust in the federal government to act in the best interests of the country overall. Unfortunately, neither Party learned anything and The Swamp fought back, HARD. They didn’t even wait until he was inaugurated. Both Parties showed (and again, continue to show) absolute contempt for the decision Voters made and set the path to “Get Trump” as quickly as possible, by any means necessary, even if it meant playing dirtier than they’ve ever played politics before.
“These protestors were totally wrong. Gun Control is not a solution to any actual problem. It is just and idiotic effort by the left to expand control over the lives of others.”
That’s a weird thing to mention, given the fact that Republicans are constantly dictating how others should be living their lives. They are, after all, the ones who love to dictate based on morality and values.
“The Two Reps who took a bullhorn into the legislature went TOO FAR and should be disciplined.
But expulsion for a first offense is massive overkill.”
Was a bullhorn too far? It was downright mild compared to J6, where they destroyed property, issued death threats, and committed various acts of theft and vandalism. So you said it was not just a few individuals being a bit raucous. But I’m glad you see that the expulsions were overkill. At the very least, they should have been censured. It was a need to send a message to those who were protesting. That they should “know their place” and shut up.
“Nearly all the J6 protestors should have their cases thrown out on first amendment grounds.
Only those who physically engaged with the police or who damaged property should face any charges.”
A LOT of those engaged in physical assaults on police and damaged property. Those who went inside were charged with trespassing, and those caught with weapons or using objects as weapons were arrested and charged according to the law.
“I am less sympathetic to those that bring political protests to the homes of judges or legislators.”
Unfortunately, that is legal as long as it’s done from a public sidewalk and the protests adhere to noise and time restrictions. But it is not illegal to protest in front of judges’ or anyone else’s homes.
“Today, Republicans do not have the right to politically protest.”
BS.
They are always protesting and have always had the luxury of expressing their opposition to the ideas and views they don’t like. What they see as “attacks on their free speech” is pushback from those who oppose THEIR views and opinions. Criticism is not a denial of their right to politically protest. Mockery and ridicule are not “attacks on free speech” either. What is true is Republicans do not like to be held accountable for their actions and words, and when they are, it’s an “attack from leftists” because they don’t like being called out for their poor ideas and silly views.
Once again – I am not a republican.
Though I find YOUR hypocrisy incredible.
Are republicans seeking to sexuallly indoctrinate children ?
Are republicans seeking to provide them with graphic sexual novels ?
Are republicans seeking to kill unborn children – right up to the moment of birth ?
Are republicans engaged in an undeclared proxy war with russia ?
Are republicans refusing to allow those they disagree with to speek ?
Did republicans seek to force vaccinations on everyone ?
Did Republicans seek to force everyone to mask ?
Was it Republicans that closed schools for over a year ?
Was it republicans that closed churches ?
Was it republicans that tried to start a ministry of Truth ?
Was it republicans that tried to get rid of a sitting president with a hoax about russian collusion ?
Was it republicans that are trying to force nuns to pay for the abortions of others ?
Was it Republicans that censored the truth on social media ?
Was it Republicans forcing female athletes to compete with biological men ?
Was it Republicans who force us accept that a person is whatever they claim to be – without regard for reality ?
Was it Republicans who are trying to force us to engage in compelled speech ?
Was it Republicans that fire bombed pro-life clinics ?
Was it Republicans that undermined law enforcement leaving us with rising crime ?
Was it Republilcans that forced us to endure chaotic messy and untrustworthy elections ?
Was it Republicans that conducted SWAT raids on democrats ?
Was it Republicans that tried to assassinate democrat Supreme court justices ?
Was it Republicans that have assualted congressmen and their staff – sometimes in their homes ?
…..
What is it that you think is tyranical behavior by Republicans ?
Republicans are no saints.
But they are NOT even close to the actual tyrants today.
They are not even close to the actual liars today.
John Say,
Well said.
Always a good time to read your take down of Sleezevez.
“Was a bullhorn too far?”
Yes, and that was bny an elected representative.
“J6, where they destroyed property”
Really ? Most of those claims have proven false.
Turns out the spreading feces story – was actually Kavanaugh protesters.
“issued death threats”
Not a single person has been charged with issuing a death threat.
“committed various acts of theft and vandalism.”
Small amoutns and those should be prosecuted – just like the guy who took an axe to the senators door.
There are police stations that were burned down by BLM.
Bombs were used in Seattle, as well as murders. in seattle and portland.
In portland arson was done to a federal courthouse multiple times.
Police officers were blinded by lasers and fireworks we shot at them.
Did ANY of these happen at J6 ? ANY ?
“So you said it was not just a few individuals being a bit raucous.”
Except that is precisely what it was. We have all now seen video from the inside of the capitol or the capitol steps.
Protestors proeceding orderly, QUIETLY and REVERENTLY through the capitol – they even stayed between the rope lines.
Contrast that with the video from Tennessee
What violence did occur at J6 we still do not know the truth about.
I am fully prepared to throw the book at anyone who INITIATED violence.
Just as I am in Portland, Seattle and Tennessee.
There was a conflict between protestors and the CP at the West Tunnel – We know that.
We also know it was violent. But we do not know who and how it started.
There is video that indicates that the violence started AFTER, the CP tear gassed themselves. and then the crowd accidentally
Forcing the crowd forward to eacape the CS teargass, and then the CP fired on protestors with Rubber bullets, beanbags and moved into protesotrs beating them with billy clubs. There is vidoe of a black officer pummeling Rose Boylan who died and another officer murdering Alishi.
What is compelling is that almost everywhere in and about the capitol – there was no violence, in fact the protests were VERY peaceful. The actual violence was confined to a few locations.
So we should make great effort to find out why was there violence in only a few locations.
I am still pushing for the complete PUBLIC release of all the video.
Tucker was a start – but only a start.
We do not need nor want talking heads – left or right telling use the J6 story.
We want ALL the evidence out where we can ALL see it.
I would note that the TN capitol is the 3rd riot at a state capitol in a little over a week.
You need a dozen more J6’s with some arson fireworks and real violence mixed in – to reach an ordinary week in Portland – or apparently now Atlanta.
Are you actually in agreement that when government overcharges – that is bullying and forcing people to KowTow and know their place ?
It would be wonderful if we could reach agreement on that an end the weaponized prosections of Trump, J6 defendants.
I can not possibly see how using a bullhorn in house chambers is not disrupting an official proceeding – so can we dismiss that charge against Everyone – in TN and J6 ?
Protestors at TN were certainly disorderly while most J6 protestors were not.
TN protestors were tresspassing atleast as much as J6 protestors – so lets dismiss those charges.
Judge Merchan has actual ethical violations – and likely covered those up in his records.
So we need not prosecute Merchan and we can drop stupid charges against Trump.
Biden has been covering up his Classified Dcouments since March 2022 – BEFORE MAL was searched, BEFORE the GJ subpeona.
So can we drop the idiotic obstruction claims – unless you are going after Biden too.
Were there any bullhorns inside the Capitol at J6 being used by Republican Reps to urge on the protesters ?
Were there any bullhorns inside the capitol at all ?
We have video of protestors inside the TN capitol pummelling police to get into the legislative chamber.
On J6 protestors were peacefully escorted by police into an empty chamber.
When protestors got anywhere near congressmen on J6 – they were murdered.
Did the TN police murder the protestors who burst into the chamber ?
Were there thousands of Police at the TN capitol teargassing protesters on the outside ?
Where in all the TN protests did Capitol police even attemkpt to stop protestors ?
The only place that the TN police tried to stop protesters was at the entrance to the Capitol chamber.
There was violence at the TN capitol everywhere the police tried to stop Protestors.
Unlike J6 – the Police did not try to stop protestors anywhere but at the entrance to the legislative chambers.
Sorry Svelaz, but the narative regarding J6 has been falling apart for some time.;
TN was not nearly as bad as say Portland, or Seattle, or the myriads of other left wing riots.
But the only reason it was not significantly worse than J6 is because the protesters were allowed to force their way into the capitol
and only stopped from entering the legislative chamber.
After J6 we heard all kinds of stupidity about how democratic Reps were attacked at the capitol – which of course did not happen.
AOC was a mile aaway and no protestors came to the building she was in. Thought she was afraid for her life.
Exactly as you claim regarding the TN protests – Democrats DOJ FBI the DC courts set about to punish protestors for failing to kowtow and succeeding at scaring them.
And you are surprised that the TN legislature is responding similarly ?
Absolutely expelling the members who used the Bullhorns was over reacting.
Just as about J6 1000 protestors are victims of an Overreacting Biden DOJ, and federal government.
I do not think the Republicans should have expelled those two Reps.
But there are people still in Cells in the DC jail that were not even at J6 and who did not engage in any violence.
Chansley has spent 2 years in jail for …. nothing.
Remind me again which party supported OSHA, using a temprary emergency standard, telling employers with over fifty employees to tell their employees what to do with their bodies?
OT
NEWSFLASH
William “Mr. Deep Deep State” Barr, the perfidious snake, has been officially loosed on the MSM by the RINO/Bush et al. “Duopoly & Swamp” as the 2024 “attack dog” against Real President Donald J. Trump.
Ronnie “Made Man” DeSanctimonious sins per the 11th Commandment * and attacks “fellow republican” Real President Donald J. Trump from the rear for a classic “double-tap.”
You go, boys!
___________
* 11th Commandment – Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican (Ronald Reagan)
The surest solution to preventing violence against masses of people is for the enraged to vent their fury on doing something about antisocial, sociopathic, and psychopathic personality disorders. Making it ever more improbable for mentally healthy and law abiding persons from protecting themselves with their right to arm themselves will not change the reality of sociopaths and psychopaths getting such weaponry. It is regrettable to say, but in America today there are too many emotionally disturbed persons with a flagrant disregard for right and wrong and far too little, if any, concern for the rights and feelings of others. If our government is to do anything meaningful about mass violence perpetrated among the citizenry, it is to focus full and undivided attention and resources upon the unabated spread of mental illness. There is common ground to act upon, but first comes the realization that it is people who are prone to hostilities, not their guns. Come to an appreciation of that and we just might be on the road to addressing what the actual and only problem is; increasing numbers of angry and discontented people becoming ever more imbittered and resentful.
Do you have evidence that there’s more mental illness now than in the past?
And the mentally ill are more often the victims of violence than they are perpetrators of it (https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.pn.2021.7.23 ).
It is not a matter of “more”, nor should it be a matter of “more” before it is addressed. Violence is rife in this country, and it’s not those who are considerate, respectful, and civil in their discourse and actions who are nurturing it. Look at all the animosity and hostility that is exchanged in all of social media even on a blog such as this one which is administered by one who epitomizes consideration, respectfulness, and civility, and then try to convince yourself the Nation is healthy.
You’re the one who spoke about “the unabated spread of mental illness.” Spread indicates increase, so you’re the one who made it a matter of “more.”
Do you bizarrely believe that the only people who are not “considerate, respectful, and civil in their discourse and actions” are the mentally ill? Again: the mentally ill are more often victims of violence than they are perpetrators. Some who are mentally ill are violent. Many who are mentally ill are not violent. Some who are violent are mentally ill. Many who are violent are not mentally ill.
I’m not saying that the country is healthy, just calling out your misplaced condemnation of those who are mentally ill. An estimated 1/4 of the population has a mental illness (depression, eating disorders, anxiety disorders, etc.)
No, Anonymous, you are confusing yourself. What I believe is that people who are inconsiderate, disrespectful, and uncivil in their discourse and actions are people most in danger of developing illnesses.
That you believe something doesn’t guarantee that it’s true.
And the mentally ill are more often the victims of violence than they are perpetrators of it
Meaningless
I guess you need to work on your reading comprehension.
I guess you need to work on your understanding of statistics.
Statistics doesn’t say that it’s meaningless.
“It is regrettable to say, but in America today, there are too many emotionally disturbed persons with a flagrant disregard for right and wrong and far too little, if any, concern for the rights and feelings of others.”
Many of those who support gun rights continue to ignore the problem of the ease and ready availability of obtaining a weapon legally. The Nashville shooter could get seven high-powered weapons as quickly as buying groceries at Walmart. Funding for mental illness intervention and therapy is often dismissed or excused as being too costly when the time comes to address it. The majority of people want universal background checks. They want waiting periods and required training. None of those things are infringements on the right to own a weapon. Their only answer is more and more guns because there is never enough protection from those who we think have mental problems or are not supposed to have guns in the first place.
Svelaz, let me ask you plainly. Are you in favor of allowing people to have guns if they pass a background check? Are you in favor of allowing people to have guns if a waiting period is required and how long would the waiting period be? Would it be unreasonable that a blue state might require a waiting period of say one year? The waiting period is just a disguised prohibition. Are you saying that your position is in opposition to the positions of the Democratic Party. For the most part it seems that you agree with the positions of the NRA. The NRA recommends gun safety courses and restricting the ownership of a gun by those with a record of criminal activity. Welcome aboard.
“Svelaz, let me ask you plainly. Are you in favor of allowing people to have guns if they pass a background check? Are you in favor of allowing people to have guns if a waiting period is required and how long would the waiting period be?”
I favor allowing people to have guns if they pass a comprehensive background check. I favor allowing people to have guns if a reasonable waiting period is required. Two days. Three days. Or the amount of time that a comprehensive background check would take. None of that is an infringement on the right to own a gun. The 2nd amendment does not guarantee the right to have a weapon immediately.
“The waiting period is just a disguised prohibition.”
How is that a prohibition? Waiting for a background check to be completed does not infringe on the right to obtain one. Republicans keep saying people with histories of mental illness or prior criminal felonies involving a gun should not be allowed to have one. The only way to know that is for vendors to have access to information that would reveal that.
“The NRA recommends gun safety courses and restricting the ownership of a gun by those with a record of criminal activity. Welcome aboard.”
The NRA recommends a lot of things, but it stops short when it comes to enforcing those recommendations. Talk is cheap. When legislation for universal background checks is proposed, the NRA is the first to oppose it. The NRA only supports those positions as mere lip service; when it comes to supporting legislation to put those recommendations into law, they oppose it.
Svelaz, please provide a source that verifies that Democrats support background checks of only One to three days. You are once again being dishonest. You know that the ultimate goal of the Democrats is to do away with the second amendment all together. You can try to put a cherry on it bout you know what it is. Do you remember when Bill Clinton said that abortion would become a rare occurrence. Some people are just not stupid enough to believe that the restrictions on gun ownership will not expand. We know a camel’s nose under a tent when we see it because we’ve seen it too many times before.
Background checks
guns
Voting
Abortions
Waiting periods
Guns
Voting
Abortions
Education AND Testing
Guns
Voting
Abortion.
Those are the easy ones, where the govt can force you to qualify in order to exercise a right. (two of three are not enumerated rights)
There should be some more things the govt can force the people to qualify for before exercising.
“two of three are not enumerated rights” says a guy who clearly hasn’t read the entirety of the Constitution. Or do you often confuse “one” and “two”?
says a guy who clearly hasn’t read the entirety of the Constitution.
Well, learn me up Tonto. Show me where the other two are enumerated.
Enumerated: to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list
Read the multiple Amendments about voting. Do you really need me to list them for you?
You are talking about the reconstruction amendments. They simply said blacks had to be treated the same a whites. States were still free to limit voting to women, for instance. Some state allowed women to vote, some not.
What other enumerated rights eliminated women?
Your “education” is more of the indoctrination kind, not understanding kind.
“You are talking about the reconstruction amendments.”
No, idiot liar, I was talking about all of the amendments about voting, as should be absolutely clear from the fact that I said “Read the multiple Amendments about voting.”
Nearly all guns sold legally in the US today include background checks.
Those checks typically take a day. That is about how long an FBI criminal records check takes.
If you want a longer period Why ?
People convicted of crimes lose some of their rights.
What are you looking for in a background check that is not currently being done ?
One of the problems we already have with “red flag laws” is that they discourage people with mental health problems from seeking treatment.
About 15% of conservatives suffer from Anxiety and depression – this is LOWER than progressives at any age.
Do you want people suffering from anxiety and depression to seek treatment ? Especially given that anxiety and depression are one of few mental health problems we have an excellent track record at fixing ?
I noted that the most violent mental health issue – paranoid schitzophrenia still only has a rate of violence of about the same as blacks.
I will be happy to discuss with you realistic measures that are proven effective and do not have even larger unintended consequences.
But I have no interest in enabling more left wing nut virtue signally.
Get real – do not lob ideas that are ill thought out or have never worked before or have massive unintended consequences.
You want more time for a background check ? You do not need more to do a criminal records check. So what is it you are planning on checking ?
And why do you have the right to pry into the private lives of people who are NOT criminals. ?
You have made proposals – but more time for a background check is meaningless if all it is, is people sitting on their thumbs.
You want background checks – but we already have those.
Background checks stop criminals from buying guns. Guess what Criminals do not buy guns legally.
How is it that you are planning to use background checks to stop non-criminals from buying guns ?
It is pretty cleanr you do not know what you are talking about.
Again, it’s the “Nashville shooter” that did the killing, not the guns. Address the mental illness of the shooter, and you will be set upon the right course to do something we all care about.
How often we have heard or read the term “gun violence” and never stopped to long reflect on the absurdity of it. A gun is an inanimate object harmless in and of itself. Violence on the other hand is an animate behavior that renders only humans capable of doing unmitigated harm. “Gun violence” is a misnomer in having an inanimate object capable of a human behavior. It is a ludicrous term on its face. The correct terminology to be used whenever humans kill other humans should be “violence with gun.” It is then and only then that we might begin to focus on and address the real problem.
How do you address the mental illness, Ron? Because you would define anyone who identifies as transgender or Homosexual or any of those identities as having a mental illness. Are they going to support denying their 2nd amendment right to bear arms? Because they identify as transgender?
A gun is undoubtedly an inanimate object. But it’s also a tool that makes it much easier to inflict harm and threaten lives. It’s the ease and readily available choices of quantity and range of power that anyone can have without training or skill. So the gun is still the issue. The ease in obtaining one is still the issue, and indeed the ease in which violence with them can be committed.
Many say an armed teacher or guard should stop such incidents. The school in Nashville had two armed teachers. None succeeded in stopping the killing of children. Security guards are NOT obligated to defend against a shooter and are not obligated to protect anyone. They can still choose not to engage and walk away, as has happened before.
You don’t celebrate it, and force it on the American People for one thing. Notice how the WH and Kamala are ignoring the victims, and loving up the Protesting Insurrectionists??
The Obama WH ignored the victims of urban violence.
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/how-the-gun-control-debate-ignores-black-lives/80445/
I do not define anyone who identifies as transgender or Homosexual or any of those identities as having a mental illness, and nothing that I have offered for civil discussion here says that. Persons’ mental illnesses should be the subject of concern, regardless of their gender identity. It’s disturbing that you have turned that screw.
I agree a firearm is but a tool the mentally ill who wish to do harm use. The issue of first and foremost concern then should be their state of mind and how they alone are to be regulated in the use of a firearm. Until effort is given to easing the plight of the violent mentally ill that is as concerted and concentrated as that which is given to regulate persons’ means of self defense, complete and thorough analyses of this societal problem will remain forever hampered leaving us with little or nothing to build a difference on.
I wonder why the Secret Service needs to inflict harm and threaten lives.
How do you address mental illness ?
The answer is that with very rare exceptions you DONT.
about 20% of the country, about 15% of conservatives about 70% of young left women are suffering from anxiety and depression.
No one is stopping them from buying guns. It is just not happening.
No one is stopping paranoid schizophrenics from having guns.
No one is stopping trans people from having guns.
Red Flag laws prevent those who have DONE something or who have threatened to do something from getting guns.
And they do not and can not work very well.
You want to spend more on mental health – TO WHAT END ?
Money does not solve unsolveable problems.
There is a claim that there were 1 or two armed staff at Nashville based on the 911 cal.
So far there is no actual evidence that anyone at the school was actually armed.
Regardless, you engage in the typical shallow left wing nut analysis.
You are correct that armed teachers and security do not have an obligation to protect others.
But the DO protect themselves.
Regardless, they critical problem with school shootings is the response time of police.
The response time at NAshville was excellent – I beleive 9 minutes from 911 call to the first officers on the scene.
Alot of people can die in 9 minutes.
For 9 minutes those at the school had no outside assistance. They had only themselves to depend on.
If a shooter must be concerned about the possibility of an armed person arround each corner,
they MUST proceed much more slowly. And that means less oportunity to kill people before law enforcement arrives.
Nearly all mass shootings in the US occur in “gun free zones” that is not accidental.
It was also too easy for the street thugs and the gangbangers in the Robert Taylor Homes to keep the cops from searxching their homes for contraband (including illegal; guns).
Do you support warrantless searches of public housing projects?
“Many of those who support gun rights continue to ignore the problem of the ease and ready availability of obtaining a weapon legally. The Nashville shooter could get seven high-powered weapons as quickly as buying groceries at Walmart.”
The ingredients to make chlorine Gas are readily available at Walmart too and you can buy enough to kill a small city for what a single rifle costs.
At any auto parts store you can get what you need to make a flame thrower for $25, and youtube will show you how to make it.
“Funding for mental illness intervention and therapy is often dismissed or excused as being too costly when the time comes to address it.”
Red herring.
The vast majority of gun deaths in the US are criminal homicides – they are not due to mental health issues.
You are again playing stupid games with statistics.
What are you arguing about ? Are you arguing about mass shootings ? Then the actual number of deaths is tiny – though you are correct a handful of mentally ill people kill a small number of others.
The most violent form of mental illness – paranoid schitzophrenia, has a rate of violence about double the rest of us.
Put differently a white schtizophrenic is about as likely to kill someone as an ordinary black person.
Are we going to intervene in all schitzophrinics ? Should we lock them all up ?
Mental Health is a beautiful example of the utter failure of the LEFT.
We have tried locking them in sanitariums, we have tried treatments like electroshock, and sterilization.
We have tried de-institutionalizing them.
For the past 250+ years our treatment of the mentally ill has been barbaric.
But that has NOT been for lack of effort, or funding.
It is because we have no answer. There are a very small number of mental health problems that we have working treatment for – anxiety and depression at the top of the list. We have nothing that works for sociopaths or schizophrenics.
You seem to think that spending money is magical.
Absolutely mental health is a major factor in some crimes – like mass shootings.
So how is spending more money going to fix that ? We have no cure and no effective treatment for the vast majority of mental illnesses.
We have three choices – institutionalize in mental health fascilities. institutionalize in prison – both of those are basically warehousing the mentally ill.
Or release them – in which case many end up homeless or criminal.
There is no magic want to cure mental illness.
No amount of money will fix a problem that has no answer.
“The majority of people want universal background checks.”
Which we have.
“They want waiting periods and required training.”
Nope. Please cite statistics for these.
“None of those things are infringements on the right to own a weapon.”
Would you agree to waiting periods for abortions ? Training ?
Rights are not subject to conditions or the whim of the majority – that is why they are called rights.
“Their only answer is more and more guns because there is never enough protection from those who we think have mental problems or are not supposed to have guns in the first place.”
There are already more guns in the US than people. Limiting the number of guns will accomplish nothing.
And you are not getting back the ones already out there.
For about 1500 you can buy CNC equipment that will allow you to make as many Colt 1911’s as you want
Or AR-15 lower receivers.
We are way past any ability of government to stop the spread of guns.
We are also well past the point at which the number of guns has any impact on anything at all.
https://sgp1.digitaloceanspaces.com/svgfile/2021/04/fgn8Aoa4-I-Am-1776-Percent-Sure-No-One-Will-Be-Taking-My-Guns-Svg-TD22122027-800×800.png
With respect to “red flag laws” – those are already in place. Whatever you think of the idea – like most ideas for government solutions – they do not work.
I would further ntoe that nearly all the guns used in crimes are not bought legally – background checks, training rad flag laws have no impact on illegal uses of guns, and merely piss off legal users.
As always – you do not want to slave the problem, you just want to virtue signal.
As always Mr. Turley is moderate in tone, and walks a middle line so that he will be heard. I think I understand why he remains a D, despite disagreeing with their continued tactics. I wish he would describe as fascistic. I don’t want him to be a Republican. I’m not. I want him to It gives him cover to criticize them without being canceled (or perhaps physically attacked as was Riley Gaines and others). Despite the repeated messaging of government that right-wing extremists are the most dangerous group in America, it is clearly left-wing groups that are shouting down speakers, taking political prisoners, giving succor to gangs and the violent, starting fires or attacking people, rioting, and so on. If not exclusively, predominantly. All while they scream “fascists,” at those who just look for regular order.
i agree that the problem is not because of guns alone and that their regulation is the only solution. i agree that controlling guns could be seen by many as against our constitution.
but for those defining the solution to the problem as a mental/people problem, i think that they should be given the chance to prove it. at the state level…
1)pass legislation providing funds to have gun/weapon screenings into schools(provide funds to design much less-intrusive/obvious screenings: that should be possible).
2)pass legislation to address finding/helping those people with such mental problems that they turn to such violent avenues of solution.
3)actually DO something to address the problem, rather than just saying that gun regulation would not help.
There is one person on this earth doing something about gun and other violence, Bukele, but he is infringing on the kind of right the dems must enforce to stay relevant, the right of dem DAs to get thugs out of prison.
Not bad. Not bad at all.
Ron A. Hoffman,
When a SC justice cannot define what a woman is, because she is not a biologist, we might have a national mental health issue.
When a city council votes to defund their police department and then surprised when the crime rates go up, in some cases by triple digit percentages, we might have a national mental health issue.
When a city council votes to decriminalize drug use and then surprised when the numbers of drug users on the streets go up, in some cases by triple digit percentages, we might have a national mental health issue.
When a city council votes for no cash bail and then is surprised when the crime rates go up by the very same offenders, we might have a national mental health issue.
When a state has to consolidate schools as parents are taking their children out of those very pro-DEI/CRT/groomer schools to put their children in sane schools or home school. we might have a national mental health issue.
When a trans woman goes into a school, shoots and kills three 9 year old and three adults, and the leftists are more upset MSM is using her dead-name, or misuse of pronouns, we might have a national mental health issue.
When a group of people think it is perfectly fine to sexualize 6 year olds, we might have a national mental health issue.
We might have a national mental health issue.
Jonathan: You have spent a lot of column space complaining about this “age of rage”. Instead of trying to tamp down the “rage” you have made the problem worse with this column over the expulsion of two Black Tennessee legislators for protesting the refusal of the GOP dominated House to consider gun legislation to deal with the frequency of mass shootings.
You claim “some” called the protest an “insurrection” or “mutiny”–citing the Politico article (4/6/23). This was not Politico’s description. It was simply citing the description by GOP House Speaker Cameron Sexton who was the only one quoted by Politico. That’s your first deception. The brief protest was neither an “insurrection” nor a “mutiny”. It was a brief non-violent protest inside the House chamber focusing on the failure of the GOP to address gun violence. But almost immediately the GOP controlled House decided to expel 2 Black legislators. This was an extraordinary action against legislators who violate “decorum rules”. As Politico points out: “In Tennessee, only two other House members have been removed before today’s proceedings, both after criminal violations or sexual misconduct”. In this case there was no investigation, no hearings–the normal process. It was a rush to judgment. It was truly the definition of a “Kangaroo” court.
And what you fail to mention is that racism played a central role in the expulsions. Three legislators were accused of disrupting the House proceedings. Only the 2 Black reps were expelled. The third, Rep. Gloria Johnson, who is White, was not expelled. When asked why she was able to avoid expulsion Johnson said: “it might have to do with the color of our skin”.
Then, in an ironic twist, you try to justify the expulsions by saying the 2 Black reps “were unwilling to yield to the majority. They disrupted the floor proceedings with a bull horn and screaming…”. You didn’t use the same language when Stanford law students protested the speech of Judge Duncan. You called the majority at Stanford law “an attack on free speech” and demanded the protestors by disciplined or expelled. You called the protests a virtual “tyranny of the majority”. But in the Tennessee House you think the 2 Black legislators have no similar “free speech” rights and the expulsions were justified because they refused to bow to the “majority”. You column reeks of duplicity!
So you have staked out your position. When a minority of conservatives want to speak the voice of the majority doesn’t count and any protests should be severely punished. When 2 Black legislators want to exercise their “free speech” rights in the Tennessee House they should be expelled because they refuse to submit to the “majority”. If “majority” rule governs what happens in Tennessee why not at Stanford, California?
Dennis McIntyre, you got that right. Turley’s hypocrisy is astonishing. It makes it quite clear how Turley manipulates narratives to feed the rage of his readers. He seems to have taken a page from Matt Taibbi’s playbook about being two-faced and disingenuous.
The people suffering from Rage are on the left.
“Hundreds of teenagers stormed the streets of downtown Chicago, smashing car windows, attacking bystanders and sending panicked tourists running from the sound of gunfire.”
Do you think that was the MAGA Crowd ?
Cracker Barrel, Walmart, Starbucks have all left portland – were they driven off by enraged MAGA crowds ?
Was it republicans that stormed 3 state capitols in the past month ?
The Rage is on the left.
https://imgs.search.brave.com/m_DkrQmyHHvpo9fBXgAT8_AJZj4w_-NFTTpppnuLUrU/rs:fit:358:260:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly90aGVj/b2FjaHN0ZWFtLmZp/bGVzLndvcmRwcmVz/cy5jb20vMjAxOC8x/MS9waG9ueS1yaWdo/dC13aW5nLXZpb2xl/bmNlLXN0YXRzLTEu/anBn
Easy there, John. You can’t debate someone after their head explodes. lol
I am not debating Svelaz and others on the left – they do not engage in honest debate.
At best those on the left here are foils that I can use to make the arguments I want to make.
None of them are intelligent enough for a decent debate.
That is not true of everyone on the left. I have actually engaged people like Lawrence Lessig, Lawrence Tribe, Robert Reich and many other prominent figures on the left in reasoned debate, and I would be ecstatic to encounter anyone on the left even close to that calibre here.
Elizabeth Warren taught corporate law to my wife at UofP and I met and talked with her briefly, Though I did not debate her.
At that time – and I doubt even now, she was not the wacko left wing nut that she presents as a politician.
Frankly I was surprised that she was able to get elected to the Senate. She was neither impressive nor hard left as a corporate law professor.
She was pretty much what you would expect of a corporate law professor.
I expected she would be a lousy politician. That proved wrong.
As to making their heads explode – that is not possible. To the extent they read what I have written – they do not think about it,
and can not comprehend it – though none of it is all that complex.
Regardless, their is no chance they will allow anything past their dogmatic filters.
That is self evident by their posts.
I don’t know what video you watched but the 3 Democrats did more than just protest. One of them accosted the Speaker and someone else. This same Democrat is already been indicted for assaulting someone at another so called “peaceful protest” and you might want to look that up and see for yourself since you obviously only chose to look at Republicans & what they did wrong. #StartViewingTheWholeTruth
Dennis McIntyre, you are defending the actions of people who are shouting down the opposition. It should then follow that you will defend the Republicans who shouted down Joe Biden at his state of the union address. Why have you not shown your support for the Republicans who disrupted a legislative body? Sorry stupid question. Maybe their skin color had something to do with it.
Thinkitthrough: Marjorie Taylor Greene, the incendiary insurrectionist who still thinks the 2020 election was “stolen” from Trump, tried to shout down Pres. Biden during his state of the union address. She was roundly criticized by the Dems and the press for her antics. But she wasn’t expelled from the House. That’s very different from what happened in the Tennessee House. You forget, or don’t know, the birthplace of the KKK was in Pulaski, Tennessee in 1866. Racism has a long history in Tennessee. The descendants of the early KKK now control the Tennessee House. That might explain why only the two Black House members were expelled. The problem is you never think things through. You need to change your moniker.
Which insurrection did Marjorie Taylor Greene particpate in?
This was not Politico’s description. It was simply citing the description by GOP House Speaker Cameron Sexton
God, I get tired of the tolls just lying constantly
Turley said You claim “some” called the protest an “insurrection”
Then he linked to articles that quoted those “some” . Turley never said that Politico made the claim
The rampant dishonest should get you barred
When 2 Black legislators want to exercise their “free speech” rights in the Tennessee House they should be expelled because they refuse to submit to the “majority”
No. All legislators voluntarily agree to the speech and debate rules while doing their jobs. We run 5 year olds through kindergarten, largely to socialize them, teach to follow the rules, play with respect and honor.
Something these two should would learn taking remedial kindergarten, because that is the emotional maturity the displayed.
Legislatures everywhere are fully justified in Refusing to consider legislation that will do absolutely nothing about what is overall a small problem.
Variations in the frequency of mass shootings is noise – there are so few that there are no long term trends.
They can double one year and halve the next with no rhyme or reasonm and without disrupting long term trends.
We DO have an epidemic of violence and crime – but that is independent of mass shootings.
And it is mostly confined to our large cities and their surrounds.
In point of fact it is even more narrowly confined than that.
In your typical big city – 50% of all violence occurs in 4% of the city.
Though we are starting to see a breakdown everywhere in places like San Franciso.
There has been several high profile Assaults and murders in SF int he past month in what were purpotedly safe parts of SF.
Interestingly not one of them involved a gun.
All forms of violence in the US are rising – a Rand Paul Staffer was Knifed in DC
Dennis you are being dis honest.
What correlates strongly to increased violence ?
Communities that have lost police officers after the BLM Riots.
Communities where BLM riots took place.
Communities with rising drug problems.
Communities where the police are handicapped by DOJ consent decrees.
Communities that have radically relaxed bail,
Communities that have ceased prosecuting misdemenaors.
Communities with Sorros funded DA’s.
There is a long list of things that correlate to rising violence int he US.
increased numbers of guns is not on that list.
Demanding that legislatures do something that is guaranteed to have no benefit,
is more proof of your own idiocy.
I will defend the rights of those protesting at the TN capitol to protest – to excercise their first amendment rights.
But I will not defend their intelligence – they have none.
Nor their demands – those are stupid.
While I am not aware that Turley is a defender of the 2nd amendment.
He is at least wise enough to NOT push a losing issue.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FtUV755WAAEC_Px?format=jpg&name=small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FtTVr7qWIAEdX5_?format=jpg&name=medium
https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1641110897761320960/V0jHy-hZ?format=jpg&name=900×900
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FtPjrMHXsAEtzIt?format=jpg&name=medium
TN did consider and pass legislation to reduce violence in schools.
It was just not the legislation you want.
Why is stanford different than TN ?
Because no one was stopping the Democratic Reps in TN from speaking
Legislatures have rules for that – because 100’s of people speaking at one time is not real free speech for anyone.
Those Reps had the same oportunity to speak as every other representative.
Though not with a bullhorn.
Judge Duncan was an invested speaker to a campus event. Those who wanted to hear him were free to come. Those that did not could stay home.
Or protest outside. Those who oppsed his views were given time to ask questions AFTER Judge Duncan spoke.
At Both Stanford and TN what we saw was the same thing – lawless democrats shouting down those they disagreed with.
The issue of free speech is not about whether you are in the majority of the minority.
It is about whether you are seeking to speak or you are seeking to silence.
Those legislators disruopted the process.
“American Politics has Become Amplified Rage”
– Professor Turley
______________
If America has become amplified rage, what was it in the beginning and what was it intended to be?
Answer: Representative self-governance and never one man, one vote “amplified rage” – a restricted-vote republic, if you can keep it.
Turnout was 11.6% and general vote criteria were male, European, 21, with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres in 1788. America was designed to be a restricted-vote republic under an infinitesimal government which exists merely to perpetuate the dominion of the meaning and intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. One man, one vote democracy is moot. The things that “voters” vote for in a one man, one vote democracy are unconstitutional. The American thesis is “Freedom through self-reliance,” which has no relationship at all to “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” One man, one vote democracy is incoherent and impossible; it IS the very “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
The vote must be restricted to capable, accomplished, ambitious people, and denied to dependents and parasites. The meaning and intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights must prevail. Justices of the Supreme Court and judges must be impeached and convicted for failing to fulfill their sworn-oath duties. The entire communist, American, welfare state is unconstitutional and must have been and must be struck down immediately and with extreme prejudice. Congress has the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense and general Welfare, and the power to regulate ONLY money, commerce and land and naval Forces, and ONLY the owner has the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property. Government must be eliminated by about 85%.
Let’s just do a little extrapolation. Let’s say that every time one party or the other does not agree with a piece of legislation the legislature is interrupted with hollering through a bullhorn. Is this really where we want to go? What is to keep one party or the other from just increasing the size of the amplifier? Should Republicans in turn bring their bullhorn to legislative sessions in a blue state when a bill codifying men in women’s restrooms is passed. Such tactics are used only when enough public support is not present to elect a majority large enough to change the law. If they can’t win the race they want to simply discontinue the race altogether. It’s laughable that the people supporting the disruption speak of Democracy. By the way, I also opposed the disruption of Joe Biden’s state of the union address. Why should you disrupt your enemy when he is in the process of defeating himself. Let them have their say and convince the public of your opposing position. Shouting others down only defeats your purpose in the eyes of the voter. What a stupid strategy. However, if it’s attention you wanted you got it.
TiT, this need for reciprocal treatment ignores the context of the events. This was a moment of frustration over an issue that has gone on unaddressed by Republicans because they are afraid to restrict gun ownership. The need to have the most accessible and easiest way to get a weapon supersedes any concerns about children being killed or people being harmed by those who have the easiest and quickest way to gain access to a weapon of choice. And that doesn’t include the ability to get as many as you want for any reason.
The legislators are taking a bullhorn to the chamber and protesting this problem that continues to be ignored because it’s more important to have the ability to have the most accessible access to something that anyone with mental illness that can pass a background check can have.
Republicans’ idea of solving this problem is to give everyone more guns. It would mean encouraging the trans community to buy guns to defend themselves from bullies and right-wing nut jobs who seek to harm them. This is the solution envisioned by republicans all the time.
This was a moment of frustration over an issue that has gone on unaddressed by Republicans because they are afraid to restrict gun ownership
Frustration is all thats needed to violate the rules? How about doing the work to attain your goals. Because the interference of congress will not change hearts and minds.
The Constitution severely restricts the states restricting gun ownership.
https://www.quora.com/How-should-we-address-the-issue-of-mass-shootings-in-the-United-States/answer/Michael-Ejercito
The Chicago PD and HUD tried to address the issue of mass shootings and gang violence by conducting warrantless searches of the Robert Taylor homes.
This was ruled unconstitutional.
(Link removed)
A man named Curtis Flowers was accused of a horrific mass shooting. To ensure that he would be convicted, the prosecutor used peremptory strikes to exclude Black jurors.
Flowers’s conviction was overturned.
(Link removed)
As noble causes as suppressing mass shootings and punishing mass shooters are, remedies that violate the highest law of the land can not be justified. There is no bUt MuH mAsS sHoOtInGs exception to the Bill of Rights.
You want to “address” mass shootings ? Do you have a means to do so that is KNOWN to have worked ?
You don’t, there is no such thing.
You cite deceptive statistics
Guns are not a significant factor in deaths of children under 15.
And then you rant about metal health funding – as if we have not spent the past 250 years trying to address mental health with no consequential impact.
You discuss red flag laws – as if we do not already have an abundance of those.
You then chastise republicans for what ? Not wanting to waste time and money virtue signalling ?
The cause for current rising violence is clear – the increasing chaos caused by those on the left.
We see that all over the world – when Chaos increases – nearly always driven by the left. violence increases.
Why would you expect it is different here ?
The homocide rate in the trans community is 1/2 that of the rest of the country.
Regardless, I do not know of any republicans who oppose Trans people owning guns for their own protection.
… recent examples of possible criminal acts that didn’t get treated as harshly as the so-called “disorderly behavior” by two Black men.
“In 2018, state Rep. David Byrd (R) faced accusations from three women who said he sexually assaulted them while they were minors on a basketball team that he coached. Byrd, who served in the state House until January, publicly denied the accusations and questioned the motives of the women,” the [Washington] Post reported. “A recording of his conversation with one accuser surfaced, in which Byrd said: ‘I wish I had a do-over, because I promise you I would have corrected that and that would’ve never happened,’ and that he thinks about an unspecified incident ‘all the time.’
“In 2019, Republican leadership killed a resolution to expel him from the chamber brought by Johnson, the member of the Tennessee Three who was not ousted. … “You have to balance the will of the voters and overturning the will of the voters,” House Speaker Cameron Sexton (R) told a local news station in 2019 of the situation.” …
“In May 2019, the House Republican Caucus held a 45-24 no-confidence vote on then-Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada (R) after text messages emerged that showed the chamber’s top leader encouraged or approved of his chief of staff making disparaging and sexual comments about women, including interns and a lobbyist. Casada stepped down as speaker but remained a member of the legislature and was not expelled.” In August 2022, federal prosecutors charged Casada with money laundering, wire fraud, bribery and kickbacks concerning federal funds. Casada served the remainder of his term, which ended in January, and was not expelled from the legislature.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/tennessee-republicans-don-t-get-expelled-for-having-sexually-assaulted-minors-and-more/ar-AA19E5RM
So when it comes to white Reps who’ve committed crimes, “You have to balance the will of the voters and overturning the will of the voters,” but when it comes to Black men who did nothing illegal, they’re expelled.
Young Tennesseans were protesting in favor of gun control. The Republicans are doing their best to lose the votes of younger Americans. May it bite them in the ***.
Maybe the pubs don’t want to bend-over to the will of idiots, like the dems do – anything for a vote, right? Upholding the Constitution and rational principles will only bite you in the ass when tyranny rules. The dems, having to cower to the will of idiots like those ‘young Tennesseans’ are feeling that bite right now. Whores.
PS, tell the young Tennesseans (democrats, for sure) in memphis to stop killing people with guns and the gun issue (aside from stripping peaceful white people of their guns) will be a meaningless fraction of what it is today, there. KMA.
Kyour-ownA.
Anonymous, you make some good points. The question you leave unanswered is where any of the Republicans convicted of a crime? Did they lose a sexual harassment suit. Guilt construed only by innuendo is not proof of guilt. However we do know that the Tennessee three disrupted the Tennessee legislature. This is a fact rather than an innuendo that has not been proven to have actually occurred. You and I may agree if you will once provide the end results brought about by the accusations. Missing such information about any legal repercussions for those you have accused we should come to a the conclusion that your position is slanted. Keeping in mind your history.
Anonymous, Senator Byrd voted against the 1964 civil rights act. From Wikipedia, Byrd joined with Southern Democratic senators to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964,[48] personally filibustering the bill for 14 hours. He was not expelled from the Senate for his vote.
Byrd was a Dixiecrat, a right-wing splinter group from the late 40’s.
Tara Reade has accused Joe Biden of Rape.
Should he be impeached ?
Or should we atleast find out how credible the allegation is ?
https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/2021/08/10/ingham-county-prosecutor-lessen-use-felony-firearm-charge/5555564001/
If the Supreme Court of 2022 had enforced the Constitution, abortion would have been returned to the States.
Oh, yeah, it was, huh!
My bad.
If the Supreme Court of 1863 had enforced extant, constitutional, immigration law, those comprising a “discordant intermixture” and “hav[ing] and injurious tendency” would not be present.
The Supreme Court and all Americans in 1863 must be afforded some sympathy, however.
America had a gun to its head, 1 million were killed, and the tyrant holding the “smoking gun” wrote the history books you read.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four confirming iterations)
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…
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
“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
We have a tough time with ambiguity. O.J. was guilty And Mark Fuhrman lied.
Jonathan, who holds the Clerks accountable for ensuring that the random assignments of judges to cases is in fact random? No one.
Is this a “dead man [t]alking?”
Tom, it’s gotta be long past time for your meds.
Just sayin’.
That made no sense. Even for you.
Shock treatment may be your only hope.
Say “Hi” to Hinckley for me.
Thomas Francis Eagleton (September 4, 1929 – March 4, 2007) was an American lawyer serving as a United States senator from Missouri, from 1968 to 1987.
New reports are claiming that TN Speaker Cameron Sexton may not live in his district 2 hours from Nashville (Crossville) to the extent required by the TN Code.
Under Section 2-2-122(a)(5) of the Tennessee Code, “[t]he place where a married person’s spouse and family have their habitation is presumed to be the person’s place of residence.”
In 2020, the family downsized from 4000 sq ft 4-bed home to a 1200 sq ft condo, and now, his son attends school in Nashville. Also, a neighbor of the new property claims he is rarely at his Crossville condo.
Still early, and should be verified. But, if true, does everyone on this blog, who supported expulsion of the Tennessee Two/Three believe that Sexton should also be expelled?
(I am guessing the answer is no.)
I do not support the Expulsion of the TN legislators.
But I absolutely support some form of discipline.
I have no idea how much merit your claim regarding Speaker Sexton has.
But I doubt it is going anywhere. If Speaker Sexton owns a home within his district and pays taxes in that district, it is highly unlikely that any rational court is going to question how much time he spends in that home.
Many many people own multiple places of residence and can legally participate int he politics of that locale.
Regardless, if you wish to get religious on residency requirements – you will lose half of congress.
“I do not support the Expulsion of the TN legislators.
But I absolutely support some form of discipline.”
I agree with you on that point. Censure should have been the more appropriate punishment. But they didn’t want that; they tried to send the message that they were to bow to the majority because it was “not their place” to protest the lack of any action regarding gun control measures or any measures to address the continuing violence with guns. Clearly, people are tired of it, and it’s bound to push some folks to protest more like those legislators.
“. Censure should have been the more appropriate punishment. But they didn’t want that; they tried to send the message that they were to bow to the majority because it was “not their place” to protest the lack of any action regarding gun control measures or any measures to address the continuing violence with guns. Clearly, people are tired of it, and it’s bound to push some folks to protest more like those legislators.”
If we are going to read minds – I would suggest that TN legislators are merely doing what the left has already normalized.
Democrats neutered most of the filibuster. They weaponized house rules against republicans. Now they are facing tit for tat.
I do not think TN legislators were demanding anyone to KowTow. They merely realized that Democrats had normalized punishing political speech and they might as well go for it.
As to your rant on gun control.
It does not work. PERIOD.
People can be as tired as you please. Doing something stupid and ineffective will not change anything.
Many of us are very very very tired of having to POUND the facts into idiots like you over and over.
When you lose an argument – when you run affoul of the facts and the law, you go away briefly,
and return nearly immediately with the same idiocy that was falsified months, weeks, days before.
If you wanted to stop the Nashville Shooting – your best bet would be not shooting teens suffering from anxiety, depression and dysphoria up with testosterone.
In what world does that seem like a good idea ?
Regardless – pretty much no matter what the issue is, if you want to impose by force restrictions on rights of half the country over a problem that effects a handful of people at most. YOU are the problem.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FtSmRl9WIAIveOQ?format=jpg&name=900×900
But they didn’t want that; they tried to send the message that they were to bow to the majority because it was “not their place” to protest the lack of any action regarding gun control measures or any measures to address the continuing violence with guns
Here are a list of gun control measures
* 1934 national Firearms Act
* 1968 Gun Control Act
* 1896 Hughes Amendment
* 1993 Brady Bill
* 1996 Lautenberg Amendment
John, as the OP of this thread, I agree with you.
Expulsion is ridiculous. Something like censure would have been more appropriate. My point with the above is that this antagonistic move is a Pandora’s box of ticky tacky back-and-forth that TN politicians probably would not want to open. And arguably, a violation of TN law regarding qualifications for office, even if minor, is a much bigger problem than disrupting an hour of the legislature’s time.
I have said that I do not support Expulsion.
A decade ago I would have been frothing at the mouth and pounding my fists over this egregious violation of the first amendment.
Today it seems tame compared to those the left performs every day.
Expulsion was wrong, egregiously wrong.
But we are living in the h311 of 1984 and the TN expulsion seems tame compared to things that ahppen everyday.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FtT9nuzXsAEvK10?format=jpg&name=medium
Turley has been in the right-wing echo machine and he has the nerve to write about “rage”. Turley collects a check from a company who has been proven over and over again lying to it’s own readers, listeners. and watchers. The disgraced twice impeached ex-president talks of “death and destruction” and Turley is silent. The evidence shows without a doubt that Turley working for the ministry of propaganda over at “FoxNews” must be worth his reputation as any kind of lawyer or teacher.
FishCult has something to say about propaganda. Go back to watching your MSNBC brainwashing network.
You don’t have to prove your willful ignorance every day, it’s been proven by you many times.
FishCult has something to say about willful ignorance. hahahahaha.
Go back to watching your MSLSD brainwashing network.
Last I check Fox was a private corporation.
The only political party that actually sought to create a ministry of propaganda was Democrats.
Rail about Fox all you want – I do not care – I pay little attention to Fox.
But to single out Fox as the epitome of press dishonesty is laughable.
However bad Fox might be – the Pale compared to Wapo or MSNBC or CNN.
Leftism is a mind virus that causes cognative distortion – self evident by the epidemic level of anxiety and depression on the left.
“However bad Fox might be – the Pale compared to Wapo, MSNBC, or CNN.”
Wapo, MSNBC, and CNN are not being sued for defamation. Fox News has a clear history of promoting false narratives and engaging in propaganda for the republican party. The Dominion case is exposing what everyone else not in the fox news bubble already knew.
They have been promoting the same things you claimed regarding voter fraud and the election being stolen. They convinced you of the BS they knew was not valid. Dominion has a solid case, and Turley knows it. He’s been reticent about it, and I bet he will be very vocal once the trial gets underway.
They should be. They lied about the Fake Russian Collusion that Hillary paid for and WAPO and the NYT’s both received fake Pulitzers for their fake reporting.
They have been, and they have lost.
“Fox News has a clear history of promoting false narratives and engaging in propaganda for the republican party.”
True but not nearly as blatantly as much of the rest of the media is blatant left wing nut propoganda.
Do I really have to list all the blatant lies of the majority of the MSM ?
Most of them were not only engaged in self censorship – but actively aiding and abetting the Government in censorship of social media.
You can be as critical of Fox as you wish – their errors are STILL inconsequential and far more credible that most of the MSM.
Personally I pay little attempt to Fox, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, …
I primarily follow independent journalists on Substack or Quillete or Tablet or ….
I have been following Glenn Greenwald since GWII, I have been folowing Matt Taibbi for years.
I have been follwing Barri Weis since she was at NYT. In fact most of the journalists I follow are democrats who left the MSM.
Or they are people like Turley – also a democrat.
I also follow Crystal Ball and Sagar Enjeti on Breaking Points.
I follow Bret Weinstein, Unherd and John Campbell on Covid.
Not one of these or many many other sources I follow are MSM, most are democrats. None are on the right.
Where possible I seek sources that are NOT journlists – but actual experts in their fields.
You can visit the blogs of the top 100 economists in the world today.
I do nto need WaPo or NYT to tell me what the latest science is – I can read the papers directly.
The Dominon case is BS. Please review the recent Defamation cases, and you will trivially learn why DVS will lose.
You can not deefame someone with an oppinion.
You can not defame someone with reporting that only subsequently proves false.
You can not defame someone by claims that REMAIN unproven.
The only question about the DVS case is whether it will have to go to the supreme court to be thrown out.
They already won summary judgment on this issue of falsity. The judge will instruct the jury that they’ve already been proven to have made false statements. Not opinions, not unproven, but false.
Then you would have evidence of that.
Regardless, if they have done so – then the court OBVIOUSLY erred.
A statement can not have been false that could not have been known to be flase at the time and is not known to be false now.
improbable is not the same as false.
Fox has lost several motions to dismiss – that is all. The burden in a motion to dismiss is high – though Fox has met it in this case.
The results of motions to dismiss do not turn into jury instructions.
It is STILL not possible for DVS to prove the claims were False.
It certainly was not possible to prove them false in 2020,
Fox did not make the claims – guests did.
The claims were made on shows that the courts have already long ago labeled as opinion shows.
If Fox were to lose this – News would be impossible.
No reporter could ever report anything that was not completely provable.
I would note that Trump and other victims of the Collusion delusion have already LOST defamation suits against the media for Media claims that are actually PROVABLY FALSE.
If those on the left are actually able to win this at a tril level all that will do is reinforce the fact that our courts are heavily biased in favor of the left and that we have lost the rule of law.
That is what it means when similar facts produce completely different results based on politics.
Whatever the law is it MUST be the same for the left and the right.
If it is not – the rule of law is lost.
But then you do not care about that.
Ignoramus, read the judge’s ruling about it.
As for your opinion about his ruling, once again, your opinions are not facts.
We have plenty of completely ignorant judicial rulings – with the numbers increasing as left wing nut judges go bonkers.
I know how to read the constitution and the law.
Why would I need a deeply biased judge who clearly can NOT read the constitution or the law to explain either to me ?
And Finally – Why would I beleive YOUR cvlaims about what a judge purportedly ruled ?
As Bad as left wing nut judges are – Left wing nut posters are far worse.
You can not even represent bad but favorable rulings in a manner that anyone can trust.
Regardless we have been through all of this before, again and again.
How many of these left wing nut judicial decisions have held up under appeal ?
How many of the cases – even where intermediate challenges were upheld actually resulted in wins for the left ?
“Wapo, MSNBC, and CNN are not being sued for defamation.”
How quickly they forget:
“CNN and the Washington Post both settled defamation lawsuits from Sandmann in 2020 for undisclosed amounts.” “The [defamation] lawsuit settlement with NBC [which owns MSNBC] was Sandmann’s third . . .”
Sandmann was not a public figure.
Now, I do believe the Supreme Court went too far in extending the public official doctrine to public figures. Being a public figure does not mean one has the power of the state.
But unless the Supreme Court restricts New York Times v. Sullivan to public officials (and perhaps those seeking to become public officials, either by running for office or accepting a political nomination), the public figure doctrine is binding on lower courts.
And Dominion is definitely a public figure under this precedent, which means the actual malice standards applies.
MSNBC and CNN did a fair amount of promoting the “Trump Colluded with Russia®™ to Steal the 2016 Election” narrative.
James Garfield gave this warning during his America’s centennial address that is now all too true:
Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation, it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.
A great observation by Andrew Breitbart held that politics is downstream from culture. And that, culture is downstream from religion. But what happens when traditional religion is supplanted by the worship of secular causes? Our culture has been transformed and our politics reflects that culture. Then, once our politics has a culture no longer sustained by absolute truths, they become clay in the hands of the political forces. And that is right where we are today. Religion is still a driving force of our culture, but it is a religion created by political force. Thus, our culture is downstream of politics. How stupid we are. We’ve got the fox guarding the henhouse and the wolf tending the sheep.
“[W]hat happens when traditional religion is supplanted by the worship of secular causes?”
If those secular ideas are reason and individualism, then man enjoys the cultures of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and then of America’s founding.
If those secular ideas are reason and individualism, then man enjoys the cultures of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and then of America’s founding.
Interesting. So you believe the founding fathers acquired and promoted the ideas of reason and individualism absent of religion? And through those secular ideas they committed their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the founding of a new nation? Do you have evidence that was the case?
Dr Peter Kreeft has produced an excellent 12 part video series on the history of western philosophy, and he mentions in video 1 (link below this text) what the Enlightenment gave us. Like the French Revolution it helped create our present world crisis: protests, rebelliousness, subjectivism and cultural plunder.
Marxists took their inspiration from the Jacobins of the French Revolution
The similarities between Jacobinism (by which I mean the government of the Montagnards between June 1793 and July 1794) and Bolshevism are not in the least factitious, since Lenin himself spoke of it in his speeches [1] and he recently had a statue of Robespierre raised. …I would like to demonstrate by a brief analysis that the analogies between the methods of the Bolshevists and those of the Montagnards are not only apparent, but that there exist close ties and a logical kinship between them. Jacobinism and Bolshevism are both dictatorships, born of civil and foreign war; two class dictatorships operating by the same methods: terror, requisition, and taxes, and proposing as a final outcome the same goal, the transformation of society. And not only of Russian or French society, but of universal society.
https://www.marxists.org/history/france/revolution/mathiez/1920/bolshevism-jacobinism.htm
So much for the Enlightenment
watch @ 6:30
“So much for the Enlightenment”
Anyone who equates the Enlightenment — the age of science, individualism, and applied reason — with the French Revolution, is ignorant about the ideas and goals of both.
What is intellectually dishonest, in this case, is that the motivation is to smear one of the greatest periods of human history (the Enlightenment) — in order to shill for religion.
Note to Stanford University Philosophy Dept, Sam thinks you are ignorant. Who is Sam, you ask? He has told us repeatedly that he was faculty at a top tier university but has never disclosed his area of expertise. Given his history on this forum, he likely was a
SewerSous Chef in culinary studies. God help him if he was a History prof in the mold of Doris Kearns Goodwin who was sued for plagiarism and she settled out of court. History profs…LOLDude you are a fraud, just an angry old man with nothing but lots of irrational, unsourced opinions that tickle your bottom.
The Enlightenment is often associated with its political revolutions and ideals, especially the French Revolution of 1789. The energy created and expressed by the intellectual foment of Enlightenment thinkers contributes to the growing wave of social unrest in France in the eighteenth century. The social unrest comes to a head in the violent political upheaval which sweeps away the traditionally and hierarchically structured ancien régime (the monarchy, the privileges of the nobility, the political power of the Catholic Church). The French revolutionaries meant to establish in place of the ancien régime a new reason-based order instituting the Enlightenment ideals of liberty and equality. Though the Enlightenment, as a diverse intellectual and social movement, has no definite end, the devolution of the French Revolution into the Terror in the 1790s, corresponding, as it roughly does, with the end of the eighteenth century and the rise of opposed movements, such as Romanticism, can serve as a convenient marker of the end of the Enlightenment, conceived as an historical period.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/
But, but he’s steeped in the history of ideological ruses. Surely somewhere he acquired an original thought, no? No wonder he gets prickly.
I stopped replying to Sam > 8 months ago because everytime I posted something that included religious quotes with links by the US Founding Fathers, famous Philosophers, Scientists, historical US documents, speeches, etc he was up my ash with intense ad hominem. He once attacked me as a “poser” for including quotes with links to support my claims. It was bizarre and surreal. Then it got strange when he started stalking me, taunting me so as to reply to his comments to anything I wrote, and I always just ignored him. Still he kept coming after me like the above video link to Dr Peter Kreeft, a brilliant Catholic philosopher, and again a few days ago when I quoted St Augustine “City of God”.. All this considering I have not said a word to him in 8 months.
I know the Enlightenment Period fairly well given it relates to the sciences and many notable Christian thinkers like John Locke (Calvinist, Sola Scriptura proponent), Francis Bacon (devout Anglican), Voltaire (devout Catholic), Rousseau (Calvinist and Catholic), etc. Sam’s condescension was palpable and indicative of a very insecure man. Thus I found the Stanford content and link in all of 10 secs and decided to reply to him this one because I saw he was going down the same route with you. His response is running away.
I have friends who are atheists, Jewish, Muslim, agnostics, former prisoners, fire and brimstone fundamentalists, liberals, conservatives, a few who are addicts who refuse to go to a 12 Step Program because they will not admit to a Higher Power, yet always seek me to help them. I befriend anyone and everyone that is genuine. I could not care less if Sam is an atheist or otherwise. But his arrogance is typical of atheists, and his strident remarks about religious scientists, the religious influence on the US Founding Fathers, Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine, etc were beyond academic discourse. It is something deeply personal for him. If someone truly esteems logic, ask them to discuss Saint Thomas Aquinas, the most complex and brilliant philosopher ever known to man and a Catholic monk, Dominican.
Religion and Reason coexist beautifully except to atheists like Sam.
Religion and Reason coexist beautifully except to atheists like Sam.
That they do. “Right” reason is the key.
Religion of some kind is an intrinsic human attribute.
For whatever reason absent religion – humans will make one up.
This is what we are seeing with the left.
They have made claimate into religion.
They have very oddly made science into a religion.
They have made gender into religion.
Religion is the domain of belief.
It does not take much perceptive skill to look at the universe and grasp that we will not and can not ever know everything.
That some questions REAL science will never be able to answer.
I beleive Prager recently put out a video arguing that Morality and ethics can not truly exist without religion.
I am not certain that is true. But I am certain that morality MUST derive from fundimental principles
that must supercede all else.
It is arguable that the core failure of all purely secular schemes – communism, socialism, is the absence of principles to anchor morality.
We certainly see that in the modern left.
People on the left and the right both do things that are wrong.
But there is a fundimental difference. Those on the right tend to KNOW that they are doing wrong.
Those on the left do not know, they have no sense that almost anything that advances their ideology could possibly be wrong.
Nor do they care that they may have done wrong, at worst they care about having been seen to do wrong.
and even that not so much.
There has been no appology for the collusion delusion – not only don’t those on the left care that they were wrong – but it is very important that depsite the obvious moral failure – the power of those agencies and the press that thoroughly screwed up must be preserved.
In the mind of the left – what most of us see as moral failure was merely a mistake that got caught.
I have repeatedly argued that one of the more painful ways humans learn is through failure.
That even if the left can not be overcome in any other way that they will be overcome as people grasp their inevitable failures.
But look at those on the left here on this blog. They do not care about failure – personal or ideological They do not learn from it.
The only thing they care about failure is that they got caught and that might hinder their ability to impose their will by force int eh future.
What have Svelaz, Gigi, ATS, … learned from the collusion delusion or the supression of the truth about Covid or the Biden family ?
Nothing, They still trust those who lied. They stiull distrust those who told the truth, they do not understand that it is not an accident that the truth was censored – that it is near guaranteed that if you engage in censorship – that what does not get censored will end up deeply flawed at best and blatantly false more likely. That we NEED to hear all sides, because if we do not, We will NOT find the truth.
They practically beleive it is accidental that they were wrong.
One thing that should have been learned is that what is highly unlikely is very very rarely true – no matter how much you might want it to be.
Svelaz is still ranting that claims of election fraud have been proven False – which is an incredible misunderstanding of logic and probability and evidence and what is truth. The DVS claim was the least probable claim of election fraud from the start. If reputable people like Sidney Powell had not put their weight behind it, it is not likely it would have gained alot of traction. And yet even today the DVS claim has not actually been disproven – outside of 3 counties. It is even less likely to be true than ever before, but it remains unfalsified.
Further Svelaz can not grasp that the OPINIONS of some Fox Talking heads has absolutely no bearing on what is actually true.
Those opinions only tell you what they BELEVIED to be true at the time.
Adam Schiff claimed he saw EVIDENCE of Russian collusion. That is something that had to have been a lie at the time he said it.
People at Fox saying that the DVS claim was improbable prior to interviewing Sidney Powell – in a mostly disbelieving fashion is not and can never be a lie.
I am too much into the details. The point is there is nothing even close to critical thinking on the left.
And no evidence of learning.
All this and much more is a neon sign flashing to all “I have no moral foundations”
big or little they are incapable of grasping that they were more than wrong as a question of fact, but morally wrong.
There are lots of problems with Religion. Men have done much evil to each other justified by religion.
Yet, the bloody nature of 20th century communism – the blood of which dwarfs all the evils of all religion ever, makes it clear that man without a god is far more vile than with god.
Even if god does not exist – the human belief in god is a necessity without which we are not governable.
I am not personally committed to some form of deism. But I am absolutely committed to Human Free will – which is intrinsict to nealry all religion and nearly all consequential philosophy. which is the root of all meaningful morality – secular or religious.
The left does not actually believe in free will, which is weird. For an ideology that rants on about slavery, they are perfectly happy to increase the subservience of all to the state. Without accepting free will – there is nothing that prevents each of us from using force to compel others to conform their lives to our wishes.
That is the consequence of the absence of moral foundations.
John, The Left™, including those who write on this blog (you, I, and especially ‘they’, know who they are), aren’t doing what they’re doing out of any ignorance, lack of understanding, nor any unwillingness or inability to learn. On the contrary, they know exactly what and why they’re doing what they do; every last one of them, excepting for younger people who haven’t lived enough ‘life’ yet. They are intentionally antagonizing those with whom they disagree with Cloward-Piven tactics for their one and only goal: To NOT win. “Not winning’ is not a bug, its the point of it all, the only point. Keep your opponent engaged but on their heels is the point. They can’t “win”. Continuous, perpetual, rabble-rousing in the faces of their perceived enemies, every day and twice on Sunday, IS the mission. They do not want “gun control”. They do not want government mandates of any kind. They do not dare ‘win’ because afterwards they’ll have nothing left to complain about. Yes, they do want an authoritarian government – but not for themselves, of course.
While those who blather on with Leftist drivel here may or may not being paid, some who play this strategy ARE being paid handsomely by wealthy Leftist organizations. I don’t know if its per response, per word, per thread or per site, but some are making a decent living by hiding behind a keyboard hoping their ‘enemies’ engage them in discussions like these. Long and frequent ‘discussions’ probably pay more which ends up recycling the same ‘discussion’, ad nauseum. Giving them benefit of the doubt is the right thing to do, once or twice. Continuing to engage Leftists when they refuse to concede any point, no matter how correct you might be, is simply part of their plan and why I do not bother responding any longer to them – I will not unwittingly contribute to them being paid for accomplishing nothing more than the argument itself.
Be careful, John, its quite possible you’re being played like a Stradivarius.
JAFO wrote:
“Not winning’ is not a bug, its the point of it all, the only point. Keep your opponent engaged but on their heels is the point. They can’t “win”. Continuous, perpetual, rabble-rousing in the faces of their perceived enemies, every day and twice on Sunday, IS the mission.
Bravo. That was very, very good. You articulated better than what I have articulated many times over these past few years to John Say and others re: the DNC paid trolls.
Be careful, John, its quite possible you’re being played like a Stradivarius.
Yup. I don’t think John will be offended, as I do not mean to lack charity in the following: John, you, Olly, all of us, each and every one of us on this Earth, are broken, incomplete, thoroughly imperfect, etc. This is true at the molecular, cellular, physiological levels and also spiritual level.
Recent published scientific literature on the molecular mechanisms of sterile and non-sterile atherosclerosis, are challenging previously held scientific paradigms. The notion that “reason” and “empiricism” are reliable guides to “happiness” are articulated only by those who aren’t involved in them. To put it as simply as possible, it has been believed for decades that atherosclerosis was caused by a lipid storage disorder due to excess LDL cholesterol. That paradigm has been discarded, though LDL cholesterol may be initially involved in the genesis of coronary artery disease, but not always. Now it is believed that atherosclerosis is an inflammatory disorder precipitated by perturbations in the coronary arteries, either sterile of non-sterile. Sterile perturbations include obesity, hypertension, poor glycemic control from Type II Diabetes, sedentary lifestyle, etc. Non-sterile perturbations includes pathogens like HIV, CMV, Hep C viruses, etc. Perturbations are “sensed” by Pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) that exist on our cells, including non-nucleated cells like platelets. Endothelial cells populate the inner lining of our cardiovascular vessels (arteries to veins). Platelets and endothelial cells possess PRRs, and they begin the inflammatory process known as atherosclerosis. PRRs are evolutionary conserved. PRRs include Pathogen Associated Molecular Patterns or PAMPs and Damage Associated Molecular Patterns or DAMPs. See link below this text. Here is where I am going with this:
At the molecular level, our cells have acquired defense mechanisms because of evolutionary pressures that confronted human beings over thousands of years. We are able to respond today to threats only because we stand on the graves of our predecessors who were not able to respond, but our species adopted genetic programming to prepare for future threats, i.e. evolutionary conservation. However, when a new source of perturbation presents itself, like HIV, obesity, Diabetes Type II, our cells do not know how to “shut off” the inflammatory response. So it goes on and on and on until the host dies.
None of this proves the existence of God, though I have been known to state that one sees God in the molecules. What this does prove is that at the molecular level, physiological level, and of course, spiritual, psychological and cognitive levels, we are imperfect. There is no such thing as perfection in man. Don’t believe me? Look at the response of millions of people globally to a hum-drum benign virus, responsible for the common cold, like coronavirus like COVID-19. It wasn’t the virus that killed or harmed these victims. It was their underlying flawed cellular response, due to lifestyles they adopted, that exhausted their homeostasis. In a few hundreds of thousands of years, we will be better equipped as a species to respond to COVID because our genetics will have evolved in response via natural selection. Till then, we just go along for the ride of life, flawed and imperfect as we are, because we all exist by the grace of God who created us, and died for us in the Person of Jesus Christ, to save us…from ourselves.
But, by the law of faith, faith is allowed to supply the defect of full obedience: and so the believers are admitted to life and immortality, as if they were righteous
― John Locke, The Reasonableness of Christianity, As Delivered in the Scriptures
so yes, John Say, you are being played by the trolls, because you are profoundly broken, and are manipulated by them which you allow out of your own brokenness. Just like George, Oky1, and me. I’m terribly broken as a person. We should not fear broken people. We should fear those who think they are not, i.e. Non serviam
Cheers!
See: Zindel J, Kubes P. DAMPs, PAMPs, and LAMPs in Immunity and Sterile Inflammation. Annu Rev Pathol. 2020 Jan 24;15:493-518. doi: 10.1146/annurev-pathmechdis-012419-032847.
Thanks, Estovir. It’s easy to see through the Leftists ruse. All one has to do is look.
Outside the context of Medicien you might find the writing of Prof. John Haidt illuminating.
I have been following his work on moral foundations for more than a decade.
He started on the left, but is slowly making the same progression that Turley is.
Regardless, as a scientist and scholar he has followed the data were it leads.
I beleive that I got the determination that religion is an intrinsic Human attribute from him – though others have obviously explored that.
I am not sure that free will is unique to humans. I do not think it exists outside of mammals and the extent of it is radically different in humans.
Regardless, if you accept free will axiomatically – and the alternatives are pretty appalling, you can derive the entirety of morality using logic from free will.
I agree with Adams that self govenrment requires morality. I am not sure that one can not have sufficient moral foundations without beleif in something. Regardless, humans without beleif is something scarcely exist.
All human religions – especially as practiced are flawed. But human beleif systems separate from religion prove worse.
I would note that all the dominant religions have free will as a foundation.
I have not focused my attention on religion consequentially since the early 80’s – though I minored in philosophy of religion in College
“Surely somewhere he acquired an original thought, no?”
So much for remaining “civil.”
“Dude you are a . . .”
Still can’t contain your malice.
“[T]he French Revolution into the Terror in the 1790s [. . .] the rise of opposed movements, such as Romanticism, can serve as a convenient marker of the end of the Enlightenment . . .”
You don’t even understand the meaning of what you copied.
As in: French Revolution, “*end* of the Enlightenment.” As in: the philosophic meaning of “Romanticism” (marking the *end* of the Enlightenment). Incidentally, as a philosophic movement, 19th century Romanticism elevates feelings over reason.
For those who are more intellectually honest:
The intellectual father of the French Revolution was Rousseau. He was known as “the muse of the Jacobins.” He was widely known, during his time, as an *anti*-Enlightenment political philosopher. Why? Because he extolled emotions over reason.
“So you believe the founding fathers acquired and promoted the ideas of reason and individualism absent of religion?”
The fundamental ideas they accepted and applied were reason and individualism. And I not only “believe” that, it is historically and logically true. The influence of the individualist thinker Locke, for instance, has been well-known and well-documented since forever. If the Founders had wanted to create a theocracy, as existed in the religion-dominated cultures before them, I think they were smart enough to have done so.
It is no accident that America was founded *after* the historical eras of reason (the Renaissance) and individualism (the Enlightenment).
Just as it is intellectually dishonest for socialists to whitewash their history, so it is for religionists to whitewash their barbaric history of the Dark and Middle Ages.
“. . . absent of religion?”
For those who believe (wrongly) that America was founded by religious/Biblical ideas:
Religion had been around for some 1,300 years before America’s founding. What took so long?
Religion had been around for some 1,300 years before America’s founding. What took so long?
Sam, you are one of the contributors on this blog that I regularly read and typically agree with. However, the moment the discussion even hints at the idea of God and one’s reasoned belief in the need for a revival of a Christian spirit in our discourse, you suddenly transform into a Sam I no longer recognize. This iteration of Sam makes comments such as:
If the Founders had wanted to create a theocracy, as existed in the religion-dominated cultures before them, I think they were smart enough to have done so.
Just as it is intellectually dishonest for socialists to whitewash their history, so it is for religionists to whitewash their barbaric history of the Dark and Middle Ages.
For those who believe (wrongly) that America was founded by religious/Biblical ideas:
Clearly the Founders purposely did not want a theocracy, nor did they want a monarchy. Yes, the Enlightenment era gave the framers great sources of political and social philosophy from Locke, Montesquieu, Hume, etc. Their studies of religion is well documented and they went back many millennia before Christ. They weren’t studying how to create a theocracy. They were studying how the great ancient societies came to be and what took them down.
What is a religionist? Show me one that is trying to whitewash history. Are they doing that, or are they talking about the good that has come from religion, while you are fixated on the bad?
Most of my adult life I was trying to be an atheist. In retrospect, I was more agnostic. Then, during the runup to the 2008 election, I started my US civics studies. I read a lot of original source books, pamphlets, letters, etc. I got into discussion groups and one question came to mind that needed an answer. The Founding Fathers were brilliant. What they created had never been done before. So I asked myself, how could men such as these be so smart, so right about our form of government, and yet believe (wrongly) about the existence of God? Fortunately I was humble enough to admit their beliefs didn’t need to be questioned, it was mine.
Sam, you don’t need to be hostile towards those that believe in God and that speak positively about the teachings within their religion. There’s no more need to try and hide the horrors that have been committed under the authority of the Church, than to hide those same horrors being committed under some other banner. The framers knew this. What they took from that is the undeniable and unchangeable power of human nature. If you feel compelled to denigrate believers in God, just know you’re following the Marxist playbook. If this is the “good” Sam, I don’t believe in your heart you’re Marxist.
Indeed, Olly. “They weren’t studying how to create a theocracy. They were studying how the great ancient societies came to be and what took them down.” Skousen’s book, “The 5000 Year Leap”, is an excellent reference to governments throughout history that failed and why the Founders sought a different way.
https://www.amazon.com/5000-Year-Leap-Cleon-Skousen/dp/0880801484
JAFO, you were reading my mind. When I wrote that comment, I had The 5000 Year Leap in mind. It was the first book I read in my studies.
Same here. A great first book, for students of every age! 😊
“Show me one that is trying to whitewash history.”
Religious academics have been doing just that for decades. They ignore their own history, the Dark and Middle Ages, and their attempts to kill both the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Or they try to argue, like the socialists, that the barbarities of that era were not caused by their irrational ideas, but instead by “bad people.” Or they create a strawman, e.g., by smearing the Enlightenment in order to make religion more palatable. And today, they try to argue that the Dark Ages wasn’t so dark. (Of far less importance is that some commenters on this blog use the same whitewashing and smear tactics.)
Olly, I have been studying and teaching the history of ideas for some 35 years. I am steeped in how history’s major ideologies use various ruses to make themselves look better than they are, and to misrepresent their ideological opposition.
Or they try to argue, like the socialists, that the barbarities of that era were not caused by their irrational ideas, but instead by “bad people.”
Hmmm? So the barbarities were committed by irrational ideas and not by “bad people?” Can’t have that. If only someone would stop bad ideas from existing, and then the world would be a better place for it. Sounds a lot like an anti-2nd amendment argument. Get rid of the guns and voila, no more gun violence. If only someone steeped in history would show how preventing people from having “irrational” ideas ever made them secure in their rights, liberty, property and their pursuit of happiness.
“So the barbarities were committed by irrational ideas and not by ‘bad people?’”
You misrepresented my point. Read more carefully, and present your opposition more honestly.
Sam, I independently read what Olly said and don’t see where he went wrong.
You forget or do not recognize that religion fills needs and is positive. Left empty worse things can fill the spot. The faith religion of leftism has done that for many atheists.
Correct and well said. I’m reminded of this quote:
“This is the mentality that the left has gotten this deference to authority. And they say things like ‘Trust the science’, ‘Have faith in the science’. You don’t have faith in science. You have faith in religion. Science is empirical data. The reason why we know about the speed of light and black holes and all that stuff, and we have a different idea about gravity, is because Einstein challenged science to question science. You don’t have faith in it. You don’t trust science. You question it. Lies don’t like to be questioned. Truth doesn’t mind being challenged.” –author unknown
…and this one…
“The current inverted mutation of liberalism is all about constricting economic and personal rights and forcing individuals into collective boxes where their individuality is subsumed into an easily exploited and manipulated conformist whole. Want to test out this hypothesis? Go up to some self-described liberal or progressive in your life and see if you can find one iota of deviation from any of the approved liberal dogma. Good luck. You won’t find a smidgeon of nonconformity. You won’t detect a molecule of dissent. These people are the Borg, if the Borg worked in a giant space coffee house, had Bernie stickers on their spaceships, and could not do a push-up. You can’t reason with them – appealing to reason is futile.” -Kurt Schlichter
Thanks, JAFO
“These people are the Borg,” Exactly.
JFAO wrote:
“This is the mentality that the left has gotten this deference to authority. And they say things like ‘Trust the science’, ‘Have faith in the science’. You have faith in religion. Science is empirical data.
It is not just the Left. Atheists and the ignorant (often the same population) defer to themselves (as Sam does) or to disciplines with which they are not intimately familiar. As I showed in my comment about evolving paradigms wrt atherosclerosis, that which we preach in medicine changes, evolves, is disproven decades later. an intelligent physician and / or medical researcher knows that current diagnostic and treatment paradigms might appear to be true today but will likely be disproven down the road. A plastic surgeon / dermatologist specialist in South Beach, my previous physician because skin cancer runs in Caribbean people, told me something startling when I last saw him. He said that half of what he was taught in medical school and residency is no longer true. An example is duodenal ulcers: then it was taught that it was a manifestation of anxiety. Today we know it is caused by a bacteria, Helicobacter pylori. Statins have been a huge moneymaker for pharma. It turns out their efficacy is not in reducing cholesterol. High intensity statins like Atorvastatin (Lipitor) and Rosuvastatin (Crestor) have anti-inflammatory properties at the RNA level. Not even their manufacturers knew it. Older statins are no longer used that were once hailed as miracle drugs.
There is nothing pure, certain, infallible, empirical. No discipline can claim these. Lying about how reliable science or rationalism are demonstrates that the individuals have little familiarity with these disciplines. Sam has shown us he is full of himself, deferring to himself, and appealing to himself. He is hardly alone. Our country has rejected religion, so Sam is the norm. This is why I often critique “conservatives” as presumably Sam subscribes as an ideology. The latter have replaced God with their golden calf of conservative ideology, made in their own image, just like Sam.
Estovir, Atheists fail to see they practice their own alternative religion, Atheism. To his credit, even Hawking concluded the Universe and the rules that guide it must be the result of Intelligent Design. Isn’t their lack of empirical evidence to support their belief a Higher Power does not exist, did not create the universe and everything in it, based on nothing more than faith itself?
Estovir,
It’s fascinating how I get articles in my feed related to the very topics we are discussing. This essay was posted by Dr. Robert Malone and I believe it is directly related to what you posted here.
I think Michael Crichton – physician, producer, and writer – explained it best when he gave a lecture on science, politics, and consensus in 2003;
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
He continued:
Consensus is the business of politics….The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
https://maryannedemasi.substack.com/p/scientific-consensus-a-manufactured?publication_id=1044435&post_id=114089581&isFreemail=true
If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.
🤩 That is an awesome quote. Thanks for sharing. I have often said that medicine is based on scientific data but interpreted as an art. Even so, what was once considered conclusive, solid data, as with statins and atherosclerosis as a lipid storage disorder 30 years ago, can change as well. The best physician and research scientist is the one who believes emphatically that paradigms evolve and everything we do in the clinic is based on belief, to answer JAFO. Nothing is real folks, and frankly that doesn’t bother the Christian in the slightest. Read any of the beautiful speeches delivered by Abraham Lincoln during his presidency. He knew it was best to show fear of the Lord, and encouraged all Americans to do likewise, and this from a man who was a product of the ideas of the Enlightenment of John Locke, author of The Reasonableness of Christianity.
Buenas noche.
Oremus!
TE DEUM Hymn of Saint Ambrose, 4th Century AD
You are God: we praise you;
You are the Lord; we acclaim you;
You are the eternal Father:
All creation worships you.
To you all angels, all the powers of heaven,
Cherubim and Seraphim, sing in endless praise:
Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might,
heaven and earth are full of your glory.
The glorious company of apostles praise you.
The noble fellowship of prophets praise you.
The white-robed army of martyrs praise you.
Throughout the world the holy Church acclaims you;
Father, of majesty unbounded,
your true and only Son, worthy of all worship,
and the Holy Spirit, advocate and guide.
You, Christ, are the king of glory,
the eternal Son of the Father.
When you became man to set us free
you did not shun the Virgin’s womb.
You overcame the sting of death
and opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers.
You are seated at God’s right hand in glory.
We believe that you will come and be our judge.
Come then, Lord, and help your people,
bought with the price of your own blood,
and bring us with your saints
to glory everlasting.
V. Save your people, Lord, and bless your inheritance;
R. govern and uphold them, now and always.
V. Day by day we bless you;
R. we praise your name for ever.
V. Keep us today, Lord, from all sin;
R. have mercy on us, Lord, have mercy.
V. Lord, show us your love and mercy;
R. for we put our trust in you.
V. In you, Lord, is our hope;
R. and we shall never hope in vain.
“[H]ow could men such as these be so smart, so right about our form of government, and yet believe (wrongly) about the existence of God?”
Five brief replies:
1) It is quite common for a person to be right about X, but wrong about Y.
2) Many of them were deists, not religionists.
3) They were not philosophers. They were essentially political intellectuals who build a brilliant system to protect individual rights.
4) The issue is the *arguments*, not who made the arguments.
5) Many of them, e.g., Madison and Jefferson, explicitly rejected key tenets of religion, e.g., miracles.
Five brief replies:
1) It is quite common for a person to be right about X, but wrong about Y. I’m seeing that.
2) Many of them were deists, not religionists. Deists, Christians, Followers of Christ, but not zealots.
3) They were not philosophers. They were essentially political intellectuals who build a brilliant system to protect individual rights. Your first point is irrelevant.
4) The issue is the *arguments*, not who made the arguments. So you’ve studied history and completely ignored who made arguments. That’s pure BS.
5) Many of them, e.g., Madison and Jefferson, explicitly rejected key tenets of religion, e.g., miracles. Yup. They weren’t the first and obviously not the last. But they still believed in a Creator and established a form of government to secure the right to believe and not believe.
You might enjoy the following book:
Atheist Delusions The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies by David B. Hart
https://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Delusions-Christian-Revolution-Fashionable/dp/0300111908
“A devastating dissection of the ‘new atheism,’ a timely reminder of the fact that ‘no Christianity’ would have meant ‘no West,’ and a rousing good read. David Hart is one of America’s sharpest minds, and this is Hart in full, all guns firing and the band playing on the deck.”
—George Weigel, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington
I’ve ordered it. Thank you
“Deists, Christians, Followers of Christ . . .”
Wow, is that sloppy.
The Enlightenment deists rejected Christ as the son of God, as the symbol of atonement, and anything that smacked of revelation.
If that’s a “follower of Christ,” then it’s super-light Christ.
“Your first point is irrelevant.”
To an issue in metaphysics (e.g., arguments for and against the existence of God)?! Learn some basic philosophy.
“So you’ve studied history and completely ignored who made arguments. That’s pure BS.”
Your “who” is an appeal to authority. Been a fallacy for centuries. And still is.
“Sam, you don’t need to be hostile towards those that believe in God . . .”
It’s not “hostility.” It’s a vigorous rejection of an ideology that I regard as inimical to man’s life, happiness, freedom. And, fundamentally, it’s not even that. It’s a passionate love for the values of reason, this world, prosperity and happiness.
😍 Aw, your passionate love, demonstrated through a vigorous rejection of beliefs you do not share, can only result with worldwide prosperity and happiness. Yeah, that’s reasonable.
“Aw, your passionate love . . .”
Your sarcasm and hostility are swamping your civility.
Too bad. Up to that point, it was a reasoned debate.
Sam, one question, do you prefer our natural rights to have come from God that no man can take away, or do you prefer our natural rights coming from man who can take those rights away whenever he desires?
Surely Seth, someone such as Sam, who deeply believes in reason and individualism won’t fall for that ideological ruse that our rights don’t come from “enlightened” people. You see, according to Sam, the barbarism historically perpetrated against humanity is not the result of “bad people” acting on their sinful nature. No, it’s been committed by unenlightened people with irrational ideas.
Lordhumans know, that only truly enlightened people are good people and it’s from them the rest of humanity have been blessed with rights.“humans know, that only truly enlightened people are good people ”
Olly, Men are not angels and frequently the enlightened are the worst of all.
Our Constitution recognized this, and that is why among other things it created checks and balances, and federalism. One man (entity) checking on another.
Of course you’re correct. My comment should have been accompanied by /sarc off.
“do you prefer [. . .] or do you prefer . . .
That is a false alternative.
Rights (individual rights) come from the nature of man as a rational being. Rights are neither mystical nor social, which is the false alternative you presented.
My question was: Do you prefer our natural rights to have come from God that no man can take away, or do you prefer our natural rights coming from man?
Sam, you have spoken some words but didn’t say anything.
“nature of man”
Tell us what the nature of man is and how this all works. It seems you are creating your own faith-based religion headed by the nature of man. How does that nature of man exist? If man disappeared, would ‘the nature of man’ disappear as well? Is it an excuse? Is it chosen so you have something to believe in?
Let us dig deep into what this nature of man is. The nature of man is survival, and man will kill to survive.
Rights (individual rights) come from the nature of man as a rational being. Rights are neither mystical nor social, which is the false alternative you presented.
You asserted it was a false alternative, but you actually proved by your answer that it wasn’t. You believe rights (individual rights) come from man and not God (mystical being). Relying on the nature of man to be a rational being determining all rights is of course a fool’s errand. I’m sure you well know, any right a rational man can provide, an irrational (or rational) man can take away.
It really is not difficult to argue your case that we have unalienable rights in the absence of God or some mystical being. We merely have them because we exist. In the state of nature, rational man or irrational man had them before they even named them. They freely hunted, gathered, built shelters and defended that existence, all without stopping to consider they had a right to do so, let alone where that right came from. It wasn’t until they first needed to defend their “rights” from another man who was also hunting, gathering and building shelters that they started to rationalize the existence of those rights. Alliances began forming primarily to provide better security for the free exercise of those rights. Within these alliances, they began identifying what features of those rights individuals would disable as a system was developed to secure those rights for them. They weren’t giving up those rights to the alliance, they were agreeing to allow others to secure them. If that alliance failed in that security, they had the unalienable right to alter or abolish that agreement by enabling what they had freely disabled. This all happened whether they believed in a God or not.
Fast forward to the Age of Enlightenment and we get the breakthrough of natural rights theory. It formalized the rights of man that exist merely because man exists. It ended the justification for the divine right of kings. These rights we have naturally by our coming into existence do not come from any man, rational or irrational. Man’s role in the existence of these rights is the formal identification of their existence.
This makes the eternal debate over the existence of God moot. If one believes they have rights that come from God and not man, then that preserves their unalienable nature. If one believes they come from any source outside of man (nature), then no man can take them away. I believe they come from God and you do not. That is a natural right we both have and I can easily defend both positions.
Olly, that’s the most reasonable explanation of what (human) Rights are and from where they’re derived, I’ve heard, so far. Thanks.
Thank you JAFO. When I first came to understand unalienable rights, I hadn’t yet developed a belief in God. Because of that, I am at peace debating rights with those that are obviously “hostile” towards the existence of God.
I enjoy hearing the stories the Faithful tell, especially the ones from people who’ve returned after being declared clinically dead. The journey through the tunnel, surrounded by light, being at complete peace, seeing family and loved ones who’ve gone before, etc. I believe that journey is a real possibility because my mother passed and came back. She saw her Grandmother part way on the journey. Grandma said, ‘No it’s not your time. You still have much to do and children to raise.’ Doctor shocked her back the moment Grandma finished the word ‘raise’. I re-watched, Heaven is For Real with Gregg Kinnear recently. Gave me chills, again.
Those stories are compelling. I have to laugh at those that mock anyone who believes the experience is real. What are they afraid of, running into grandma when they die, and she tells them you are not welcome in our home?
😊
Seth,
It’s as if someone at The Federalist is following this blog. This came out today:
When discussing the American founding, it is common to hear that the Founding Fathers were not Christian and not influenced by Christian ideas. This is patently untrue.
Yet the anti-Christian scholarship of the past century, especially the past 50 years, has “downplayed or denied the degree to which the animating ideas of the American founding were deeply indebted to the Christian natural law tradition.”…
…If Christianity, the bedrock on which the natural law tradition was built, is destroyed, then the rule of law is destroyed alongside it. This permits the triumph of the will and the rule by arbitrary decree to take its place out of the ashes of that destruction.
Modern political philosophy, with its foundation in the will to power and opposition to Christianity and the natural law, necessarily ends in totalitarianism. And that is what we see sweeping the world today.
https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/13/why-we-cant-divorce-americas-founding-and-future-from-christianity/
That’s spooky, Olly.
“If you feel compelled to denigrate believers in God, just know you’re following the Marxist playbook.”
That’s just silly.
A Leftist condemns arson. I condemn arson. So I’m a Leftist?!
There have been arguments for reason and against religion long before Marxism.
There have been arguments for reason and for God as well. Someone steeped in and teaching history objectively would readily admit that.
Olly: Thanks for staying civil, and not being hostile.
Most of my adult life I was trying to be an atheist. In retrospect, I was more agnostic. Then, during the runup to the 2008 election,
Olly you could have fooled me. I thought you were a devout Christian of many decades given your comments these past several years. Your story reminds me of a very close friend of mine, 20 years. He was my attorney when I first hired him, a proud atheist, and much later I helped get him elected to circuit judge. A few years ago he told me he is leaning towards Christianity and prays. In God’s time, not ours.
Blessed Easter.
That’s kind of you to say Estovir. With all the craziness going on in the world, there is a degree of peace that I feel having found the path. Blessings to you as well.
Not all religions have gods.
Context and definitions matter.
NARA lied.
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/internal-memos-call-question-national-archives-narrative-congress-trump?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
There’s nothing new under the sun. To understand the origins of the technique used by the left today and its financial incentives, read Tom Wolfe’s “Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing The Flak Catchers” (1970). Quick, before it’s banned. The Flak Catchers portion, ironically, describes actual events which took place at City Hall in San Francisco in the late Sixties. Laugh ’til you cry. The book opens with “Radical Chic,” the hilarious true story of how Manhattan high society competed slavishly for radical bonafides. The bizarre dramas of today burst into full bloom over half-a-century ago and while cretin and comical in comparison to the tight execution by Sixties radicals who at least knew how to run an entertaining con, it all still works like a charm on clueless elites who are even more clueless than their counterparts of yesteryear. The analysis is simple — if you want to understand radicals as they understand themselves, you need only to follow the sage advice of Mark Felt, God rest his soul: Always, Always, Always, FOLLOW THE MONEY. The coffers are being filled for the Tennessee Three at this very moment. Riches beyond their wildest dreams. The gleam in their eyes, those wide smiles! Beach-house swankiendas in Malibu, back home! The con is on. Tennessee. Poor Tennessee.
Please, can we stop calling January 6 an insurrection? An insurrection lasts more than six hours, and those involved are armed. Neither applied to January 6. The Capitol police opened the doors and most people strolled through them, then walked about aimlessly. Only a very small number pushed through police lines, unlike the 2020 riots where police were regularly attacked, people were killed, property was destroyed, and city centers were burned to ground. 2020 was an insurrection; January 6 was an unfortunate incident.
Always remember which side benefited from the riot — isn’t that a basic principle in law, or at least the first question to ask? Trump asked for the Guard to be deployed; Pelosi refused. Trump asked for extra police; DC’s mayor refused. The Republicans wanted to expose the irregularities in the elections (and there many ‘novelties’), but the riot prevented that.
Cui bono?
And the Capitol is not ‘sacred,’ it is a public building where the people used to be welcome. Not now. It is a temple.
It is too absurd. Even those trying to defend the Constitution and public order have lost the plot.
As for the business in Nashville, the leader of the Republican super-majority explained that the two expelled were dealt a more severe punishment because they had been consistently interrupting committee work and had refused to abide by the rules of the chamber. It was not a single incident, although I am curious to know from the lawyers out there whether they may actually have been guilty of ‘incitement,’ given the unruliness of the crowd, the proximity of the crowd to the legislators and police, and the threats from the mob (well, it’s just a word, right?) . . . .
It was an insurrection. Period. Those who stormed the capitol tried to interrupt the transfer of power.
Then so was what happened in the Tennesee State Capitol.
“Then so was what happened in the Tennesee State Capitol.”
What transfer of power was occurring in Tennessee? Tennessee was about protesting about the lack of action on gun because of the Nashville shooting.
They disrupted the legislative process.
@Michael
Exactly. That’s the felony that the J6 people are being charged with.
Those legislators in TN have immunity from prosecution. However they do not have immunity from being expelled, which is what has been reported as what one asked for.
This is Kabuki theater. Notice the white woman was silent?
She wasn’t expelled even though she was standing there. She knew she wouldn’t be.
Then she claims the GOP legislators were racist.
It was planned and staged.
-G
ATS are you trying to nitpick and be ignorant while you do it? If the legislature listened to the crowd or was coerced by them, it would have been a tremendous transfer of power from the legislature to the mob.
Compare the violence in TN and in DC. Your leftist movements are intentionally small attempts of sedition. The DC event was a protest with scattered violence from all sides, the left right, center and police.
Listening to the crowd is not a “tremendous transfer of power.”
Do you think a state legislature that is responsive to its electorate is a “transfer of power”?
The purpose of J6 was not to discuss a bill before Congress. Its stated purpose was prevent Pence’s certification of the election results. If they had been successful, it would have been a coup, because they would have installed an undemocratically elected person as President. THAT is a transfer of power. Speech is not.
The state legislators were essentially engaging in unsanctioned filibustering. Censure is probably appropriate. Expulsion is ridiculous.
Much of what you write is correct.
Just as the same things are true of the TN protests.
It is Incorrect that attempts to stop the certification of the election by protest can EVER be a Coup or attempted Coup.
J6 was the consequence of the lawless manner in which the 2020 election was conducted.
State Election laws SHOULD have been followed.
State Executives and courts should NOT have used covid as an excuse to monkey with elections – especially not in ways that had NOTHING at all do to with Covid.
When Election results were subsequently challenged there SHOULD have been THOROUGH investigations.
When that failed to occur Congress should NOT have certified the election.
These are NOT obligations owed the Trump. They are DUTIES of the government itself.
It is not any candidates job to prove an election was fraudulent.
It is the states job to conduct the election such that people Trust it.
YOU Failed.
That SHOULD have had consequences.
J6 was a last ditch hail mary effort to thwart a lawless and untrustworthy election.
Even today majorities of the electorate beleive that 2020 had problems that likely altered the outcome.
We should never have an election where 20% of the electorate doubts the outcome.
State election laws were followed. Republicans didn’t like that state laws were not giving them the advantage they were expecting. So they chose to make election fraud claims unsupported by facts or evidence. They were hoping to win, and when they realized they were not going to, they decided to lie and try to cheat thru the courts by making baseless claims that have been either debunked or proven false by their investigations.
“When Election results were subsequently challenged, there SHOULD have been THOROUGH investigations.”
There were thorough investigations. Even though Republican studies were complete, they still didn’t want to accept that their claims were not credible or backed by evidence. We know that your idea of what “thorough” is is to keep investigating until the one piece of evidence that may prove the claims faithful comes up, and when that doesn’t happen, you cling to the idea that the lack of evidence is proof of those claims. It’s an absurdity in perpetuity.
State election laws were CHANGED.
No state election laws were not followed.
PA, NV, GA, AZ, MI, WI all have state constitutional provisions that REQUIRE secret ballot elections.
Mailin voting in those – and 38 states violate those states constitutions.
Inarguably the LAW was not followed.
In PA and many other states Voter ID is required.
Each voter must present government issued photo ID, as well as have their signature verified before they are allowed to vote.
That did not happen.
In PA ballots must be dropped off at “THE COUNTY ELECTION OFFICE” – that is not a unattended ballot box in the middle of a field.
All states have chain of custody requirements. There is not a single state of the 6 swing states that did not have over 200,000 ballots missing chain of custody.
In WI absentee ballots in nursing homes went from 10,000 in 2018 to 149,000 in 2020. WI requires local election officials to come to a nursing home provide a senior who wishes to vote with a ballot, and to collect that ballot – that is required to meet secret ballot laws.
Only a few thousand WI ballots were administered that way.
WI has ballots from people who are legally incompetent. Who are in a coma. who do not know how to ask for a ballot and who do not recall voting.
We recently had a women in NM I beleive who made 11,000 political donations to Act Blue in one year.
This is a strong indication that ActBlue is engaged in election fraud. That they are basically constructing fraudulent records to record illegal donations as having come from other donors.
Recent evidence from AZ has ballots with no DL number (which is NOT the same as providing photo ID), and no signature at all.
Or Ballots where the signature is just two initials, and not the initials of the voter. Or signatures were the first letter fo the firt name and the last name do not match the voter. or signatures that are identical for thousands of voters
John Smith and Jane Doe can not both be “SS”
In the recent WI special election there is evidence that people were given $250 gift cards in return for their vote.
There is evidence fo simlar fraud in MI in 2020, In AZ we know that ballot harvestors were getting $10 for Ballots and their supervisors far more. Ballot harvesting is illegal everywhere except CA.
Laws were not followed.
The above is just a SMALL sample of the lawlessness.
Further those of you on the left keep getting caught in lies.
People who lie, cheat and steal in elections whould likely also committ fraud.
I have provided a list of some of the lawlessness in the 2020 election.
You can scoff, but some of it is completely beyond dispute.
You can review state constitutions for secret ballot requirements.
You can review state election laws for other specific requirements such as voter ID, or chain of custody that were not met.
Svelaz – like with many many many other things – you have been provided massive amounts of often irrefutable evidence that falsifies your claims.
Neither I nor anyone else should have to list the lengthy evidence that you constantly deny.
That evidence does not go away just because I have only listed it all once in the past month.
You are constantly proven false, go silent wait a few days and make the same false claims over and over.
That is lying.
It is not republicans or J6 protestors that are blind to the truth and the facts – it is YOU.
We can debate specific claims of fraud.
But the lawlessness is beyond debate.
We KNOW what state constitutions and election laws say and we know what occured and they are not the same – that is called lawlessness.
When you will not follow the election laws of a state or its constitution – why should anyone expect that you will not commit fraud ?
Oh What a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive.
This country is not a democracy.
We have NEVER had a democratically elected president.
You can not thwart something that has never been true before.
Regardless J6 was NOT an effort to install Trump as president and Thwarting certification of the election would not have accomplished that.
If you can not get the actual facts straight – how can you be trusted at all ?
Certification of the election is not ceremonial. It is a power of Congress. Failure to certify on J6 would NOT have installed Trump as president.
Had congress failed to certify on J6 one of three possible outcomes would have occurred.
Congress could have certified at a later date.
Congress could have accepted that the election had failed and followed the constitution and voted on the next president themselves.
The odds of Trump winning such a vote were very very very slim.
Congress could have done nothing and Pelosi would have become acting president on Jan 20.
There are other things Congress could have done – such as directing the National Guard to recount challenges states,
or setting up an independent election commission to make recommendations.
But unless Congress either certified the election results or elected Trump or Biden as president prior to J20, Pelkosi would have been acting president until the election issue was resolved.
There is no Coup. There is no possible Coup. Frankly an actual coup in the US is nearly impossible.
The closest we can come is the conspiracy to take Trump out that occured within the Deep State post the 2016 election that democrats are complicit in.
J6 like the TN protests was legitimate political protest.
You do not like people claiming Trump won the election, when you beleive that is false.
I do not like people advocating for gun control which will not accomplish anything.
But regardless of what you do not liek and what I do not like people are allowed to protest government.
https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1643110500631289862/czQvPcuV?format=png&name=large
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/the-u-s-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy/
Representative democracies are — wait for it — democracies.
We are not a representative democracy.
I am not even slightly interested in this garbage.
Democracy does not appear ONCE int he declaration of independence.
It does not appeal in the constitution.
It occasionally appears int he writing of our founders – and most of the time they speak of it disparagingly.
The central defining aspect of our government is in the declaration of independence.
Government exists to secure our rights.
That is absolutely antithetical to the entire concept of democracy.
Our Government has some majoritarian provisions – it is rife with anti-majoritarian and super majoritarian provisions.
And still at the end of the day the protection of Individual rights is the foundation of govenrment.
There are other countries in the world that are arguably Democracies – Republican democracies.
The US is not one of those. In most of the world the scope and power of government is not constrained by the concept of rights.
As the US declaration of independence makes clear – the protection of individaual rights is the sole justification for govenrment.
That is NOT democracy. That is about as antidemocratic as you can get.
The declaration makes clear that the people have the right to alter or abolish their current form of govenrment.
But whatever they put in its place MUST be solely tasked with protecting individual rights.
Regardles,s Volokh is brilliant – but he is in this instance Wrong.
While the US is a republic – that is NOT the core issue.
The fundimental reason that the US is not a democracy is that In the US individual Rights not only Trump the will of the majority.
The protection of individual rights is the sole legitimate purpose of government.
In the US the purpose of government is the protection of rights. That is about as antidemocratic as you can get.
Democracy is not just about structure. It t is about principle. In a democracy the rights of the people are determined in some form by the majority. In the US actual rights are not. Rights are unalienable. God Given. Superseding the will of the majority.
In an actual democracy(any form) they are not. This is also why Healthcare is not a right – and can never be.
If you beleive that rights can be created directly or indirectly by the majority – then you are democratic.
If you beleive rights come from god or nature and are inaleinable – that is antidemocratic.
Volokh is arguing semantics.
While the US is a republic not a democracy. The debate is not about structure – a republic is a structure.
You can have a democratic republic – the US is NOT a democratic republic. We are a republic as a matter of structure.
Having limited semi-majoritarian processes does not make a nation a democracy. not a direct democracy, not an indirect democracy.
In the US the majority of people can not vote away individual rights (direct democracy)
The can not elect representatives – and then vote away individual rights – (indirect democracy).
They can not elect representatice and then by super majorities vote away individual rights.
Individual rights are NOT subject to the majority in Any form.
And that is why the US is not a democracy in any form.
Progressives primarily – though sometimes conservatives have worked tirelessly since our founding to destroy that core premis,
To convert this country into some form of democracy.
They have succeded in Weakening the absolute protection of individual rights,
Btu they have not as of yet destroyed it.
The US was not founded as a democracy or ANY Form. It is NOT a democracy of any form.
But that antidemocratic principle, that preeminence of individual rights that is most clearly stated in the declaration.
Which is one of the most important document ever written, still remains significantly intact.
Eugene Volokh is very wise. Btu even smart people are often wrong.
For someone who is “not even slightly interested in this garbage,” you’ve posted an excessive amount of verbiage.
You apparently do not understand the DoI. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” A government that derives its power from the consent of the governed is a democracy, whether you can admit it or not.
I won’t waste my time with the rest of your verbiage.
“A government that derives its power from the consent of the governed is a democracy, ”
A person with a penis is not a woman.
Did you actually read the DOI ?
Jefferson did not say – democracies derive their power from the consent of the governed.
He said Gonvernments derived their powers fromt he consent of the governed.
ALL Governments. Democracies, Republics Dictatorships Monarchies.
In the late 80’s first the East German govenrment – and then the entire Soviet Union collapsed.
Why ? Because the government had lost the consent of the governed.
I know the GDR claimed to be a democracy – but are you actually saying that it was ?
Regardless – if that is your idea of a democracy – the debate is over – whatever you call the GDR – neither I not most americans want any part of that.
I would suggest reading John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” – there is a section where Mill is extrmely critical of democracy – specifically because authoritarian governments are MORE responsive to the people.
When a King acts to restrict liberty – everyone knows EXACTLY who to blame. Kings are limited in the degree to which they can infringe on the liberty of their subjects without “losing their consent”.
While in a democracy there is no limit to the desire of our neighbors to meddle in our lives, and we tolerate far more draconian infringements on out liberty when they are alleged from the majority.
Regardless with sufficient force – any form of government can decrease the degree of consent it requires to be sustainable.
But there is ALWAYS a threshold at which the people will revolt – regardless of the form of government.
If the consent of the governed is your definition of democracy – than all governments are democracies.
regardless, you are making an absurd and poorly thought out argument.
I would further note that if you claim consent of the governed makes a government a democracy – again – that would make the GDR a democracy. Russia a democracy, Cuba a democracy. Nazi Germany a democracy.
I presume when you claim the US is a democracy – you are trying to claim that is something Good ?
Yet some of the most heinous governments in the world have been democracies by YOUR definiton ?
Again – do you think about your arguments before you make them ?
If I were to concede your definition of democracy – as YOU understand it – something that requires willfull blindness to myriads of contradictions.
Then you have defined democracy as nearly meaningless.
As I noted government does not exist without the consent of the governed. Jefferson was clearly making a universal claim.
He was saying Everyone Everywhere is entitled to create new governemtn when the old ceases to have the consent of the governed. More specifically he was claiming that England DID have that consent from colonists and through abuse had lost it. Was 18th century England a democracy ?
Look I can go on picking this stupid claim of yours apart for hours.
Please think more than surface deep before posting nonsense.
Regardless either your definition of democracy is so broad it is all encompassing. Or evenh if you pretend it does not cover ALL government it must cover so many forms of government as to be nearly all encompassing.
Presumably you are trying to argue that democracy is some how a virtuus form of government ?
How so if it includes that of Iran. Venezuela, the Taliban ? Either democracy means majoritarian government where the majority – either indirectly or indirectly is the defining principle – i.e. there are no rights that supercede the will of the majority, or you have defined it so broadly that the term is nearly meaningless.
It is YOUR argument that is clear nonsense.
Do you think about what you write before you post ?
Did you think about what is excluded when you claim that a democracy is government that has the consent of the governed ?
What is it that you think that definition excludes. excludes ?
The broadest defintion of democracy that is nto so generic that it includes all or nearly all government is government by majority rule. You can argue that we can have indirect democracy – through representatives. Many representative governments throughout the world would fit that defintion of democracy.
But the US would not. Majoritarianism is NOT a principle in the US government. We have rights – which can not be overcome by the majority.
And we have numerous other deliberately antidemocratic provisions in our government.
Using a somewhat broad definition of republic a republic could also be a democracy.
But the Republic of the United States is NOT a democracy.
Again, “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
Only an idiot would insist that “Dictatorships” have just powers and that citizens consent to that form of government.
Of course dictatorships have the consent of the governed.
That is trivial to determine.
When dictatorships lose the consent of the governed – the people revolt in one form or another.
Not even a dictatorship can endure against a people that broadly are willing to withdrawl their assent.
Again – actuall read what I posted.
What caused the GDR to collapse ?
Trivially it sufficiently lost the consent of the governed and there was not sufficient force to overcome that that the government simply vaporized.
YOU are presuming that consent is binary.
I do not consent to Joe Biden as president – yet he is still there.
His approval rating is below 40% – yet he is still their.
Dictators remain in power because those who do support them are willing to intimidate those who do not sufficiently that the consent of a minority is sufficient.
But even dictators fall – when they lose the support of their own, or when those that oppose them do so strongly enough that their supporters do not have sufficient force to bring them back in line.
As an example in the GDR Honecker called up the military to put down protests – and they did not come. He called up the Russians and they did not come.
The earlier Prague and Hungarian revolutions would have succeeded – except that the Soviets interveined.
Regarless all this is simple math.
A dictator remains in power when sufficient numbers support him AND they have greater ability and willingenss to use force than those who oppose him.
That is still the consent of the governed.
What it is not is “consent of the majority”
You seem to think I am trying to sell dictatorship.
I am just trying to point out to you how governance actually works.
And that AGAIN the US is NOT a democracy.
The DOI did not define democracy.
It documenbted the actual foundations of government – ALL Government.
You can not read. You can not engage in critical thinking.
You can not grasp the obvious flaws in your poor surface level reading of pretty much anything.
You have failed in your argument.
If Dictatorships do not require consent of the governed – then why do they fail ?
The issue is not is their consent – but the degree of consent.
I do not think there is anyone alive who consents to everything that government in the US does – state local and federal.
How many candidates have been elected unanimously ?
The line that you calim defines democracy in the DOI does not EVER say anything about majority consent.
All government exists only with the consent of the governed PERIOD.
How much consent is necescary is variable depending on the amount of FORCE supporters are willing to use against opponents and how much opponents are willing to resist.
This is a lesson older than Jefferson and the declaration. Frankly it is as old as the most privative human government.
John, long ago, I asked ATS the most basic questions defining government. He failed then and, to date, hasn’t learned anything.
He does not understand the phrase, the consent of the governed, and I am afraid he never will. It is not in his DNA to understand. That is why he can quote smart people but misses what those people are saying.
He does not understand the relationship between democracy and dictatorship.
https://youtu.be/G0tZLpHsSFQ
John, thanks for the video. Everything revealed about the Biden Administration’s authoritarian approach towards his enemies was apparent very early in the game. One could even say before the game started because the powers on the left cheated, and many of those people are the same people behind the mouthpiece and crook, Joe Biden.
That is why we had to prevent him from gaining office. We are now dealing with a bureaucracy willing to cheat and steal. It is now more difficult to manage than before. I think the tipping point was when Obama was elected for a second term.
Thanks
You can pick a starting point almost anywhere.
The fact that there were no consequences for using the IRS to target conservatives was a huge deal.
Recently it was discovered that the FBI group meddling in the 2020 election was created in his last days by Obama.
As were the public private censorship coalitions.
We have gone FAR beyond the FBI’s CONINTEL pro programs in the 60’s – which mostly targeted actual radicals.
To Democrats targeting Everyone who disagrees with them.
Obama was actually spying on Democrats.
“Recently it was discovered that the FBI group meddling in the 2020 election was created in his last days by Obama.”
John, I had two major reasons I felt the turning point would be Obama’s second term. 1) If the American public was dumb enough to reelect him then they would not notice how he was changing America and making it weak of mind, spirit, and strength. 2) That would mean that Obama would continue his term outside the Presidency by peppering the government bureaucracy with things that would favor his cause, the left, a transformed America.
Given that I and many others do not beleive the powers that the US government wields are just – how does that fit your argument ?
Further I did not say that I thought dictatorships were legitimate, only that YOU chose the language of the DOI as the defintion of Democracy, and I pointed out that it fits dictatorships.
As to What is just powers – YOU seem to think the current powers of the Federal Government are just. I do not find them wither just or constitutional.
Many in Cuba and Venezeula think the powers of their govenrment are just.
I would further note that Jefferson DID define what the “Just powers” of government are.
Those powers than secure the rights of individuals.
That does not fit the US today. Nor dictatorships.
Your claim that the DOI language defined democracy and that therefore the US is a democracy fails twice.
The US governemnt excercises powers that are beyond the just powers in the DOI, The US governemtn certainly does not have universal consent.
even the claim it has majority consernt requires a defintion of consent that means “unwilling to oppose through force”
Regarreless the DOI language does not define democracy and while the US Sometimes aspires to meet that language – that is an aspiration not a fact.
It is not wise to call someone else ignorant – when your argument is so poor.
“Regardless J6 was NOT an effort to install Trump as president and Thwarting certification of the election would not have accomplished that.”
BS. They intended to install Trump as president. The purpose behind thwarting the certification was to put Trump in office using false claims that the election was stolen. The whole idea was to install Trump despite the electorate choosing Biden. They went as far as scheming to present fake electors to ensure Trump remained in office. That is a coup.
The Russian Hoax and Obama spying on Trump along with the fake impeachments and the FAKE election were a coup. And they got what they wanted.
More confusion caused by your CONSTANT idiotic presumption that intentions alone constitute crimes.
Regardless of their long goals – protesting the certification is legal.
Successfully protesting the certiciation – i.e. persuading congress not to certify is legal – protected speech.
Successfully protesting to get election fraud investigations – i.e. persuading congress to direct them – is legal – protected speech.
Successfully protesting to get Congress to vote Trump into the office of president – i.e. persuading congress to vote for Trump is legal – protected speech.
Even protesting the actual transfer of power is legal protected free speech.
The “intent” of your protest is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the protest.
You can protest to legalize pedophilia – legally.
TN protestors sought gun control laws.
Those laws are idiotic farces that accomplish nothing.
There is a million times more evidence that the 2020 electionw as stolen than that gun control laws accomplish anything.
Whether you like it or not people are free to protest Stupidly.
They are free to protest to get government to act stupidly.
Once again – Crimes are ACTS – they are illegitimate uses ofr FORCE.
Destroying the property of others is a crime. Those few who did so at J6 should be prosecuted.
Stealing property is a crime.
Inititiating force against another is a crime – that occurred in small numbers at J6 and TN.
Trying to persaude a legislature to act on a prefered way is NOT A CRIME.
“More confusion caused by your CONSTANT idiotic presumption that intentions alone constitute crimes.”
Intent to commit a crime is a crime. It’s what the law says. Didn’t you know that? Is criminal intent a crime?
Criminal intent, also known as mens rea, refers to the mental state required to convict a party of a crime. Along with a criminal act, or the actus reus, criminal intent is one of the fundamental aspects of criminal law.
“Regardless of their long goals – protesting the certification is legal.”
Of course, it is, but engaging in violence to achieve those goals is not.
“There is a million times more evidence that the 2020 electionw was stolen than that gun control laws accomplish anything.”
LOL!! Nope. There has been little to no evidence that the election was stolen. On the contrary, even Republican investigations have shown that to be true.
Have I ever claimed that mens rea was not AN element of most crimes ?
Your response has just ceded this entire debate.
There is no crime without a criminal ACT – or “actus Rea”
You have repeatedly argued that a criminal act is not necescary – that intent alone constitutes a crime.
That is nonsense litterally out of just about every dystopia ever – thought crime.
But not only is an act necescary for a crime. The act itself MUST be criminal in nature.
It must be an act initiating force or Fraud against another eitehr actually causing actual harm or in the instance of incompleted conspiracies with the very high potential of actual harm.
There is no crime of fraudulently conspiring to benefit another.
Regardless, you have burned your whole argument to the ground.
Engaging in Violence is NOT sufficient to make something a crime.
You must initiate violence without justification.
Further if you are trying to claim a crime beyond the violence itself you must proved that you intentionally engaged in violence for the purpose of effectuating some other goal.
This is why regardless of our incomplete understanding of the extent and initiators of violence on J6, there can be no crime of insurrection.
That would require premeditated violence – every single thing you have claimed was a weapon at J6 is PROOF there was no premeditation.
Protesters did not come with hundreds of AR-15s. They did not come with hundreds of baseball bats – you have not proved they came with any.
They did not come with hundreds of pitchforks.
Nor is bring weapons ALONE sufficient to prove a crime. You would have to prove the weapons were brought for OFFENSIVE not defensive purposes.
The alt-right at Charlotte cam with Sheilds and a variety of DEFENSIVE weapons. Only the counter protestors came with OFFENSIVE weapons.
There is no defensive purpose to a frozen water bottle. But even an AR-15 or a baseball bat can be defensive.
To get insurection you have to PROVE
The premeditated intent to INITIATE Offensive Force to accomplish a purpose that whether legitimate or not, you can not legitimately accomplish BY FORCE.
You are not within 10,000 miles of that.
Still oblivious to the facts regarding the 2020 election.
Did the electorate chose Biden ?
Absent investigations that did not occur – we can not know that.
Regardless, the election is a Step in the process of becoming president.
It is typically the most important one.
But it is not the sole one.
We have state certification and appointment of electors – which according to the constitution is the responsibility of the legislature.
We have those electors voting.
We have congress certifying – and if congress does not we have congress voting.
If all of the above fail to produce a result – the speaker of the house becomes acting president.
Regardless you are not elected president until Congress certifies the election or Votes you in as president.
It is rare that the vote in a state is not accepted at each subsequent step.
But rare is not the same as non-existant.
“Did the electorate chose Biden ?
Absent investigations that did not occur – we can not know that.”
Multiple investigations did occur, both Republic and Democrat. We know for sure that Biden did win. The electorate did choose Biden. We know because Congress certified Biden’s win.
“Multiple investigations did occur, both Republic and Democrat. We know for sure that Biden did win. The electorate did choose Biden. We know because Congress certified Biden’s win.”
The only actual investigations that occured found indicia of significant fraud.
Most of what you call an investigation is NOT.
Courts that refused to allow inquiry are not investigationsl/
Standing is not a finding of fact.
Laches is not a finding of fact.
Mootness is not a finding of fact.
ripeness is not a finding of fact.
Actual known FACTS
Each of the 6 swing cities is missing chain of custody on about 200K ballots. By law those ballots can not be counted.
There is a reasonable probabilty they are fraudulant.
Everywhere there has been a signature review atleast 6% of mailin ballot signatures should have been rejected. and about 0.5% were clearly fraudulent.
The only place a thorough recount was done – almost 50K ballots were from only 13K people. While that alone would have tipped the eleciton
That is more likely an indication of a massive ballot harvesting operation – There was likely more than 200K fraudulent ballots
The Ballot Box Video that TTV found proves the ballot harvesting operation BEYOND ANY DOUBT.
The Geofencing data proves the scale was atleast 400K ballots and probably more than 1M.
You can fight over the geofencing – though DOJ used it to cathc J6 defendants – if it is good enoguh for that it is certainly good enough for election fraud investigations.
Regardless, the Video suggests a large scale operation. But it PROVES beyond any doubt ballot harvesting.
Yet, no investigation.
Svelaz – you have been provided with the facts on this and innumerable other issues repeatedly.
You claim things as true that are proven false.
You claim others as true that are not even close to proven true.
This is called LYING.
When you claim someone is lying about something that is not known for cetain even today,
You are LYING.
You conflate probability with certainty.
And you telekinetically attempt to transport knowledge into the past.
This is all called LYING.
You are also seriously deluded about the law.
You add spin to legal acts that you do not like and then pretend they are crimes.
Egregiously doing something you do not like is no more a crime than just doing something you do not like.
Had Trump managed to shoot the moon with his congressional election strategy – he would have legally become president.
He would have overturned the election – and that is NOT a crime.
Even if he had done so fraudulently – that would not be a crime.
Further by making lying or fraud into election fraud – you make Biden’s election fraudulent.
The law must work the same irrespective of whether it is applied to democrats or republicans.
Censorship of the truth is lying and fraud.
Claims that gun control work are false.
Nowhere in the first amendment are your rights limited only to protest, speach petitioning government that is deamed by some as true.
Your beleifs regarding the truth of election fraud, does not change others rights to protest.
The constitution delegates the appointment of electors to the legislature.
They are not “fake”.
Where were you when Hillary tried to persuade electors to change their vote ?
What is true or false,
what is fake or real is not decided by your ideology – but by facts and constitution.
The Presidency is the not only elective office in the US. The vast majority of people who hold elective office in the US are elected directly by voters. We are a representative democracy, whether you can admit it or not.
“We are a representative democracy,”
If you wish to hold firm to that then you are short-sighted and miss the important element.
Best is Constitutional Republic and one can add a few more descriptors, but missing the Constitutional part is like missing the boat. Holding too firm to democratic means 51% can vote to enslave the other 49%. Democrats are good at enslaving, and today that is where they are heading. You seem to be leading the charge.
The presidency itself is NOT an office elected democratically.
At our Founding – only members of the house were directly elected.
Senators were appointed by the legislature.
Even today, Presidents are are chosen by a complex process that is undemocratic.
The gist of your argument that we are a democracy rests on the argument “I Say So”
You have FAILED at your claim using the DOI as that neither defines democracy – nor if it does would the U be a democracy by your mutilated interpretation.
Eitehr the language you say defines democracy covers dictators, or it does not cover the US.
Regardless, you have not come up with a defintion of democracy that Fits the US AND means what you want democracy to mean – some form of majority rule.
I raised the primary flaw in your claims at the start. The US form of govenrment recognizes the Primacy of individual rights that are inaleinable – thy are not determined by vote, by the majority.
That is true of the US it is NOT true of most of the countries you would claim are democracies.
Even in the portion of the DOI that you cite as defining democracy – you omit the portion that defines “just powers” as securing individual rights.
If you wish to assert that the Declaration as a whole defines democracy – while I do not aggree – I can work with that definition.
If that I accept that as the definition of democracy – the US is not a democracy – but and aspiring one. And no other country in the world is even an aspiring democracy.
The CORE to our disagreement – something you are NOT willing to openly address is that what most people – and with near certainty YOU,
mean by democracy is some form of majority rule.
That is NOT the US. From a purely technical perspective numerous features of the US government are deliberately ANTI-majoritarian.
Over 250 years the left has dismantled SOME of those – but a substantial number remain.
But from a principle perspective – in the US the sole purpose of govenrment is the protection of individual rights and inalienable rights trump the will of the majority.
If you are prepared to accept both of those:
That the sole purpose of government – the “just powers” of govenrment are to secure rights.
And that inalienable rights are NOT subject to the “will of the majority”
If you accept those criteria as as irrevocable constraints on your alleged US democracy – then we can pretend the US is a democracy.
But the fact that both of us KNOW is that you do not.
You seek to frame the US as a democracy – because in an actual democracy rights are not inalienable. They are determined by the majority,
and the purpose of govenrment is not to secure individual rights it is to do whatever the majority wishes.
Disavow those intrinsic attributes of ACTUAL democracy – and you can call the US govenrment whatever you want.
But words do have actual meaning. and your attempts to label the US as a democracy are not purely semantic.
You are not going to disavow the vile attributes of democracy – because those are your point. That is what you are after.
John, you are on target.
ATS knows what democracy is because he read the constitution of the USSR written in the 1920s. If he were there, he probably would have voted for Stalin. ATS thinks democracy secures a person’s rights. Again, it is not in ATS’s DNA to understand democracy, dictatorship, or natural rights. He is a Stalinist stooge type. He doesn’t understand how rights are secured and does everything he can to abort those rights.
I can not seem to respond directly to his last post.
But it was amazing.
He provided the proof of the failure of his own arguments – why do dictators control the press, speech. censor and engage in propaganda if they do not need the consent of those they govern ?
And then he outright LIES about a Franklin Quote that pretty much says the opposite of what he claims.
He is under the delusion that democracy is not authoritarian.
It is the MOST totalitarian form of government their is.
There is no tyranny that is more difficult to overcome than the tyranny of the majority.
And the next worst would be those who supress liberty wrapped in the CLAIMED authority of the majority.
This is a completely stupid argument on his part.
In a system where rights are whatever the majority decides – what prevents slavery ?
“The constitution delegates the appointment of electors to the legislature.
They are not “fake””
They are if their certification was gained by fraudulent means, which was the intent of Trump supporters in some state legislatures.
“Where were you when Hillary tried to persuade electors to change their vote ?”
Trying to persuade an elector is not illegal; impersonating an elector through fraud is. Surely you know there is a difference.
“What is true or false,
what is fake or real is not decided by your ideology – but by facts and constitution.”
It seems to be how you decide based on your ideology that relies on ignorance and denial of reality.
“They are if their certification was gained by fraudulent means, which was the intent of Trump supporters in some state legislatures.”
Neither true nor relevant.
Please familiarize yourself with history.
“Trying to persuade an elector is not illegal; impersonating an elector through fraud is. Surely you know there is a difference.”
A legislatively appointed elector is constitutionally less of a fraud than one appointed by the executive.
Regardless, this has happened before.
“It seems to be how you decide based on your ideology that relies on ignorance and denial of reality.”
Nope I pretty much stick to the constitution as well as history.
The entire core of your argument is “I beleive Trump is lying, therefore whatever he does is wrong and illegal”.
Your belief is not a fact. Not only is it not a fact. More than 50% of the country believes that it is likely that fraud and lawlessness of some kind flipped the 2020 election.
Trump was not going to win as a result of anything that happened on J6. There is no possibility at all that he would have gotten sufficient republican support to win.
It was not happening.
Just like Hillary was not going to persuade enough electors.
But that did not change the fact that what each of them sought to do was legal and constitutional.
correct.
John Podesta had the constitutional right to ask for an intelligence briefing for the electors in 2016.
“John Podesta had the constitutional right to ask for an intelligence briefing for the electors in 2016.”
What are you arguing ?
Podesta had the constitutional – first amendment right to ASK for anything.
Just as Trump has the first amendment right to claim the election was stolen.
The claim of those on the left is that the first amendment activities of Trump and J6 protestors are not protected because:
hate speech is not protected
Misinformation is not protected.
attempts to overturn and election are not protected.
Every single one of those claims is FALSE.
Political Speech is the most highly protected form of speech.
I would further note that Clintons post election claims were ACTUALLY based on a knowing Lie.
Clinton was the author of the Russian Collusion Hoax.
True.
I wonder if the First Amendment actually extends to forging evidence.
The first amendment does not cover ACTS. Forging evidence is an ACT, not speech.
There are places where expressive acts – such as erotic dancing have first amendment protection.
Or where acts for the purpose of facilitating speech such as political contributions have first amendment protection.
But it is the tight link to expression that entitles those to protection.
Forgery is not an expressive act.
Define what it means to impersonate an elector.
Had your greatest fear materialized and Congress refused to certify the election, or certified using the legislature appointed Trump slates of electors, or congress voted to elect Trump
That would not have been a coup.
That would have been an unlikely outcome that you do not like. But one that is perfectly constitutional.
A coup requires the use of FORCE not persuasion.
“Had your greatest fear materialized and Congress refused to certify the election, or approved using the legislature appointed Trump slates of electors, or congress voted to elect Trump
That would not have been a coup.”
Yes, it would have been a coup. Congress would have certified the election based on false claims of election fraud and the certifying new electors through deception. However, force is not the sole defining variable of what makes a coup.
“A coup requires the use of FORCE, not persuasion.”
There is such a thing as a “bloodless coup.” Gaining power thru fraudulent means, subversion, and false claims is still a coup. John Eastman’s attempt to use a discredited constitutional theory would not have passed the smell test in court. It was the intent of Republicans to give Trump the presidency by making false claims about the election and sowing doubt. It would have succeeded if it were not for Pence doing the right thing by acknowledging that he did not have the power to do what they wanted.
“Yes, it would have been a coup.”
Nope
“Congress would have certified the election based on false claims of election fraud and the certifying new electors through deception.”
Not true and not relevant.
Congress has acted based on false information all the time.
Famously the Golf of Tonkin, or Nigerian Yellow Cake. To name just a few.
The legitimacy and constitutionality of an act of congress does not rely on the accuracy of the information it relyies on.
“However, force is not the sole defining variable of what makes a coup.”
Pretty much is.
“A coup requires the use of FORCE, not persuasion.”
“There is such a thing as a “bloodless coup.””
Yes, still uses FORCE.
“Gaining power thru fraudulent means, subversion, and false claims is still a coup.”
Nope.
Again do you think before you post ?\
Biden was elected based on significant amounts of false information and suppression of the truth.
Does that mean his election was a coup ?
“John Eastman’s attempt to use a discredited constitutional theory would not have passed the smell test in court.”
Not discredited, historically accurate, i.e. happened before – not Eastman’s theory – Lawrence Tribes, and the courts have
ZERO jurisdiction over the congressional certification of an election – they will not touch this with a ten fot pole not matter what congress does.
And any lower court that did would be bitch slapped by scotus.
And Please cut the stupid Spin. There are plenty of people who do not like Eastman’s proposal – it is not a theory, it happened before.
It is A FACT.
It is a legitimate ut highly improbable constitutional stragey.
Your fear that it might have been successful does not change that.
“It was the intent of Republicans to give Trump the presidency by making false claims about the election and sowing doubt. It would have succeeded if it were not for Pence doing the right thing by acknowledging that he did not have the power to do what they wanted.”
Now you are reading the minds of some 300 congressional republicans ?
Pence did not “do the right thing” becauser there is no “right thing”.
Further the odds of Republicans giving Trump what he wanted was ZERO.
Mitch McConnell has stabbed Trump in the back numerous times.
Of course none of this matters.
Because the most critical FACT is that in the highly unlikely event Trump had succeeded – it would have been perfectly constitutional
I would further note that Republicans were NOT on board with the Trump plan.
A small number – not likely enough, were on board with the Cruz plan.
Which was – delay certification for 10 days. and direct the National Guard to hand count the contested states.
That was not going to happen. But if it had – with near certainty Trump would have lost.
The issue with 2020 is NOT did Biden have enough Ballots to win. But did he have enough REAL Votes.
Democrats have fought so hard to avoid any transparency in this election that they have undermined their own credibility.
I do not have any doubt that Biden had more ballots than Trump.
Turley recomended early on that Biden should have called for a hand recount.
Turley was correct that Biden would have with near certainty prevailed in a hand recount of contested states.
But by not doing so Biden gave up his best opportunity to actually End Trump.
Today we know there was a massive ballot harvesting scheme.
But that was not understood in 2020.
What was understood – and what YOU do not understand is that the results of the 2020 election were statistically highly unlikely – a giant red flag for Fraud.
Had Biden’s performance in Atlanta, Philadelphia. Los Vegas, Pheonix. Detroit and Milwaukee been the same as his preformance in other major democratic cities – he would have LOST the election – possibly in a landslide.
Biden did extraordinarily well in 6 cities that he did not coampaign and that do not ordinarily favor democrats more than other major democratic cities.
Coincidentally these are also the cities that Zuckerberg took over the elections.
This is also the reason that Powlle was so easily persauded by the DVS did it thesis.
It was the right idea, just the wrong method.
You could also bring up how he performed in Miami.
Go ahead – make whatever argument you want.
But please actually make the argument.
Biden Matched Clinton’s vote Totals in Miami in 2020.
But Trump added 100K votes to his Miami performance in 2016.
Had Biden performed as he did in Miami in the other Key cities – eh would have lost the election.
HOWEVER that analysis is weak because the DNC did not put money into Miami,
If you want ot claim lying and fraud are a coup – then Biden won in 2020 by Coup.
By your defuinition, the actions of Kevin Clinesmith, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Christopher Steele, and Hillary Clinton can be called a coup.
It was payback for the whole “Trump Colluded with Russia®™ to Steal the 2016 Election” propaganda campaign, a campaign that convinced President Jimmy Carter that Trump lost the 2016 election.
You do not seem to like payback.
Was 5/29 a legitimate protest too?
The question is NOT which events are legitimate protests.
But what conduct at those protests exceeded what was allowed.
One of the reasons that ALL the J6 video must be made public is that based on what we have now – the extent of the violence and the cause of the violence are both “opinions”.
Carlsons release of the Chansley video makes one thing abundantly clear – we can not Trust the “opinion” of the media or democrats.
That they have and will lie. Absent something I have not seen – Chansley’s convictions should be overturned.
As should anyone who entered the capital through an open door and did nothing violent while inside.
That appears to be 99% of all current convictions.
Further all the insurection and sedition and disrupting a proceeding charges should be dismissed. It is self evident those are all without merit.
Perhaps the 5/29 security footage (5/29 refers to the riot in front of the White House) should be released too.
J6 protestors were engaged in unsanctioned fillibuster.
Well except that it was actually sanctioned – by the first amendment.
Its stated purpose was to prevent Pence’s certification of the election results. If they had been successful, it would have been a coup,”
Pure silliness. They did not try to use force to stop certification. That is a lie. I don’t know the complete story of what occurred in TN, but that sounded worse and might have gotten to the point of violence in the Capitol building. You should worry about the latter, not the former (J6) which was at least in part precipitated by agitators from the government and leftists including leftist leaders such as Nancy Pelosi. You are a leftist so you don’t want to admit the truth, nor do you want anyone else to spell it out for you.
And that would have been a bad thing?
This is a good op-ed to describe what is happening in Israel now and will reoccur in 2024. It has happened elsewhere as well. It’s a solid warning.
https://zoa.org/2023/04/10447513-tobin-in-jns-from-now-on-resistance-to-election-results-will-be-the-norm/
No transfer of power was occuring on J6.
The transfer of power is at the inauguration.
The portests at J6 were because of a lack of action regarding election fraud.
The Kavanaigh protests sought to twarts his confirmation as Supreme court justiice – that is an actual investiture of power.
Logic is not your Forte.
It should be a huge clue that you have a problem when YOUR choice of words to describe something are OBVIOUS error.
I would further note that myriads of J6 protesters were charged with obstructing a proceeding.
Which is Exactly what TN protesters were doing.
I would note that TN legislators did respond to the Trans School Shooting – by addressing root causes – the sexualization of children.
“The Kavanaugh protests sought to twarts his confirmation as Supreme court justiice – that is an actual investiture of power.”
The Kavanaugh protest was about protesting his nomination and not preventing his confirmation. Protesters could not prevent his confirmation. Only legislators can do that.
“I would note that TN legislators did respond to the Trans School Shooting – by addressing root causes – the sexualization of children.”
False; that was not the root cause of the shooting. Lying about the motives and reasons for the shooting are not an argument. Their demonizing of trans individuals and constant attacks from the right are the most significant indicators of why the shooter chose to act there. Christian conservatives love to judge and demagogue until someone decides to defend themselves against it. It would not be surprising if that were the motive behind the shooting.
“The Kavanaugh protest was about protesting his nomination and not preventing his confirmation. Protesters could not prevent his confirmation. Only legislators can do that.”
Correct and only legislators can chose not to certify and election.
“False;”
Only in your head.
“that was not the root cause of the shooting.”
It was not ? And you know How ?
“Lying about the motives and reasons for the shooting are not an argument.”
Lying isn’t
Telling the truth is.
Regardless there is a manifesto and lots of social media content.
The motives are not secret.
“Their demonizing of trans individuals and constant attacks from the right are the most significant indicators of why the shooter chose to act there.”
Then the J6 protestors are justified in an insurrection – you certainly demonize them, and constantly attacked them
Does your demonixation and constant attacks on those ont he right justify their taking Ar-15’s to the capital and killing cogressmen until they get what they want ?
Again an incredibly stupid argument from you.
You are not free to murder people because you do not like what they beleive.
“Christian conservatives love to judge and demagogue until someone decides to defend themselves against it.”
Left wing nuts love to judge and demagogue – until someone decides to defend themselves against it.
“It would not be surprising if that were the motive behind the shooting.”
Which would change nothing and fully justify the actions of the TN legislature.
If Trans people are justified in murdering school children because they have purportedly been denoized or judged,
Then the violent wrath of the right on the left would be fully justified.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FtTvdivXwAE3xun?format=jpg&name=small
Do you think about your own arguments and posts before hitting post ?
Do you ever consider that the arguments you make if true would be applicable to those you hate ?
People judge others all the time – your post is dripping with sanctimonious judgement of Christians and conservatives – does that justify their killing you ?
You are actually trying to justify the murder of children.
Have you no shame ?
Exactly Michael T. Ejercito!!
There is no evidence that their intention as to “interrupt the transfer of power,” a largely meaningless phrase because it is so vague. You need to document the mens rea; if you can’t, then this is just an accusation without a foundation. To date, only a small group has admitted to ‘insurrecction,’ too few even to be noticed in a crowd of hundreds.
More, Trump was sixteen blocks away when the first protesters entered the Capitol, and he had called for “peaceful” support of those in Congress prepared to question the electoral process. Do you suppose those listening to him were able to cover the sixteen blocks so quickly that they arrived before Trump finish his speech?
There were distinct groups.
But the shenanigans of Pelosi, Schumer, and the J.6 Committee not only delayed any serious investigation into the events of Jan. 6, they completely distorted the record for partisan advantage.
So, please, a little precision rather than assertion and accusation. History is full of insurrections and rebellions, and there are even a few revolutions, but none of them have anything at all in common with January 6 or what happened in Tennessee. Both of those events were crowds that got out of hand. . . . If there was a difference, it was that the police in Tennessee did not charge the crowd.
And I am curious, are buildings housing state capitols sacred shrines to liberty or houses for legislatures where the people are welcome to attend and to observe, but not to threaten and disrupt?
They wanted to question the transfer of power, or to be precise, to support Cruz and others who had prepared to do so, all according to the process followed in such situations, and followed at least once in our history without a riot. The riot occurred because the police refused access to the people, but there were not enough of them to shut down the Capitol because Pelosi and DC’s mayor refused Trump’s requests for the NG and more police.
Then there is the questions of who actually started the violence outside the Capitol and who were the ones who smashed a window, an action repeatedly shown while any exculpatory video was suppressed by Pelosi and the Democrats, including the Jan. 6 Committee.
Exactly right.
I do not care if their intent was to disrupt the transfer of power.
So long as they sought to do so through excercise of first amendment rights.
Had they showed up with AR-15’s – that would have been an insurrection.
There are very few forms of speech wich we permit to be criminalized.
Political speech is the most highly protected form of speech.
It was not an insurrection.
Period.
There was literally no chance that was going to happen unless members of Congress exercised their authority to question the certification of a number elections, which they were far too attached to their sinecures to consider in principle, let alone act upon. Do yourself a favor, Wally, and review the actual history of actual insurrections, and, with others who routinely make the same silly comment on this blog, stop giving the rest of us reason to think you ignorant.
And had congress chosen to do so that would have been perfectly legitimate.
Absolutely no one sought to “install” Trump as president.
The entirety of J6 was to use protest to persuade congress to act differently from how they were likely to.
No one sought to abridge the constitution. No one sought to take from congress any constitutional powers.
It is no more an insurrection to demand congress vote no on certification than to vote yes on gun control.
Which is EXACTLY what protestors in TN sought.
It is what all protestors everywhere all the time seek.
“Absolutely no one sought to “install” Trump as president.”
False.
Trump and his Congress supporters sought to install him as president by making false claims about the election. Fox News is currently in legal trouble for enabling that attempt. Multiple investigations, including Republican-led, have shown those claims to be false. Trump sought to overturn the election because he couldn’t accept the fact that he had lost. His narcissistic mind would never get the idea of losing to Biden, so he came up with multiple false claims and incited his supporters to disrupt the certification and push for his installment as the “rightful” winner.
We have been through the “false claims” nonsense before – more abuse of the english language.
Few claims regarding the election have been proven false.
Something is not false because you do not like it.
Something is not false because it is low probability.
“Trump and his Congress supporters sought to install him as president by making false claims about the election.”There is absolutely nothing that Trump or supporters sought that deviated form the constitutional provisions for electing the president.
You keep ignoring this.
Yet it is OBVIOUSLY correct – as it happened before.
“Fox News is currently in legal trouble for enabling that attempt.”
Again proper english not muddled garbage.
Fox is being sued for defamation. They are almost certain to win. There is plenty of case law on this.
Regardless, it has nothing to do with “enabling anything”
And again you are trying to pretend that LEGAL and CONSTITUIONAL acts that you do not like are crimes.
“Multiple investigations, including Republican-led, have shown those claims to be false.”
False.
We have been throught all this before.
There have been very very very few actual investigations, All have found serious problems.
Nearly all have found problems sufficient to tip the election.
All have found evidence of potential fraud.
All efforts to determine whether potential fraud was actual fruad have been thwarted.
In addition the election was conducted lawlessly. And we continue to conduct elections lawlessly.
It is going to take a generation to fix the harms to election integrity that the left has caused.
Trust in elections is lower than it has ever been since polsters started polling it.
In oh so many ways the US has become a banana republic – and that is entirely the fault of the left.
Even banana republicans are telling us that our moral authority is GONE – that YOU the left have destroyed it.
You have destroyed our elections.
Everything we tell other countries NOT to do – you have done.
“Trump sought to overturn the election”
Yes, that is legal and constitutional.
“because he couldn’t accept the fact that he had lost. His narcissistic mind would never get the idea of losing to Biden, so he came up with multiple false claims and incited his supporters to disrupt the certification and push for his installment as the “rightful” winner.”
I have no idea what Trump’s motives are. Nor do you. Nor do they matter.
Many people do not believe that Trump could have lost to Biden for excellent reasons.
Biden was an is an abysmal candidate and he has proven to be a worse president.
No one is the “rightful” president. There is no “right” to be president.
Regardless your entire argument is nonsense and spin.
You can not make a crime from spin.
Which case law is that?
Within the past few years there is a case against Fox – Carlson specifically and a OAN v Rachel Maddow/MS NBC
Both of those cases were discussed at length here.
That is called payback.
Let me quote an article written by Michael Tracey.
https://mtracey.medium.com/the-most-predictable-election-fraud-backlash-ever-4187ba31d430
“Trump and his Congress supporters sought to install him as president by making false claims about the election.”
Both false and irrelevant.
More than enough people voted for Joe Biden because of false claims regarding Covid, his son, Russia, his business dealings, Fracking to flip the election.
This is an incredibly stupid argument of yours.
You seem to be trying to arguing that only the left id allowed to lie to people.
Or that only the left is allowed to gain power through lies.
We do not know even today for certain the extent of 2020 Election fraud – though we do know that the election was a lawless mess.
You can not knowingly speak falsely (IE) about what was not known, and still is not.
The JWST is obliterating well established scientific truths – the “Big Bang” theory is calling apart. There are hundreds of millions of galaxies that were fully formed only a few hundred million years after the “big bang” which is impossible.
Are nearly all the scientists who have taught the Big Bang liars ?
Of course not. A lie requires that a claim is provably false, AND that it was made KNOWING it was false.
Given it is not possible to prove the election was not rigged even today, or more specifically that DVS did not rig the election – even today,
there is no lie.
A LIE is not an assertion you do not like. It is not one that you do not agree with. It is not even one that subsequently proves false.
We DO know that most everything we were told about Covid was FALSE. And that most of those telling it, knew that at the time.
We do KNOW that when Joe Biden told us that he was not involved in his sons business – that was a LIE.
We do know that when he said he never said he would ban fracking – that was a LIE.
If the standard for political legitimacy is who lies the most – YOU, the left, democrats, the media are the HUGE losers.
We are now learning from the recent military leaks that our leaders have been LYING to us about the Chinese, about the Ukraine War,
About US involvement in that war.
If the standard is LYING – You stand condemned.
In what world are YOU sufficiently truthful to pass judgement on the veracity of anyone else ?
Certainly not this one.
We here constantly from You that Trump lies if he talks.
Yet it is YOU that is true about.
You are constantly claiming that so far unfalsified claims regarding the election are lies – because they are also unproven.
Is that the standard all should apply to you ?
Where has it been proven that Trans Women are Women ?
Where is it proven that abortion is not murder ?
Where is it proven that the Biden’s are not crooks ?
You make dozens of stupid unproven claims in each post. Are each of those LIES ?
You are not a LIAR because you say things I do not beleive.
You are not a LIAR because you say things that are unlikely to be true.
You are not a LIAR because you say things have later proven to be false.
You are a LIAR because you say things are provably false at the time you say them and that you knew or were CORRECTLY told that.
An insurrection is situation in which a group, large enough to take control of a country, tries to take political control through violence.
The only significant violence on January 6th was when the coward, Michael Byrd, shot and killed, murdered, a trespassing, unarmed woman, Ashli Babbit.
The few unarmed rioters on January 6th were protesting a vote in Congress and had no capacity or intent “to take political control of their own country with violence.”
The few unarmed rioters on January 6th had no ability or intent to take violent action “…against the rulers of their country…” in order to remove them from office.
The January 6th protestors were rioting without arms, and not as an armed force.
________________________________________________________________
COLLINS DICTIONARY
insurrection
variable noun
An insurrection is violent action that is taken by a large group of people against the rulers of their country, usually in order to remove them from office.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OXFORD DICTIONARY
insurrection noun
/ˌɪnsəˈrekʃn/
/ˌɪnsəˈrekʃn/
[countable, uncountable]
insurrection (against somebody/something) a situation in which a large group of people try to take political control of their own country with violence
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OXFORD DICTIONARY
Definition of riot noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
riot noun
/ˈraɪət/
/ˈraɪət/
Idioms
[countable] a situation in which a group of people behave in a violent way in a public place, often as a protest
The Transfer of Power took place on Jan 20, not J6.
J6 was about the certification of the election – a CHOICE congress gets to make.
Protests aimed at persuading congress to chose differently are NOT EVER an insurrection,
Any more than protests aiming to persuade the senate to NOT confirm Kavanaugh or to persuade TN legislators to enact gun control are an insurrection.
J6 was NOT an insurrection PERIOD.
Claims that it was are eveidence of cognative distortion – inability to perceive reality.
They are mental defect.
You clearly do not know when the transfer of power occurrs. what it is, the difference between certifying an election and transfering power. That certification is a CHOICE congress gets to make – while the ACTUAL transfer of power is CEREMONIAL.
No they tried to persuade congress to refuse to certify the election – just as protestors in TN tried to persuade the TN legislature to enact gun control.
It is no different.
“No they tried to persuade Congress to refuse to certify the election – just as protestors in TN attempted to persuade the TN legislature to enact gun control.
It is no different.”
BS.
They “tried” to persuade Congress by using violence, intimidation, death threats, and assaulting law enforcement. Tennessee was nothing similar. There was no destruction of property, no death threats, or violence approaching that of J6.
“BS.”
nope
“They “tried” to persuade Congress by using violence, intimidation, death threats, and assaulting law enforcement.”
Nope and stupid. if you are going to use violence to persaude congress – you bring guns.
Regardless, the “violence was almost exclusively limited to the West Tunnel, where there is a fair amount of evidence it was triggered by the incompetence of the CP – first teargassing themselves accidentally and then the crowd.
Whether you beelive the violence there was justified or lawless, it was not PLANNED. Which is also evident from the LACK of violence anywhere else.
“Tennessee was nothing similar. There was no destruction of property, no death threats, or violence approaching that of J6.”
Then you have not watched the video of TN.
When you make claims – BACK THEM UP.
I would suggest reading supreme court cases on what constitutes a death threat. Nothing at J6 meets the legal requirements for a credible death threat.
You claimed pitch forks and baseball bats were present – Evidence and numbers ? I have yet seen no evidence of either.
Regardless one baseball bat of pitchfork in thousands of people does not convert it into an insurrection.
The Absolute FACT is that the prtestors were unarmed. They did not bring weapons with them. Whatever the cause – when violence occured – they faced police with guns firing rubber bullets and bean bags, tear gas night sticks, body armor and shields with whatever they could find on the capital grounds.
Which was NOT MUCH.
The minutemen did not fight armed british soldiers with flag poles and fire extinguishers.
Were there hundreds of flagpoles ? Fire extinguishers ?
The insurection claim has been completely absurd from the start.
It is evidence of the mind virus of leftism that prevents you from thinking.
We have seen that at every turn for the past 6 years.
You have been WRONG constantly about EVERYTHING.
You have been stupidly wrong.
The insurection claim is like the idiotic claim that Putin favored Trump.
Why ? Because you beleive that Putin is so stupid that he would prefer the condidate whose policies were openly and egregiously harmful to Russia
to the candidate whose policies were openly and egregiously favorable to russia and who had collected incredible amounts of money from Russia.
You do not require claims to make any sense before you make them.
And then when your stupidity is exposed – you ignorantly double down – you STILL beleive complete nonsense that was throughly dicredited years ago.
There was no insurrection.
Anyone claiming there was – clearly is suffering from cognitive distortion – they self evidently can not evaluate facts and reality.
What little remains to debate about J6 is the scale of the violence and who initiated it.
This is an incredibly stupid argument.
Lexington and Concord was an “insurrection” – they were not about a transfer of power.
Paul Revere did not shout “the British are being certified”.
J6 was not a transfer of power. That occurs on J20.
Regardless, people are free to protest the transfer of power – that is NOT insurrection.
You are wrong on so many levels.
Excercises of the first amendment – political speech is NEVER a crime.
Te certification of the election is not the transfer of power.
Protesting the transfer of power is not issurection.
All insurrection is not immoral.
The people of Hong Kong engaged in insurrection.
Those in Iran have engaged in insurection.
Yet we side with those people.
So you are completely clueless about pretty much everything.
You have no idea what an actual insurrection is, and you do not grasp that all insurrection is not wrong.,
“Excercises of the first amendment – political speech is NEVER a crime.”
It is when you engage in violence. That is NOT protected speech. Incitement to violence is NOT covered. Speech. Protesters inciting others to break widows, force their way into a secure location and violently destroy property is not protected speech. Even political speech is not absolute. Insurrection is not one singular literal interpretation that only YOU get to determine. Insurrection is not strictly defined by the presence of weapons. Weapons were indeed present on J6. Using flagpoles as spears, Hurling fire extinguishers, baseball bats, pitchforks, etc., all were present during the J6 insurrection. Trying to whitewash it by dismissing it is admitting it did occur.
By this definition, the attack on the White House on May 29, 2020 was an “insurrection”.
“It is when you engage in violence.”
Speech is not violence.
“That is NOT protected speech.”
Correct – violence is not speech.
“Incitement to violence is NOT covered. Speech.”
Please review
“In Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the United States Supreme Court established that speech advocating illegal conduct is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”
Inciting violence does not mean speech you do not like.
It is a very narrow legal term.
“Protesters inciting others to break widows”
That would be incitement to violence – though it would also be a petty offense.
Do you have video with audio of that ?
“force their way into a secure location”
That would not likely be incitement to violence. If it was – it would be a petty offense.
Regardless again do you have audio of that
“and violently destroy property”
That would be incitement – again do you have audio ?
The requirements for incitement are not ambiguous.
You must be speaking CLEARLY to direct imminent lawless action.
There is lots of caselaw on this.
“Even political speech is not absolute.”
Sort of incitement to violence – with is far narrower than you claim, all political speech is protected.
“Insurrection is not one singular literal interpretation that only YOU get to determine. Insurrection is not strictly defined by the presence of weapons.”
Pretty much it is.
“Weapons were indeed present on J6. Using flagpoles as spears, Hurling fire extinguishers, baseball bats, pitchforks, etc., all were present during the J6 insurrection.” Provide evidence of baseball bats and pitchforks. BTW of course “weapons” were present at J6 – according to case law, eggs and bedroom slippers are weapons.
Regardless, you are describing riots not insurrection.
You have not even established that a riot occured at J6 – all violence is not rioting.
Lexington and Concord were insurections. the Civil war was an insurrection.
The BLM riots were not an insurrection, and the J5 protests were clearly not an insurrection.
“Trying to whitewash it by dismissing it is admitting it did occur.”
That is a logically absurd claim.
Regardless, I am dealing with Facts.,
You are the one who is not.
Fire Extinguishers and Flag poles are the weapons people who did NOT intend violence end up resorting to. Anyone who used something with a normally peaceful purpose that they found at the capitol as a weapon was by defintion not engaged in insurrection.
Then May 29th was also an insurrection.
RE: ” they had been consistently interrupting committee work and had refused to abide by the rules of the chamber. It was not a single incident..” Appreciate the embellishment. Having a hissy fit over resistance to their re-inventing the wheel, it seems. Certainly would behoove someone from that august body to find their way to a nationwide news source to update the legislative history of those two mountebanks to the enlightenment of all interested parties.
Mike Judge’s 2006 movie “Idiocracy” has become prophetic with regard to American politics and human behavior. It didn’t take five hundred years to devolve, only fifteen. Maybe our next President will conduct the State of the Union address in the same manner as the movie’s character, President Camacho.
https://youtu.be/6lai9QhBibk
Just a quick question:
How did Rep. Justin Jones smuggle in a megaphone & get past security that has a magnetometer checkpoint?