Even in his freshman year, Democratic New York Rep. Dan Goldman has proven one of the most controversial members in Congress from attacking witnesses to inadvertently undermining the Biden defenses. The latest controversy involves a call to “eliminate” Donald Trump after accusing him of using “inflammatory rhetoric.” He has since apologized for his own language. Despite being one of the many past targets of Goldman’s wrath, I do not believe that Goldman was calling for violence. It was what I call “rage rhetoric” in my book The Indispensable Right. However, the incident shows the perils of criminalizing political speech.
Goldman remains a favorite on MSNBC where he rarely fails to disappoint viewers with his brand of smash-mouth politics and rhetoric. It was, therefore, somewhat ironic for Jen Psaki to interview him on the inflammatory rhetoric in this election on MSNBC’s “Inside with Jen Psaki.”
Goldman responded:
“rhetoric is really getting dangerous, more and more dangerous, and we saw what happened on Jan. 6, when he uses inflammatory rhetoric. It is just unquestionable at this point that that man cannot see public office again. He is not only unfit, he is destructive to our democracy and he has to be eliminated.”
Some have called for Goldman to be investigated by the Secret Service. Others have called for a censure resolution. I do not agree. It was clearly reckless rhetoric and not a true threat.
Yet, the incident shows how inflammatory terms are often used in politics. In the very same sentence in which Goldman denounced “dangerous” rhetoric, he proceeded to use dangerous rhetoric.
Rep. Goldman has been one of the most vocal voices for prosecuting incitement based on such language. In an interview with NPR, Goldman (who was counsel in the Trump impeachment) defended the use of such rhetoric as the basis for impeachment or prosecution:
“there’s all sorts of speech that is criminalized. You can’t – you know, you can’t use hate speech. You – people – in all sorts of crimes. You can’t send death threats across, you know, the Internet. There are so many criminal laws that do criminalize speech, and so the notion that the president of the United States somehow has a First Amendment right to be protected by the government for his speech doesn’t make any sense. It’s a backwards argument, and it’s a loser.”
As a threshold observation, the interview shows how dangerously ill-informed Goldman is on the First Amendment. He claims, as have other Democratic members, that “you can’t use hate speech.” That is demonstrably and completely wrong. Hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. You cannot commit hate crimes.
Indeed, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1969 case involving “violent speech,” the court struck down an Ohio law prohibiting public speech that was deemed as promoting illegal conduct. It supported the right of the Ku Klux Klan to speak out, even though it is a hateful organization. Likewise, in RAV v. City of St. Paul in 2011, it struck down a ban on any symbol that “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” In Snyder v. Phelps, also in 2011, the court said the hateful protests of Westboro Baptist Church were protected.
I have previously criticized the calls to criminalize Trump’s Jan. 6th speech as inimical to free speech. On Jan. 6, I was contributing to the coverage and denounced Trump’s speech while he was still giving it. I have long criticized Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric as well as similar rhetoric coming from the left. However, the calls for criminal charges ignore the danger to free speech.
While Trump used language like going to “fight” for his cause in the protest on the Hill, he never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
If Trump called to “eliminate” Pence or Pelosi, it would have no doubt been added to calls for prosecution. Indeed, Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe even declared Trump guilty of the attempted murder of Vice President Mike Pence on January 6, 2021. Even though no prosecutor has ever suggested such a charge, Tribe assured CNN that the crime was already established “without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt.” Others have suggested premeditated murder charges in his unhinged environment.
I am glad that Rep. Goldman apologized and I wish Trump would have retracted some of his prior language. However, rage rhetoric is a reality in our contemporary politics. We need to continue to denounce it on both sides, but it will produce even greater costs if we cross the Rubicon into criminalizing political speech.
“The Fall of Minneapolis” on the George Floyd chaos and subsequent mob lynching of the police is now available.
https://rumble.com/v3vyvzv-the-fall-of-minneapolis.html
“NO DEATHS”
POLICE USE NECK RESTRAINTS 237 TIMES WITH NO DEATHS
__________________________________________________________________
“Minneapolis police rendered 44 people unconscious with neck restraints in five years”
Since the beginning of 2015, officers from the Minneapolis Police Department have rendered people unconscious with neck restraints 44 times, according to an NBC News analysis of police records. Several police experts said that number appears to be unusually high.
Minneapolis police used neck restraints at least 237 times during that span, and in 16 percent of the incidents the suspects and other individuals lost consciousness, the department’s use-of-force records show. A lack of publicly available use-of-force data from other departments makes it difficult to compare Minneapolis to other cities of the same or any size.
Police define neck restraints as when an officer uses an arm or leg to compress someone’s neck without directly pressuring the airway.
– NBC
This is unbelievably depressing.
While I have no doubt this production is “spun” towards a particular narrative.
Enough of it is indisputable fact that we we saw was revolting.
I was aware of some of what is in this movie – but there is SO MUCH.
I was not aware that EMS was called nearly immediately, and still took almost 10 minutes to respond – despite the fact that they were 8 blocks away.
I was aware that Floyd tested positive for drugs. I was not aware that he had 3 tmes the lethal dose of 2 different drugs, as well as a long list of other health problems.
I was aware that the Technique used by Chauvin to restrain floyd was part of police training. I was not aware that it was in the very last training manual prior to Floyds arrest and that there are photo’s and graphics that exactly match the video of Chauvin.
In otherwords he was doing EXACTLY what Mineapolis trained him to do.
I was not aware that Ofc Keung was black.
I was not aware of how much evidence was excluded by the judge, that absolutely should have gotten in at trial.
I was aware that Floyd was restrained outside the police cruiser – because he refused to get into the cruizer and 4 police officers were unable to get him into the cruizer because he was resisting.
I was not aware that the Minepolis Cheif of police LIED under oath at the trial.
There is so much wrong with what happened here – not just the trial – but everything.
“There is so much wrong with what happened here – not just the trial – but everything.”
+++
Yes, everything. The last wall of defense against mob rule, the judiciary, collapsed at first touch because it seems it was manned by cowards.
Jonathan: In a previous comment I pointed to the close ties between Speaker Mike Johnson and DJT. Proof is that Johnson is releasing 40,000 hours of of J6 videos to help DJT in his propaganda campaign to try to taint the jury pool in the March criminal trial involving J6. Now there is additional evidence of the close relationship between the two.
On Monday Johnson travelled to Mar-a-Lago to meet with DJT. There is no reporting on what the two discussed. But I have a confidential informant inside Mar-a-Lago who reports the following: The two shook hands and DJT thanked Johnson for releasing the J6 videos. In turn, Johnson thanked DJT for endorsing his bid for the House speakership. DJT had weighed in on the speakership by calling Tom Emmer, who briefing sought to become Speaker, a “Globalist RINO” and said it would be a “tragic mistake” to vote for Emmer. That sealed the deal for Johnson and he told DJT he was “eternally grateful to God and you”. DJT told Johnson: “I’m not sure you should be grateful to God. I was the one who got you the speakership”. Except for my literary license I have no doubt about some of things Johnson and DJT discussed.
Johnson and DJT have always been bosom buddies. Johnson is leading the effort in the House to impeach Biden. Johnson also led the effort by the GOP to “stop the steal” and overturn the 2020 election. DJT can always count on Johnson to do his bidding. “Lapdog” is the word that comes to mind.
Dennis – how can actual facts, like the raw video footage from J6, “taint a jury pool.” You seem to have reversed truth and falsehood.
LOL. Forget it; he’s rolling.
Why is it relevant that X might be “close” to Y ?
How can the 40,000 hours of video “taint” the jury pool ?
Would NOT releasing it and allowing the jury to have a FALSE perception of J6 actually taint the jury pool ?
Regardless why are you so scared of the video of J6 ?
Either it reflects what you have Claimed is True or it does not.
Regardless,. this video is from security cameras and body cameras of the capitol police.
All of it is being made public – except a tiny amount that the Capitol Police have requested not be disclosed because it concerns capitol security measures.
It is not like Johnson is editing the video, or only selecting that which distorts peoples perception
Like democrats and the media have done.
Why is it that left wing nuts like you are CONSTANTLY scared of any inquiry that you do not have total control over ?
We have fought for 3 years over the 2020 election.
But it all could have been resolved easily – Democratic election officers could have allowed the public scrutiny the law requires BEFORE and During the election.
Security cameras at ballot boxes could have been monitored and people arrested who dropped more than a few ballots or who showed up at multiple different ballot boxes. Had you done your job – nd followed the law – so many things would not be conflicts.
But then again had you followed the law and allowed transparency – Biden would have lost.
You fought to block the TRUE story of the hunter Biden laptop.
You found to censor TRUE information about Covid.
You prevented election observers from condyucting legally mandated oversight in counting rooms.
You fought recounts,
You fought signature audits.
You fought tooth and nail every single possible type of inquiry into the election.
If there is nothing to hide – why are you working so hard to prevent inquiry ?
Your frothing at the mouth over the J6 video.
Why ? If you have been telling the truth about J6 it will confirm it.
Why are you so afraid of the truth ?
Johnson has made the video available to anyone.
Personally I think he should have just put it up on the web.
40,000 hrs is ALOT of video. it would take a person 8 years to watch it all if they watched 24x7x365,
regardless, WaPo can go in and review the video.
NYT can go in and review the video.
No one is stopping the left wing nut media or democratic organizations from searching out further evidence of misconduct by protestors.
Again I think the video should be put on the web.
Left wing nuts – and there are an enormous number of young ones with massive amounts of free time
As they proceed through college unable to read at a collefe level.
Crowdsource the left reviewing it all and looking for people who committed crimes that have not yet been identified.
And those on the right are going to do the same – looking for antifa members and Feds.
Let the chips fall where they may.
I have repeatedly told you and others here that the J6 narrative by the left is a BIG LIE.
This video will prove me right, or it will prove me wrong.
So go for it – prove me wrong.
Jan 6 IS the epitome of the Big Blue Lie. If a Lefty’s lips are moving or their evil, corrupt heart beating it is a lie.
The gist of your rant seems to be – I do not like it when other people do prefectly legal and legitimate things that undermine my lies.
I have no idea whether your story about the Trump/Johnson meeting matches reality.
If it does SO WHAT ?
You wanted a different republican to win. Nearly all house republicans DID NOT.
Trump’s endorsement has meaning – because it reflects the wishes and values of about 100 million americans.
While I have personal problems with SOME of the attacks on so called “rinos”.
I have ZERO interest in Chris Christie as president and he speaks for very few republicans.
But he was the best governor that NJ could actually elect.
Nikki Halley is doing an excellent job of losing my vote. The last thing we need is another Republican NeoCon.
But she is entitled to her voice and she does reflect the views of a large number of republicans.
Not a majority thank god. But still a voice we must allow to be heard.
I do not expect all republicans to support Trump or MAGA – and they do not.
I have no problem with policy differences inside either party.
But today the MAGA elements of the GOP make up a super majority of republicans.
I do not expect those republicans with different policy preferences to go along with policies they do not agree with.
But I do expect that given that they are a minority in the party they will not engage in obstruction.
But most importantly I do not support their efforts to join those on the left and malign the rest of the party.
And I especially do not support that when they are WRONG.
Is there a republican who voted for Trump’s impeachment who has a political carreer left ?
NO – and they should not. Not because disension is not allowed,
But because when you are THAT WRONG about the FACTS, you should not be in congress.
Most republicans are going to support Trump – and that is OK – he is the leader of the party and he accurately reflects the will of the overwhelming majority of republican voters on the issues.
I do not think that Johnson and Trump are joined at the hip – but so what if they are ?
They are doing what republican voters want.
“Republican” is a proper noun. Capitalize it. English 101.
Do you honestly beleive there is going to be a trial in march ?
The 2020 election should have been overturned.
You constantly use that phrase as if there is a crime of “overturning an election”
There is not.
A judge in NC overturned a 2018 house election there.
Al Gore attempted to overturn the election in FL in 2020
Al Franken overturned the election of Coleman.
Hillary attempted to overturn the election of Trump.
A court in CT overturned the primary election of the Bridgeport mayor.
We have a myriad of constitutional and legal mechanisms that exist for the explicit purpose of overturning fraudulent elections.
Or elections where the outcome is wrong because of errors.
Touching moment at Milei rally:
https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1726625557536972964
Hold the phone…..is not Trump being accused of inciting an insurrection or riot for his speech on January 6th….so why not this big mouth nimrod?
The Professor is right….there is a line but where it lies is up to the whim of the prosecutor and not etched in stone in clear unambiguous carving.
I know what “eliminated” can mean….dumped from the team roster, losing a game in a tournament, or being killed….like so many were on October 7th.
Now of course who would ever consider Goldman a danger except to himself but still….words have meanings and with the Loon Wing of the Democrat Party….one never knows!
Some Secret Service Agents need to do a sit down Interview of Goldman….following and advisement of his Fifth Amendment Rights and do a proper investigation of this latest example of why friends should not let friends vote Democrat.
Why should there be a press in the first place? How do I benefit from it?
There is no benefit if you don’t read it.
These days there is no benefit if you do read it.
I never heard of the guy before, but what’s in a name.
Generally speaking, many voters of opposing political parties actually get along very well. In my neighborhood Trump voters are friendly to Biden voters.
One big problem is the politicians (leaders) seem to try to divide us by appeasing to the extreme fringes of both parties, then pitting us against the other side.
Maybe the reason the leaders are trying to divide us is they don’t have to be fiscally responsible? They keep loading our grandkids up with debt while we fight each other.
Most voters I know vote out of fear, not for the candidate that best represents them (the other guy is so dangerous vote for me).
And that fear is generally stoked by the MSM and politicians from opposing parties.
When rhetoric turns to violence-ideation, it is a sign that freedom of speech has pre-empted the responsibilities of speech.
The ability to think freely, creatively and constructively can only be maximized for the many at the expense of clamping down on the fanatical few who exploit speech freedoms to intimidate and dupe. I know, it’s a difficult line to draw (especially legalistically). But history shows time and again, when zealots take hold of the infospace, they destroy the atmospherics needed for creative problem-solving, inflame paranoid distrust, and set the table for violence. After the paroxism of violent conflict subsides, the same problems remain to be solved that ignited the conflict. Negotiation has merely been put off by lashing out with violence, sapping energy, trust, irreplaceable lives and time squandered.
This is why taking up one-sided advocacy to expand and secure “free speech” as JT does will backfire horribly by overshooting. The sweet spot is book-ended somewhere between the twin evils of repressive censorship and unbridled, manipulative fanaticism. Both set the stage for authoritarian rule — censorship to keep the authoritarians in power — and fanaticism by replacing them with “our authoritarians”. And be sure, those who rise to power through trickery and deceit will use it in every way possible to hold onto power once there. Do you know how they’ll defend their version of thought-control?…..the freedom to choose what to believe (subjective, self-interested reality) and the freedom to then act on one’s beliefs.
JT is handing our future to the master manipulator-infowarriors in failing to recognize the limits of free-speech (which are defined by its responsibilities). I wish more like JT could engage with the topic of speech responsibilities (such as honesty, modesty, and constructive ideation). Then we can have thoughtful debate about how to distribute that responsibility widely enough so that speech norms are broadly owned and upheld, and cannot be centralized by authoritarian types.
Freedom without responsibility is the pathway to anarchy/tyranny.
You make a valid point speech being defined by its responsibilities, then go on defining responsibilities such as honesty, modesty, and constructive ideation (forming ideas?).
How would you put limits on any speech that’s not insightful? Would calling someone a long down critter and I’m coming to smash you (honesty)? Or you sure are pretty can I smell your hair (modesty)? Put no limits on speech that isn’t physically or economically harmful to another, uttering emanations’ have no place to claim harm (constructive ideation).
When others endeavor to limit what can be said danger is advised!
Pbinca – this is false.
Society actually thrives best overall with the greatest freedom of speech.
To the extent that bad speech has consequences that is ONLY in our own individual choices.
Freedom does require responsibility, but aside from responsibility for ACTIONS – and particularly VIOLENT actions , that responsibility is imposed by the rest of us as individuals acting freely.
There is no thoughtful debate needed, you are free to say what you please, and I am free to reply as I wish or to make any other free choices I wish in response to your speech.
We punish dishonesty by chosing not to trust those who lie. We punish immodesty by choosing not to associate with those whose speech we do not wish to be associated with.
We reward creativity, ideas that work. We punish failure by choosing not to support it in the future.
What we may not do is silence those we disagree with.
If you can not grasp why this is important all you need do is look at the mess censorship made of covid.
A proper respect for free speech would have allowed all issues to be publicly debated – often by the best representing each view.
We would have learned alot far sooner.
We would have learned that the harms associated with covid public policies were far greater than any possible good.
We would have learned that Covid is a product of the hubris of man, not the punishment of nature or god.
We would have learned that covid itself was far too contageous to stop.
We would have learned all of this and more – because we would have heard the arguments from both sides of every issue, and we would not have had the views not liked by those with power muffled by government, by the press, by social media.
We would have learned the truth about each speaker – not some twenty something just out of school journo’s idiotic ideas of who can be beleived on complex subjects, But the actual qualifications of each presenter as well as the strength of their arguments.
John, take a look around you at the myriad of laws which criminalize different kinds of dishonesty….perjury, lying on your tax return, SEC securities fraud, unproven medical device and drug claims, making a false police report, Volkswagon’s scamming of EPA testing, Bankman-Fried’s crypto-scam….should I stop here?
Sports betting frauds, the Atlanta teachers convicted of RICO for mickeying student test results, FAA airline maintenance fraud, bigamy, identity theft and fraud, product safety laws, campaign funding laws.
You say that “Society actually thrives best overall with the greatest freedom of speech” — I’ve just listed 16 areas where dishonest speech (and written docs) illegal. These laws enjoy wide public support. Society actually thrives with the greatest freedom of HONEST and RESPONSIBLE speech. You can’t have the type of organized living with dishonest actors given the freedom to dupe others.
Take the 2020 “whopper” let loose by Antony Blinken and Mike Morell (“Hunter’s laptop was Russian hacking”).
This was a massive public fraud that affected the outcome of a Presidential election…many of us believe it tipped the election. Do you favor that example of free speech? … by political campaigns, with assistance from govt. officials and media giants….to DUPE the voters? What about using deep fakes in 2024 as a standard and perfectly legal technique of political competition? In favor of that, too?
Prof. Turley
The only fundimental problem I have with Rep. Goldman’s remarks is their hypocracy.
Rep. Goldman is free to say whatever he wants. As is Trump.
Frankly, I have problems with your “rage rhetoric” criticism. In Brandenburg and progeny SCOTUS has tried to setout a bright line for speech that can be illegal. The only plausible place for any line much less a bright line is very close to actual incitement to violence – and that iw what the court has chosen.
I do not even support “condemning” as you frequently do Trump’s inflamatory rhetoric.
Why ? Because despite the nonsense for the left – Trump’s language is commonplace – among democrats, among people in conflict generally.
Democrats, posters here – left and right commentators, pundits, political strategists, people in legal battles, conflicts of all kinds COMMONLY result in implied violence and implied or vague threats. While it would be nice if we were all more civil – that is never going to happen – and it is not new.
The political language of our founders was a violent as anything today.
There are no easy to draw lines.
All too often the result is we condem the language of those we disagree with and are oblivious to the fact that those we agree with – even ourselves are doing exactly the same thing.
Let Trump say what he wants.
Let Goldman say what he wants.
Go after Goldman for his very real and obvious hypocracy, not the fact that his language is laced with conflict words.
Jonathan: Dan Goldman is claiming DJT’s increasing inflammatory rhetoric is a danger to our Democratic institutions and he should never see the inside of the WH again. That is what Goldman meant by the use of the word “eliminated”. The Q is whether there is any basis for Goldman’s claims. I think there is cause for extreme concern.
At a rally in New Hampshire DJT said this: “We pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections”. DJT used the “vermin” term again in a Truth Social post.
And how does DJT want to eliminate the “vermin” if he becomes president again? His campaign has made it plain. DJT plans to use the government to go after his perceived enemies–weaponizing the DOJ to prosecute the Bidens and lawmakers who investigated and impeached him. There are also plans to use the US military to stamp out any dissent. DJT believes he is above the law and there are no limits on his power.
DJT increasing inflammatory rhetoric mimics the rise of Mussolini and Hitler. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, historian and author of “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present”, says DJT “is accelerating his incitements of hatred, now adding the dehumanization of his targets and using language that closely echoes Fascist rhetoric”. Hitler also used the type of incendiary rhetoric in referring to the Jews. He called them “vermin” that needed to be “eliminated”. And we know what Hitler meant by the use of those terms–it resulted in the Holocaust! And how do we know DJT is taking a page from Hitler’s playbook? His own spokesperson, Steve Cheung, told NPR: “Though Trump’s language echoes language Hitler used, many people listening might not draw the connection”. I think DJT’s supporters will draw the right connection–that violence is acceptable to put DJT back in power.
And DJT violent rhetoric has resonated with his followers. In a recent NPR poll 23% of voters said: “True American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country”. Has DJT ever, even once, denounced this violent rhetoric by his supporters? Never!
But you cling to the specious claim that DJT has never called for violence. When DJT called on his supporters (the Proud Boys and other violent groups) to show up on J6 because it would be “wild” he had a plan. He knew a strictly “peaceful” protest would not stop the counting of electoral votes. That’s why he told the crowd to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell”. Trump got what he wanted–a violent insurrection to try to overthrow the government to keep him in power. And contrary to claims made by DJT supporters, DJT never called out the National Guard to stop the violence. He watched with approval the violence unfolding at the Capitol. It was almost 3 hours before he called on his supporters to go home “peacefully”–and that was at the point when the insurrection was being put down.
All of your attempts, and those of DJT’s MAGA supporters in Congress, at revisionist history won’t change the facts about J6. Historians have already written an accurate description of what happened on J6. And when DJT faces the jury in his criminal trial starting in March of next year before Judge Chutkan he won’t be able to use your revisionist description of J6 as a defense!
Speaking of threats to America, another Democrat groomer caught with child porn.
Protect our children.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/11/21/democrat-ex-maryland-mayor-patrick-wojahn-gets-30-year-prison-term-over-child-porn-material/
“Democrat ex-Maryland Mayor Patrick Wojahn Gets 30 Year Prison Term over Child Porn Material”
The Democrat ex-mayor of College Park, Maryland, Patrick Wojahn, was sentenced to 30 years in prison Monday over possession and distribution of child sexual abuse material.
Wojahn plead guilty to more than 100 counts connected to the pornography.
The onetime regular White House guest and “mentee” of Pete Buttigieg was first arrested back in March on 56 child pornography possession and distribution charges, as Breitbart News reported.
The 47-year gay Democrat faced multiple counts of possession of exploitative child material and 16 counts of distribution of exploitative child material, a press release from the Prince George’s County Police Department (PGPD) said.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children first alerted the department that a social media account operating within the county was distributing “suspected child pornography” on February 17, according to the PGPD.
Police said they investigated the matter and found the social media account with the screen name “skippy_md” belonged to Wojahn, Fox 5 outlined.
Investigators believe Wojahn used a virtual private network (VPN) to mask his location when accessing the social media account.
The disgraced mayor resigned from his position on March 2 and arrest came soon after.
Sleezvez and his kind of evil we must fight against.
“In a recent NPR poll 23% of voters said: “True American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country”.”
You sir, are a liar and a hypocrite. I guess you are the sole arbiter of when resorting to violence is ok, since you said, ON THIS VERY BLOG, that “democrats support violence when its for the right cause”.
DJT plans to use the government to go after his perceived enemies–weaponizing the DOJ to prosecute the Bidens and lawmakers who investigated and impeached him. There are also plans to use the US military to stamp out any dissent. DJT believes he is above the law and there are no limits on his power.
ALL. OF. IT. IS. A. LIE.
And DJT violent rhetoric has resonated with his followers. In a recent NPR poll 23% of voters said: “True American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country”.
And I say, where are the other 77%. Are you Dennis McIntyre so stupid as to the natural condition of man. Man’s lust for power, that you believe the State has your best interest at heart, never considering, the power hungry care only for their pursuit of more power?
“And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson.
In 1969 November 21; Judge Clement F. Haynsworth Jr. was rejected by the U.S. Senate, as you might have guessed he was nominated by a Republican. The democrats during confirmation made disparaging comments of his character: “anti-labor, laundered segregationist, ethically insensitive and so much more”. Judge Haynsworth was quoted as saying after the rejection, ‘I knew there might be a problem because I was a Southerner, but I never expected anything like what happened.’ Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. said the vote was “political” and unjust. After the rejection numerous senators wrote letters of apology for questions his ethics which he stated later where useless as his head was the one being pounded.
I bring this up as proof the Democrat Party in its \entirety/ has not changed since who know when but proof at least since 1969!
Just a small side note: Israel-Hamas ceasefire 2008, 2012 and now maybe 2023. Sun Tzu: “The art of war is of vital importance to the State’, ‘It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin….’ The art of war is governed by five constants: ‘The Moral Law, Heaven, Earth, The Commander, Method and discipline.’
George W,
Well said.
IRT Israel-Hamas ceasefire and Sun Tuz, very well said.
Upstate
Thanks
George W – Don’t forget the earlier case of Judge John J Parker, an instance of “borking” before Bork came along, and one of the earliest victims of the charge of racism. https://www.knoxfocus.com/archives/this-weeks-focus/the-nomination-of-judge-john-j-parker-to-the-u-s-supreme-court-iv/
The truth is that the left will do anything, as if we need to be reminded, to keep Trump out of office.
The truth and facts will keep Trump out of office and, subject him to a courtroom and jury.
It is vital that Leftists be given complete freedom to verbally and physically attack the opponents of Leftism in whatever manner they deem necessary in our esteemed and sacred Banana Republic and under our beloved and cherished two-tiered system of justice.
An earlier comment by Ollie states,
“Notice how they will say our democracy. That’s not country possessive, it’s party possessive.”
Thank you, Ollie. I could not agree more.
The possessive determiner “our,” -as in, “our democracy,” certainly implies that only those sheep who dutifully follow the shepherd are members of The Enlightened, The Chosen party.
If not, they are dispensable; they must be eliminated from the Big Tent.
(“our democracy” as used by the Left.)
Lin,
Well said.
When Democrats do it, it is the patriotic thing to do.
When anyone else does it, it is a threat to their democracy/party.
When it comes to lying, gutter politics and inflammatory rhetoric, no one beats David Brock’s Far Left “Media Matters” hate group. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, following Elon Musk’s lawsuit, has opened an investigation into MM for fraud
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/20/texas-ken-paxton-elon-musk-media-matters/
Ken Paxton announces investigation of media group following Elon Musk’s lawsuit
After a report from Media Matters showed advertisements from major brands appeared next to antisemitic posts on X, the company sued the media watchdog group and its reporter. The Texas Attorney General’s Office plans to investigate the nonprofit for potential fraud.
Paxton said his office would investigate allegations that Media Matters — which he referred to as a “radical anti-free speech organization” — had violated Texas laws protecting consumers from fraud.
“We are examining the issue closely to ensure that the public has not been deceived by the schemes of radical left-wing organizations who would like nothing more than to limit freedom by reducing participation in the public square,” Paxton said in a statement Monday evening
For clarification, the actual fraud is two fold.
First by its own admission MM opened fake accounts, then followed anti-semetic and Nazi groups deliberately creating an anti-semetic feed, and then screen shot any adds that appeared which by their own construction had to appear next to anti-semetic posts.
The 2nd fraud is that Journalist Shellenberger attempted to reproduce MM’s work – greating a fake account and subscribing to the same anti-semetic and nazi accounts, And FAILED to reproduce the juxtaposition of major corporate adds and anti-semetic posts.
So it appears that MM both misrepresented to major advertisers how they obtained the add proximity they were using to deprive X of revenue,
AND they appear to have committed fraud in that even the method they eventually acknowledged does not produce the results they claim.
Personally I find the whole thing hillarious as the current head of MM has been called for antisemitism (not anti-zionism) repeatedly in the past.
This could prove destructive to MM.
Musk has very deep pockets. He is looking to sue MM. It is likely he will get to discovery. It is highly unlikely that MM can survive its internal operations being brought into the light.
Could not happen to a more deserving outfit.
An otherwise impressive background for very rich kid but on his website the following quote says it all: “He oversaw the drafting and publication of the Select Committee’s 300-page report on the investigation, ‘The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report’, which exhaustively detailed Trump’s efforts to extort Ukraine for his personal benefit.” There’s not a word from him about President Biden’s or Hunter’s “personal benefit” from Ukraine.
I am an Independent voter. I have always thought the dem party were pompous a-holes not half as smart as they think they are, and seeing those two confirms that post-Obama that is an acceptable part of their public image. Nothing like elites with 1/4 or less of your life experience or intelligence telling you what you ‘really’ think, or how you ‘actually’ feel. Great White Savior Syndrome is now in full effect for the dems regarding anyone and everyone, they are tyrants. They will push us down as far as possible because we are idiots to them, they know best for humanity writ large, and not to worry, they will swoop in and save us after we have been sufficiently punished and have seen the light (their light).
Raise your hand if you never asked half-witted, over-degreed tools likely raised by nannies to determine the course of your destiny. Pre 2008, this sort of thing used to cost them elections here and there. Now I wonder if anyone could possibly undo their damage on every level or if we simply must watch the flames devour everything in sight. Make no mistake: it is ALL on the dems and their voters who vote like they are taking a homecoming survey trying to get in with the ‘cool’ kids.
Democrats played a part in weakening the constitutional system and incentivizing Trump’s abuses of power. Democrats need to own this in order to solve it.
Obama (who I supported) refused to prosecute Bush leaders for violating Ronald Reagan’s torture treaty. Obama refused to look back – the premise of any justice system is holding past crimes accountable.
Today in 2023 Guantánamo Bay prison is still open and at least 40,000 Americans blacklisted – still blacklisted in 2023. About 90% of Gitmo detainees had no links to terrorism and few were ever on any battlefield against any American or Coalition troops.
This is the result of both political parties. Maybe Democrats should start here!
Not only did Obama refuse as you have said. Contra those on the left, Obama repeated, even expanded on the misconduct of the Bishies.
And Biden is expanding on Obama.
If the Palin ad with crosshairs on a map qualifies as a death threat, as the Dems claimed, certainly this does.
Tucker Carlson predicted that the Left would try to assasinate Trump if their Lawfare strategy seemed to be failing.
Maybe we have reached that point.