Below is my column in the Daily Beast on the call from Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) to expel members of the Squad from Congress. Five members recently made public comments against Israel at rallies in Washington: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Cori Bush of Missouri. Similar to calls from Democrats to disqualify Republicans for their support of Donald Trump’s election claims, the move against the far left members would establish a dangerous precedent for Congress. It would also devastate both free speech and democratic values.
Here is the column:
This weekend, presidential candidate Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) became the latest figure in Washington to call for the expulsion of members of Congress for their controversial views.
In a New York Post op-ed, Scott cites pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel statements of members of “the Squad” as examples of officials giving “aid and comfort” to Hamas.
Expulsion and disqualification have come into vogue in Washington as members of both parties seek to bar opponents from ballots or office. It is the ultimate manifestation of our age of rage where expressing opposing views are now considered disqualifying acts for holding office.
Sen. Scott points to Rep. Rashida Tlaib declaring that Israel intentionally bombed a hospital in Gaza after U.S. intelligence found that the explosion was likely caused by a Palestinian missile.
He also cites Rep. Pramila Jayapal calling Israel “a racist state” and Rep. Ilhan Omar previously saying that Jews had “hypnotized the world.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was also cited for criticism of those supporting Israel as “taking the side of occupation.”
I have previously criticized members of the Squad for reckless rhetoric and condemned the spreading of false or unproven claims on the Gaza hospital explosion.
However, the solution to bad speech is better speech. Indeed, Scott’s op-ed (and the writings of many others) are an example of how free speech can combat disinformation and propaganda without the necessity for censorship or other punitive measures.
Yet, Sen. Scott insists that “any member of Congress who gives [Hamas] aid, comfort or justification is in violation of their constitutional oath and must be removed.”
It is now a familiar refrain. Ironically, it is analogous to the argument put forward by some Democrats to bar Republican members through an alternative means. Those members have called for the use of the 14th Amendment to disqualify Republicans for giving “aid and comfort” to those who sought to block the certification of President Joe Biden. They have been supported by a host of legal academics.
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) demanded the disqualification of the 120 House Republicans—including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)—for simply signing a “Friend of the Court brief” (or amicus brief) in support of an election challenge from Texas.
Expulsion and disqualification demands are both based on the same view that political support for extreme or controversial positions should not be tolerated in members of Congress. It is a dangerous, slippery slope as politicians declare certain views as incompatible with holding elected offices.
Rather than based on a novel constitutional theory, expulsion is based on the inherent authority of Congress to expel members who violate the rules and standards of a house. Courts are generally deferential to Congress given the authority under Article I, Section 5 that “[e]ach House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”
Nevertheless, fewer than two dozen members have ever been expelled. Indeed, three of the then five members of the House had expressed loyalty to the confederacy during the Civil War.
It is telling that, despite our long history of bitter and divisive politics, only five house members have been expelled in the House. Members have realized that expulsions not only deny the right of voters to pick their representatives, but invite endless tit-for-tat measures.
The Framers were well aware of this danger. Before the Revolution, a leading case in England involved a member of Parliament who was expelled for criticism in 1763 of the king for signing a peace treaty with France. John Wilkes was promptly arrested and expelled from the House of Commons. While he was forced to flee into exile, he continued to be re-elected by an equally defiant constituency. He was again “excluded” from taking office and later convicted of sedition.
Eventually the House of Commons recognized its terrible error and expunged both the expulsions and exclusions. It admitted that it had acted in a manner “subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors of this kingdom.”
The Framers were familiar with the Wilkes case and wanted to avoid such legislative abuse in the United States. The Constitution makes exclusion (in preventing someone from taking the oath of office) effectively a non-starter if he or she otherwise meets the qualifications for office. Most importantly, they imposed the high voting threshold of a two-thirds vote to accomplish an expulsion.
It is unlikely that the calls for expulsion by Sen. Scott or others will succeed given this history and these limitations. It is also far from clear that courts would allow the expulsion of a member for the exercise of free speech even with the history of deference to Congress. Moreover, the courts have rejected the use of exclusion in Powell v. McCormack in 1969 as unconstitutional. Expelling a member based on their political views would operate the same as an exclusion since that member would continue to be viewed as ineligible to sit as a member of the House.
Even if it is unlikely to succeed, Sen. Scott’s call only adds to not just the expectations but the appetite of voters for extra-electoral action. Rather than defeat members at the polls, they want to dictate who may represent voters in other states and districts.
Free speech is often the first victim in an age of rage. We have gone through such ages from the very start of our Republic. Rage gives people license to do things that they would not ordinarily contemplate, let alone advocate. That is why rage is addictive. We can come to like it.
In the end, we are distinguished from groups like Hamas by free speech and our other defining rights. They are a covenant of faith between citizens that, despite our disagreements, we will stand by our neighbors in their right to think and speak freely. That includes the right of citizens to select those who will speak for them in a representative democracy.
There is a solution to those who you believe are unworthy for office. It arises every two years as citizens go to the polls to elect their representatives.
I don’t think they should be expelled for speech, but there are actually what could be called crimes for some of them (Omar), blatant and repeated lies about staged events (AOC), and plenty else to dig into as justification. They represent the absolute bottom of the barrel of their generation. At the least, if they are elected a *third* time, can we finally acknowledge they are emblematic of a big, big, and worsening problem in America?
The unacknowledged fact is that Americans have been attacked, killed, and taken hostage by Hamas and Iran, which makes Hamas and Iran at war with the US even if the Congress has not declared it.
Giving help and aid to the enemy can directly cost further American lives and takes the speech out of the realm of Constitutionally protected free speech and into the realm of Constitutionally mandated war time control and / or treason, which is specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
Speech that may be protected in peace time is clearly NOT protected in war time when it aids our enemies.
Congress is the body that is supposed to declare war, but doesn’t.
So you want it one case but don ‘t have it in the other.
So that’s a big fat lose.
False – as we have seen with Covid – rights that do not exist in an emergency – do not exist.
Contra the left – and some supreme court justicces RIGHT are a “suicide pact”
If we can not get through an emergency with our rights intact. then we have no right to exist.
Our principles are NOT fungible in the bad times.
Separately giving aid and comfort to the enemy means actual actions – not speech. in time of declared war.
The law and constitution most be read broadly in terms of the rights of individuals and narrowly in terms of the powers of government or it will not work.
The Democrats are playing with fire with their support of the Palestinians and the open border because if we get a bad terrorist attack soon public opinion, which already supports Israel and the fight against evil, will explode and the party will be decimated.
Remember after 9/11 and the feeling of disgust for the animals that make up Islamic Terrorists and radicals and how patriotism flourished. The lefty radicals will be destroyed at the polls and we will rid ourselves of this lefty contagion that is spreading right now. People tearing down posters showing CHILDREN and FEMALES being held hostage???? How is that a thing? It sickening.
Democrats are on the wrong side of nearly ever current issue – and not by small amounts – by MASSIVE margins. Republicans need to demonstrate they are on the right side of all these issues and that they can deliver on them.
Jonathan: In the “fog of war” truth is the first casualty. What is lost is any context involving the Hamas/Israel conflict. Despite some dispute over who was responsible for the air strike on the Gaza hospital, this doesn’t change the facts on the ground. The IDF continues to bomb Gaga into oblivion. Thousands of innocent Palestinians are dying and their homes destroyed.
When the Palestinians periodically rise up against their oppression we are shocked. The mainstream media in this country calls the Hamas attack a “threat” to Israel’s existence. When members of the “Squad”, including Rep. Rashida Tlaib, call for a ceasefire, WH spokesperson, Jean-Pierre, call that “repugnant” and “disgraceful”. Any dissent to the WH/Israel narrative is outside accepted speech.
What is lost is that the most vocal opposition to Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians is coming from inside Israel. Jewish Voices of Peace has described the situation: “Following 16 years of Israeli military blockade, Palestinian fighters from Gaza launched an unprecedented assault, in which hundreds of Israelis were killed and wounded and civilians kidnapped. The Israeli government declared war, launching airstrikes, killing hundreds of Palestinians and wounding thousands, bombing residential buildings and threatening to commit war crimes against besieged Palestinians in Gaza…”
On 10/8 Haaretz, the leading newspaper, declared: “The disaster that befell Israel on the holiday of Sim chat Torah is the clear responsibility of one person: Benjamin Netanyahu”. The following day Gideon Levy wrote in Haaretz: “Behind everything that happened, Israel arrogance. We thought we were allowed to do anything, that we would never pay a price or be punished for it…We shoot innocent people, gouge out their eyes and smash their faces, deport them, confiscate their lands, plunder them, kidnap them from their beds, and carry out ethnic cleansing…” And this is coming, not from anti-Semites and the haters of Israel, but from voices inside Israel.
But we don’t hear this kind of dissent inside our country–not from the WH or the mainstream media. Anyone who shares the views of Jewish Voices of Peace, Haaretz or Gideon Levy is labelled an “anti-Semite”, a “neo-Nazi” or “baby killers”. You can see this type of hysteria right here on your blog. Why is giving voice to the aspirations of the Palestinian people so threatening?
When nations are attacked those who attack them tend to be “bombed into oblivion”
Prof. Dershowitz has an excellent vlog on the internationa rules of war – these have been evolved over centuries.
But even more fundimental is the social contract – that is the contract between individuals and the government that makes that government legitimate.
One of the core obligations in the social contract is the obligation of the government to protect its people from acts of violence by others.
Whether you like it or not Israel has an obligation to its citizens to assure that they are safe from the violence of other nations, peoples, outsiders.
The actions of Hamas on October 7 were an ACT OF WAR against the Israeli people.
You can debate all kinds of nonsense about history and Israle Palestinian relations. That does not alter the FACT that the attack was an act of War.
Nations are absolutely obligated to protect their OWN people. They do NOT OWE the same absolute duty to other peoples.
The international rules of war attempt to provide relatively small protections for civilians outside the nation.
Combatants are discouraged from TARGETING civilians – but there is no actual requirement even to minimize the civilian casualities of a people that you are at war with.
International law of war requires combatants to were uniforms – so that combatants and non-combatants can be distinguished.
Israel called up almost 500K of its people into the military – these people WERE civilians, Now they wear uniforms – they are military.
International law requires that combatants do not operate out of hospitals, churches, or civilian shelters,
In return for doing so international law sanctions targeting civilian fascilities. But that protection is lost when the rules of war are not followed.
Jordainian, Egyptian, syrian soldiers captured by Israel (as well as Israeli soldiers captured by arab nations) have been returned at the close of the war.
But those that do not follow the rules of war are not – they are treated as war criminals.
The US executed German soldiers caught in civilian cloths during WWII, It returned German soldiers caputured in uniform.
The international rule of proportionality means that Civilians CAN be killed in a war – where their death is collateral to a legitimate military target.
If an enemy stores weapons in a hospital or church – those can be targeted – regardless of the number of civilian deaths that might occur.
But killing a single sniper in a hotel does not justify killing hundreds of civilians in the hotel.
Contra your rant – Israel is following the international rules of war.
Hamas is not.
Whether you like it or not the death of civilians – both inside of Gaza and inside of Israel is entirely the responsibility of Hamas.
I would further note – this is not some Israel apologist position – it is just the accepted ideology blind norms for the rules of war.
9/11 was an act of war. Afghanistan and the Taliban were harboring the terrorists that committed that heinous act of war.
Whatever you might think about myriads of other political strategic and tactical mistakes made over two decades of the AFghan war
The US invasion of Afghanistan was justified under international law. The hundreds of thousands of civilian casulaties in Afghanistan were justified
under the international rules of war. Again that does not mean that what we did was wise, or that all of our choices were good or even legal.
But the war as a whole and the civilian casualites that resulted were both legal and moral.
Exactly the same is true of Israel’s response to Hama’s acts of war.
Has Israel made mistakes in the past ? Is it near certain to make mistakes in prosecuting this war – absolutely.
But that does not create even the tiniest moral equivalance.
We all hope that the civilian casualties in Gaza will be small – but most of us understand that there WILL be civilian casualties.
That is the nature of war. That is especially the nature of war against those that do not follow the rules of war.
There is no absolute requirement that we follow the international rules of war.
We do so, because the alternative is genocide.
Hamas has made clear in both their words and acts that they are intent on genocide.
If you accept the legitimacy of Hamas’s actions – then you are stuck with Israel legitimately entitled to wipe palestinians off the face of the earth.
“Whether you like it or not the death of civilians – both inside of Gaza and inside of Israel is entirely the responsibility of Hamas.
I would further note – this is not some Israel apologist position – it is just the accepted ideology blind norms for the rules of war. ”
I would note you are literally insane.
NO. my claim is LITERALLY actual international law, and has been for CENTURIES.
We have spent centuries – possibly millennia evolving the rules of war – formally, philosophically, and in international law.
Nearly all of this have been done in the WEST.
You can study “just war doctrine” – and my point is NOT that there is such a thing as a just war or that the doctrine is correct, but that people – especially in the west have spent centuries – millennia trying to establish when War is justified and when it is not, and how we conduct war – whether justified or not.
I would further note – that whether you or I agree or disagree over “the rules of war” is not all that important.
Either there are some such rules based on international treaties and laws, or genocide or enslavement becomes the norm in every war.
That is the alternative to rules of war.
I would separately note that for war – an act that is often irrational and chaotic, the international rules of war – the ACTUAL ones are MOSTLY pretty well thought out.
There is a bizarre aspect to trying to put rules onto war. That almost seems self contradictory.
But there are ultimately two issues – the social contract is a governments right to exist – not international treaty or recognition.
Israel’s ability to protect its own people from outside violence is an absolute requirement for Israels legitimacy – not its international legitimacy – but for its legitimacy with its own people. Hamas’s ability to protect its people is core to Its legitimacy. Hamas actually risks its own legitimacy both with its own people and internationally by acts of war that subject themselves to the required violent response of Israel.
The Left repeatedly tell Americans that they are more intelligent, more educated and forward thinking so as to make policy and national security decisions. Thus it seems reasonable to consult with the Holier than Thou Wizard of Law himself, Laurence Tripe on whether a Congresscritter should be expelled for terrorist-inspired activity / aiding and abetting the enemy:
Should certain politicians be subject to disqualification under the Constitution’s ban on ‘insurrectionists’?
Some critics say GOP Rep. Madison Cawthorn’s Jan. 6 actions disqualify him.
Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor emeritus at Harvard University, contends that, even if it’s determined Cawthorn didn’t “engage” in an insurrection, if the public focuses “on the words giving aid and comfort to an insurrection — words in the 14th Amendment — the evidence seems more than sufficient.”
TL;DR: expel the beatches, send to Gaza with Shakdi, who is a veritable, nucken futs ant-Semite
Thus spaketh Larry Tribe
😉
moi
While logic and reason repeatedly demonstrate the errors of the left, ultimately the foundation of that logic and reason is that in the real world the policies positions and arguments of the left FAIL.
We have day and night differences between the Trump presidency and the Biden presidency.
Removal all intellectual debates over policies – Trump succeeded where Biden failed.
In nearly every quantifiable way we were all better off under Trump than Biden.
Democrats and the left have FAILED. They have sewn instability Chaos, confusion and conflict – not merely in the US but throughout the world.
It is arguable that the causes of a single issue that is different under Biden than Trump may not be due to ideology or policies.
It is inarguable that the multiple shifts in the wrong direction – if not the intended consequences of those on the left are still the unintended consequences of the policies of those in power.
What little of Biden’s oval speech I heard I view mostly favorable – but then the standard for Biden is low. He mostly communicated in full sentences and mostly did not speak like a demanted grandfather.
What was wrong was not what he said – mostly. But that what he said was a rhetorical reversal of what he has done.
Most of us have understood Iran under the Mullahs as dangerous since Carter. That has not changed.
If Biden is now grasping that – Great. But it is inarguable that both the Biden and Obama administration failed to appreciate how dangerous the rulers of Iran were.
There are lots of bad people in the mideast. Erodigan, MBS, Asad and Ghadafi are no angels. But these are all leaders we can work with – even if they are evil people.
Iranian leaders are not – and most americans have grasped that for 50 years.
Biden only cam to realize that – rhetorically in the last few minutes.
We should congradulate the prodigal son when they return. But wise people do not give control of the most powerful nation on earth to the prodigal son on their return.
Maybe not expelled, but censored, removed from committees and not allowed to receive briefings that are involved in military matters.
What would have happened if a congressman defended Japan after 12/7 or Osama after 9/11? Would said congressperson have been allowed to remain on the Arms Services Committee? Foreign Affairs Committee? ANY COMMITTEE?
Censor these traitors, take away any power they have and shun them until their voters realize they have no voice in Congress.
Hullbobby, Thanks for your kind words the other day on the Dostoyevsky comment
Estovir, thanks for being a shining light on this increasingly frustrating comments section. There are a good core group of folks that comment here, I just wish the site would end the practice of letting people use the name Anonymous. I have no issue with anonymity, but if people would just pick a name it would allow us to identify the usual radicals, contrarians and trolls that want to comment 100 times a day and then ignore them, the way we all ignore Dennis and Gigi.
The Trolls may be doing readers a favor. Cognitive stimulation is associated with minimizing chances of dementia and Alzheimer’s. Now if only the trolls wrote cognitively stimulating comments as opposed to their current smorgasbord of sophomoric rants & Wikipedia citations, we would all be protected from dementia!
😉
KEEP READING TO KEEP ALZHEIMER’S AT BAY
Reading books and magazines, writing and participating in other mentally stimulating activities, no matter your age, can help to keep memory and thinking skills intact, a new study suggests. The findings add to growing evidence that mental challenges like reading and doing crossword puzzles may help to preserve brain health and stave off symptoms of Alzheimer’s in old age.
https://www.alzinfo.org/articles/reading-alzheimers-bay/
Also:
Aguirre E, Woods RT, Spector A, Orrell M. Cognitive stimulation for dementia: a systematic review of the evidence of effectiveness from randomised controlled trials. Ageing Res Rev. 2013 Jan;12(1):253-62. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2012.07.001.
PDF located here:
https://daryakovtun.commons.gc.cuny.edu/files/2020/11/aguirre2013.pdf
Another nutball tard spews and hopes no one notices…
“What would have happened if a congressman defended Japan after 12/7 or Osama after 9/11?”
We all would have dialed 1-800-israel, and noted, their island in the pacific and their great city of new york was attacked, and we’d ask them what they were going to do about it.
This is the mind of the estrogen doused retard above. This is the mind on lies and estrogen, don’t do estrogen.
If you tell me you wholly own the USA from the promised land … ? Is that your position ? YES IT INDEED IS. That, or you are dumb as rock.
You spew insults at others – but your own responses are irrational.
Remove all the adjectives and insults from your coment(s) is there ANYTHING left – rational or otherwise ?
No.
We have discusses “international law”. There is no global police force. There are only two means to compel nations to behave – either following norms or following “international law”. Those are economic sanctions – which as a rule are ineffective and easily circumvented and WAR.
That is it. The relations of nations with each other is and has always been the pre-eminent example of WORKING (if imperfectly) anarcho-capitalism in the world and in history.
There is no world government, there is no global police force, there is no international law in the traditional sense of law. But there are norms that are loosely obeyed and loosely enforced by sanctions and the threat of war.
You rant that everyone else is a nuttard – yet you make no rational contribution of your own, and the FACT is that independent of your beleif that some objectively correct – but unexpressed standard exists that you can call others idiots for failing to grasp, there is no such objectively correct and certainly not universally agreed on standard. But there is a quasi consensus worked out over millennia and loosely adhered to. AND that consensus evolved on a rational basis from the necescity of governments to provide security for their peoples as part of the social contract that justifies the very existence of those governments.
The Israeli people have a country of their own. They are NOT going to be displaced short of genocide. PERIOD. Even if all the historical claims of Palestinians were legitimate – and they are not – there has NEVER been a Palestinian government, and the last arab government of Palestine was Turkey.
Regardless, Israel is an established nation. It has survived numerous attempts to destroy it and proven itself capable of defending its people.
Conversely the Palestinian people – who could have a country of their own merely for the asking at a moments notice and HAVE had autonomous control over Gaqza and a significant portion of the west bank for decades, are incapable of following the norms of nations and incapable of providing security for their own people against the consequences of their own mistakes.
In my previous comment I posted what Nancy Pelosi said about human shields in Gaza. “But the fact is, is that, whatever happens, we have to protect the civilians, the people of Gaza, who are not Hamas. But that’s hard to do. And Hamas provoked this, knowing it would evoke a response and would have — then they’d be hiding behind shields of civilian people.” Which one of our leftist posters on this blog will stand with Pelosi. I imagine that I’ll be waiting for a very long time for a response.
We have had conflicts like this throughout human history.
Wars of conquest have for 300K years been indistinguishable from genocide.
The bible as well as myriads of other texts show one people invading another, raping their women, murdering babies, salting the land,
massacring the people, or enslaving them.
Until relatively modern times – and almost exclusively in the west that has been the NORM.
The entire concept that it is not moral to target civilians is both very modern and very western.
What I find interesting is how what people say somehow makes the news (and this column) while what people do is largely ignored. A guy who is going to spend 7 months in prison for a meme is of less interest to Professor Turley than a bunch of loudmouths doing what comes naturally in Congress. It seems that people can no longer distinguish between sticks and stones and reality. Tim Scott’s op-ed has everything to do with his forlorn hope presidential campaign and nothing to do with a hypothetical desire for justice. And frankly, saying mean things about Israel, or any other country, falls squarely under the protection of 1A.
I personally love seeing Democrats squirm as their former darlings spout racist gibberish. Be careful what you wish for…When Omar first got elected she was spouting the most abhorrently anti-semitic nonsense ever. House Republicans tried to censure her and it somehow got derailed by the other Democrat icon St. Nancy.
So, dear Democrats, enjoy. There is an old Italian expression: You wanted the bicycle, now pedal.
Believe it or not Nancy Pelosi has spoken the truth. “But the fact is, is that, whatever happens, we have to protect the civilians, the people of Gaza, who are not Hamas. But that’s hard to do. And Hamas provoked this, knowing it would evoke a response and would have — then they’d be hiding behind shields of civilian people.”
So what she has said is that Hamas is responsible for the deaths of the civilians in Gaza because the fire their rockets from a cemetery behind a hospital. To Hamas it’s not the lives of the civilians in Gaza that mater but rather their hate of the Jews above all else. The BLM leaders say “stop the hate”, but support the hatred toward the Jew by Hamas. The anti-semitism by the black leadership has always been their. I offer the statements of Farrakhan and Al Sharpton as proof. Scott may be wrong in calling for expelling the squad but he is correct in pointing out their hate filled prejudice.
This type of Peer Pressure and Force (Media Extortion | Speech Squelch) to make Legislators knuckle under to the will of the Deep State is pure evidence of how embedded & compromised Our system of Government has been overtaken by “Our Friends”.
Enough is Enough America, Walk away from the Deep State.
‘Palestine’ is a State of Mind, walk away and out of Their CONTROL (Mentally & Metaphorically).
No Fear – Live Freely
No Turley they should be expelled.
Were this a single event, I’d agree with you.
However, the continued actions and false apologies and claims of ignorance in the past by these members… they should be removed and disowned by their own party.
Somehow this feels like deja vue.
That we’ve been down this road one too many times.
The squad is a silver lining in Congress and must stay there because they remind us of what’s wrong with America — all the way around.
Excellent. People must be allowed to speak so that we know who they are.
They should not be kicked out of Congress. They should be kicked out of the Democratic party.
If we believe in democracy, anyone should be able to run in a primary, and any winner of the primary should be able to run in the general election, and any winner of the general election should be able to hold office. If any group of politicians acquires the power to “disqualify” another group of politicians, we are not living in a democracy anymore.
Jonathan Turley — well crafted essay today.
I agree.
JT said “There is a solution to those who you believe are unworthy for office. It arises every two years as citizens go to the polls to elect their representatives.”
The penalty for election fraud should be the same as TREASON, and not a slap on the wrist.
I would agree with Profesor Turley, these House members should not be kicked out of Congress by the other members. As bad as “The Squad” are these members were duly elected by thier constituents. Every two years thier constituents can re-elect them or kick them out of Congress. I think the antics of the “Squad” – the wacky beliefs they clearly have ( the Palestinians are the “good guys” in the Middle East – and thier pals Hezzbolla and Iran – that’s what the Squad believes even though though thier heroes Hammas murder innocent civilians). Genocide is okay when a group of people believe land occupied by others belongs to them , that’s the position of “The Squad”, and other Marxists radicals!
Jonathan: It’s nice to see that in the “age of rage” you are opposed to GOP Sen. Tim Scott’s call to have members of the “Squad” expelled from Congress. But there is no basis to conflate Scott’s call with efforts to remove DJT from the ballot next year. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a firm basis for removal. Scott’s demand is not based on any provision in the Constitution–just a vague claim that members of the “Squad” are providing “aid and comfort” to Hamas. Scott simply wants to take away the “free speech” rights of those who oppose Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians.
Unfortunately, you have not been keeping up with some of the comments on your blog–especially those in response to your previous column (10/21@7:36am). There are some who do not subscribe to your “free speech” values. In my comment to your column I pointed out the TP USA filming of a queer professor on the AZ State University campus and the attack on the professor. In his comment in response “Old Airborne Dog” calls me a “fellow anti-Semitic neo-Nazi”. He says the LGBTQ+ professors “Gender Blender men cosplaying as women had a right to hang their junk out in front of little girls…”. Then Airborne Dog says: “The film [by TP USA of the queer professor] will be used to plot the wholesale slaughter of Dennis McIntyre and the rest of the anti-Semitic neo Nazis in their beds,…”
These kinds of vile hate rhetoric and death threats can be found all over your blog. Seems some on this blog don’t subscribe to your “Civility” rule and your admonition that “the solution to bad speech is better speech”. Old airborne thinks the solution to speech he doesn’t like is not more speech but the death sentence!
“[The Left’s] demand is not based on any provision in the Constitution–just a vague claim that [Trump is] providing “aid and comfort” to [Russia].”
Oops. Did I switch the context?
Well, to your point of voting members out, it seems to be a solution on the surface, but gerrymandering makes it impossible. How does a guy like Jordan not get voted out after causing nothing but destruction for 16 years? America will have to find a way to make House elections state wide at a minimum in order to deal with this problem. Obviously the political forces that be have figured out their way around the Constitution on the issue.
As to members speaking out on Israel…, it’s time to get honest. Israel occupies the Gaza strip and the West Bank and have proven they’re really bad at counterinsurgency measures. They’re perpetually stuck in harsh counter terrorism measures as a result. Counter insurgency is the only method of occupation that doesn’t blow up on the occupiers. It’s military strategy 101.
While Israeli citizens claim when the time is ‘right’ they’re going to hold Netanyahu accountable for his incompetence around the 10/7 attack, Netanyahu knows this and appears fully ready to engage in full occupation mode such that there is no ‘other side of this’.
As to free speech, sorry Turley, you’re an awful spokesman on the issue due to practices of censorship, shadow banning and use of paid trolls from the right on your blog here.
No occupation, Anon. Prior to 10/7 there were no Israelis in Gaza. Hammas ran the show there (rather poolrly)
They are literally called the occupied territories. There may be an issue with how occupied…, but let’s just say occupied more efficiently than you spell but far less than optimum when just looking through the lens military strategy alone.
Yet another troubling move by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC).
Only if any members support those foreign elements who have and do plan on harming American citizens. That, in my book, is not a matter of free speech, but of treason to this nation. At that point they should be censured, and if not a native born citizen, deported to their nation of origin for failing to uphold their constitutional oath to defend this nation, its borders, and its citizens. Nothing more need be said to ameliorate their treachery.
Decolonize their districts. Then, and only then, will they be voted out.
Decolonize ALL districts. Gerrymandering harms the country.
Did you mean to say “decolonization” or “colonization?”
If “colonization,” you would be in the distinguished company of Abraham Lincoln.
________________________________________________________________________________________
The “American Colonization Society”
In December 1816, a group of distinguished Americans met in Washington, DC, to establish an organization to promote the cause of black resettlement. The “American Colonization Society” soon won backing from some of the young nation’s most prominent citizens. Henry Clay, Francis Scott Key, John Randolph, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, Millard Fillmore, John Marshall, Roger B. Taney, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen A. Douglas, and Abraham Lincoln were members. Clay presided at the group’s first meeting.8
Measures to resettle blacks in Africa were soon undertaken. Society member Charles Fenton Mercer played an important role in getting Congress to pass the Anti-Slave Trading Act of March 1819, which appropriated $100,000 to transport blacks to Africa. In enforcing the Act, Mercer suggested to President James Monroe that if blacks were simply returned to the coast of Africa and released, they would probably be re-enslaved, and possibly some returned to the United States. Accordingly, and in cooperation with the Society, Monroe sent agents to acquire territory on Africa’s West coast — a step that led to the founding of the country now known as Liberia. Its capital city was named Monrovia in honor of the American President.9
– Robert Morgan http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html