The anti-free speech movement in the United States was largely an outgrowth of higher education where viewpoint intolerance has taken hold of many schools. Indeed, intolerance and orthodoxy are often defended on the left in the name of tolerance and pluralism. Harvard Professor Timothy McCarthy is one of those voices demanding the removal of faculty with opposing views in the name of tolerance. He recently told New York University’s Washington Square News that any faculty who do not support “gender-affirming care” should be stripped of their academic titles and fired.
Many academics and citizens oppose “gender-affirming” policies on religious or other grounds. Some believe that school-enforced policies inhibit debate over gender dysphoria and the basis for various treatments and protections on both sides. McCarthy believes that no such debate should be allowed among faculty, declaring that “there’s a particular place in hell for academics who use their academic expertise and power to distort and do violence to people in the world.” He was targeting two professors at NYU who are affiliated with groups critical of surgical and chemical interventions for gender dysphoria.
Professor McCarthy offered the usual nod to free speech and academic freedom before eviscerating both in his comments. He admitted that “a level of suspicion and inquiry into medical practices is healthy,” but then dismissed such views as harmful and mere efforts to “poison the waters.”
There was a time when such intolerance was directed against the left and groups ranging from feminists to those in the LGBT community. Now, it has become a badge of honor, the expected bona fides that show the correctness and firmness of one’s views.
The irony is crushing. Harvard’s Kennedy School website states that McCarthy “was the first openly gay faculty member” at the public policy school “and still teaches the school’s only course on LGBTQ matters.” When I first went into teaching, I had friends who still remained in the closet out of fear that their sexual orientation would undermine their chances for tenure or advancement. Likewise, far-left academics associated with the critical legal studies (CLS) movement were viewed as “poisoning the waters” of higher education and often blocked from teaching.
The left has now adopted the same intolerance and orthodoxy once used against it. Indeed, it has been far more successful in purging the faculty ranks of conservatives, libertarians, and dissenters. As we have previously discussed, Harvard is particularly notorious for this purging of both its faculty and student body.
This year, Harvard again found itself dead last among 251 universities and colleges in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) annual ranking.
The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.”
Only 5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”
According to Gallup, the U.S. population is roughly equally divided among conservatives (36%), moderates (35%), and liberals (26%).
So, Harvard has three times the number of liberals as the nation at large, and less than three percent identify as “conservative” rather than 35 percent nationally.
According to the last student survey, only 9 percent of the class identified as conservative or very conservative.
Notably, despite Harvard’s maintenance of an overwhelmingly liberal faculty and student body, even liberal students feel stifled at Harvard. Only 41 percent of liberal students reported being comfortable discussing controversial topics, and only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt comfortable in doing so.
Among law school faculty who donated more than $200 to a political party, 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to Democrats.
Professor McCarthy appears right at home in his public call for a further purging of faculty ranks.
This is an area that has deeply divided the country, as was evident in the last election. Higher education should play a critical role in that debate by allowing faculty and students to engage with each other in civil and substantive debate. Instead of spending so much time and effort trying to silence those with opposing views, the left could instead focus on refuting these claims. Instead, it is replicating that same pattern of cancellations, deplatformings and firings that marked the last decade. It is the same approach used against academics who questioned aspects of COVID policies including mask efficacy doubts, natural immunity theories, opposition to the closing of schools, opposition to the six-foot rule, and the lab theory on the virus’s origin. They were also removed from faculties and associations. Yet, many of these views have since been vindicated.
What was lost was not just free speech and academic freedom, but a rigorous debate that might have helped us avoid some of the costs of unsupported COVID policies. For example, some of our closest allies listened to skeptics on the need to close schools and opted to keep young children in school. They were able to avoid the massive educational and psychological costs that we incurred in this country. Much like Professor McCarthy, these skeptics were accused of “poisoning the waters” and spreading harmful ideas or disinformation.
There is no difference between the intolerance of figures like Professor McCarthy from those who once sought the same measures against liberals, homosexuals, or feminists. Now firmly in control of higher education, many on the left are using their power to win public debate through retribution, coercion, and attrition. In the process, they are destroying the very essense of higher education for not just our students but ourselves.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Bill Maher recently observed that if Democrats want to lose every election in the future, keep denying parents their right to make decisions about their own children.
This teacher of gay matters at Harvard likely has no children and in the parlance of democrat left-wing extremism, should not have the right to impose their beliefs on others — ‘gender-affirming’ is one of those terms that’s relatively new in the lexicon of society —
The UN’s International Marxist Coalition considers Harvard Professor Timothy McCarthy to be the world’s leading authority on the advancement of pervision in the UN’s Marixist community. Some even say that praise is understating Dr. Timothy McCathy importance to the worldwide pervert community. Dr. McCarthy is also among the top 4% of Harvard professors with an IQ score of in the range of 92 to 102 when the mean IQ of Harvard professors is 87.6. However, an unnamed rival of Dr. McCarthy at Harvard says that he cheated on the IQ test and had been given guidance on how to avoid exposure on the alleged fraud by then Harvard University President Claudine Gay. (Dr. Gay is, perhaps, best known for her famous quotation, “Ask not what plagiarism can do for you at Harvard; but rather, ask what you could do to improve plagiarism at Harvard.”)
The message below from Dennis SmackInTire should be read by everyone. SmakcInTire is the voice of the Democrat Party, and he represents the core Democrat Party values, ethics, morality, and critical thinking; none of which have been found to exist.
Jonathan: Since you are in Tucson this weekend permit me to step in and recap some of the news this past week. The subject today is “DJT, Elon Musk, Marco Rubio and South Africa”.
It started earlier this month when Musk complained about the S. African government’s decision not to sign up with Starlink. Musk’ complaint was that decision was “because I’m not black”. DJT dutifully followed up by cutting all US aid to S. Africa after they passed a law allowing the the government to take over unused land owned by white Africaners. DJT even offered refuge status for white S. Africans.
Then yesterday Marco Rubio went a step farther. He declared the S. African ambassador to the US, Ebrahim Rasool, “no longer welcome” and persona non grata. What prompted that decision? Apparently, Rubio saw an article in right-wing Breitbart news about a talk Rasool gave as part of S. African think tank Webinar. This is what the ambassador said: “The supremacist assault on incumbency, we see it in the domestic politics of the USA, the MAGA movement, as a response not simply to a [white] supremacist instinct, but to very clear data that shows great demographic shifts in the USA, in which the voting electorate in the USA is projected to become 48% white”. In his talk Rasool also pointed to Musk’s support for right-wing white neo-fascist parties in Europe, calling that a “dog whistle” in a global movement trying to rally people who see themselves as part of an “embattled white community”. Apparently, Rubio thinks ambassador Rasool should not be criticizing the US in public.
The views of Rasool are just part of the DJT administration’s attacks on S. Africa. DJT, Musk and Rubio don’t like S. Africa’s support for Palestinian rights, accusing the US and Israel of genocide in Gaza. But the vast majority of countries have also taken a firm position against US diplomatic and military support Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians. So why single out S. Africa? Musk, a private citizen, is now in charge of the US government and its foreign policy. What Musk wants–he gets. Declaring an ambassador “persona non grata” is rare but Musk wants retribution against S. Africa because it’s black led government won’t do business with one of his companies. That’s the kind of corruption we now see inside the DJT administration these days. Can you imagine the reaction from Republicans had Joe Biden declared a foreign ambassador persona no grata because his government refused to do business with Hunter?
..like anyone needs any ‘recap’ from Dennis the Menace… so Delusional.. you never have told us who is paying you to troll here with the most asinine writing ever…please.. you both need help for your TDS… !!!
Dennis SmackInTire loves Hamas, China, Russia, Cuba, and South Africa, and any other entity where fascism and crimes against humanity are loved, worshipped, and respected. He hates America, Israel, and Civilization. He especially loves telling lies. He hasn’t said a word of truth in the last 20 years. But he’s an excellent place to see the latest Marxist propaganda from SmackInTire’s masters as he copies all their talking points.
And now a word from a gay Jew, Dave Rubin, who denounces the Left using gay/lesbians much like they used blacks…who were eventually lynched by Democrats. Democrats have a long history of lynching groups of people. They never change, they never will
Teaching = Learning
vs.
Influencing = Conditioning
—
Independent Experience = Personal Knowledge
vs.
Scholastic Curriculum = Systemic Conditioning
—
Learned Behaviorism = Condition
vs.
Knowledge = Ability
—
Where does the Parental/Governmental experience (raising/schooling) intercede and creates a successful Social Integration?
Are the Universal Fundamentals in a complete eco-set (Balanced system) or at odds?
IF the Individual does not ‘fit’ into or feels they do not ‘fit’ into the norm, then Conditioning will not work and an Alternate-Conditioning assumes the experience.
The effects of the conditioning maybe temporary (K-12) or permanent (Through Adulthood). There are many variables in each Individuals learned-experiences, in a majority of cases the Individual will reach a Norm (psychological norm) which is in balance (at peace) and satisfactory to them. There will be a percentage that do not reach a Norm and live Independently of the social context of Norms. For these Individuals, it doesn’t project that there is something ‘wrong’ with that, it is that they ‘float’ independently through life, and find solace (a connection to norms) here & there from time to time. They are not ‘unhappy with this condition, they are at peace, of which those inside Norms find it uncomfortable because they do not ‘fit within their’ Norms (Belief Systems). Sometimes resulting in Social Conflict (a Hostile Environment), of which derive consequences. …
(OT)
Behold the modern Left:
Smear, terrorize, deport an American hero: Musk
Protect and lionize an American enemy: Khalil
Shocker. I expect he spends plenty of time with his palms down on the table.
It never fails to amaze me when I see academia demanding curbs on questions and discussions on the grounds that they promote misinformation. It is such a violation of the heroic role of academia during the pro-civil rights and anti-war movement of the sixties.
What accounts for such a turnabout? Did identity politics and culture wars permanently intoxicate all practical politics with evangelism, moralism, and righteousness?
Heroic role of academia in the civil rights and anti war movement of the sixties… LMAO!
Did you ever consider that they were subversive to America then as they are subversive now? Their Heroic role in the sixties led to the SLA, the Weather Underground, Kent State, the meaningless deaths of 58,150 servicemen ultimately establishing the footholds for the Marxist movement Barry the Chocolate Jesus point man burdened us with. The wholesale sell out of America.
Enjoy the suck that’s coming!
OT: What is happening in Syria to Christians and Muslims? Does no one care? There are no Jews there. Just look at a minute of film taken in Syria. Earlier in the clip was a young man pleading for help to prevent the slaughter. The rest is a narrative from an Israeli perspective.
WARNING: NOT FOR THOSE WITH WEAK STOMACHS.
“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zElib8abx9Y&t=262s”
S. Meyer – Such evil. They say Allah is Great as they commit mass murder, they murder people in cold blood. They revel in their own bloodthirstiness. People become like the god they worship. So who are they worshipping? I think we all know.
As the show’s host said: this is not news for one reason only: there are no Jews to blame. So the media is indifferent. The media shrugs its shoulders and yawns at the carnage. It ain’t news if you can’t blame the Jews.
” as they commit mass murder, they murder “
II see Islam as a religion with two distinct faces: one where submission is physical, tied to a transcendent God, and can be aggressive or violent; the other where submission is spiritual, embracing a transcendent God as a way of life. The former is often visible in the Arab world, though recently, some nations seem to be shifting towards peace, yet it’s unclear where their true intentions lie.
In contrast, Judaism is a covenant by choice, embodying both transcendence and immanence.
There is a clash as the Jews are indigenous to Israel and believe by choice they belong there. The Jew is chosen to propagate an idea of ethical monotheism. Islam, in some circles in the Arab world, is propagating violent actions leading to a global Caliphate.
The video shows the violent side of Islam. Momoud Khalil’s arrest and potential deportation, represents the tolerant American attempt to exclude those from its shores who demonstrate such a violent nature.
Someone needs to punch the good prof in thee face in the name of freedom of expression.
Jonathan: In your previous column you announced you were going to Tucson to participate in panel discussions. You said you would be discussing “some of the First Amendment freedoms that are now under fire”. While I can’t attend the discussions here is a Q I would like to have asked you: Is the boy-God King permitted under the First Amendment to banish or shut down a private law firm because of their views he doesn’t like?
We all know the current occupant on the throne is a petty and vengeful tyrant. His style of governing mimics those of former rulers of old who engaged in personal retribution against their perceived enemies. Need an example? On March 6 DJT issued an EO targeting the law firm of Perkins Coie in Seattle. He ordered that lawyers from PC were barred from interacting with federal agencies re pending litigation; they could not even enter federal buildings and the lawyers security clearances were revoked.
Now the Q is why DJT would target only one law firm in his EO? It seems our “ruler” does have a long list of those he thinks wronged him in the past–and Perkins Coie is at the top of his hit list. The firm represented Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign. They hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on DJT. Fusion GPS in turn hired Christopher Steele who became famous or infamous for his “Steele dossier”. DJT was so angry about the dossier he filed a personal lawsuit against PC. The suit was eventually thrown out by the courts in NY. In addition, Perkins Coie represented Michael Sussmann when he was charged with lying to the FBI. Sussmann was acquitted by a jury of those charges. So it’s clear why Perkins Coie was on DJT’s target list for retribution once he got back into office.
But Perkins Coie did not take DJT’s EO lying down. They immediately filed a lawsuit in DC. alleging “It’s plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the President perceives as adverse to the views of his Administration,…” Judge Beryl Howell just ruled in favor of Perkins Coie. Howell found that DJT’s EO “on its face” violates the constitutional restrictions on “viewpoint discrimination”, i.e., a violation of the First Amendment. Howell compared DJT’s EO to Alice in Wonderland where the Queen of Hearts yells “Off with their heads” at annoying subjects.
So now it’s clear. The “emperor” thinks he can use his enormous powers to bully a law firm with whom he has crossed swords in the past. Judge Howell found that a violation of Perkins Coie’s free speech rights. Now you could discuss this important First Amendment case at the panel discussions this weekend in Tucson. But you probably won’t because you would rather discuss how liberal elites are purging conservatives from university campuses!
Just think we are only 50+ days into Donald Trump’s presidency and there are only 1400 days to go. 🙂
“I would like to have asked you: Is the boy-God King permitted under the First Amendment to banish or shut down a private law firm because of their views he doesn’t like?”
Not shutting down any law firms. He is revoking their security clearance.
A security clearance is not a right.
Perkins Coi was an active participant in selling the steele dosier and the Alpha Bank Hoax to the FBI.
Just like falsely calling the Hunter Biden Laptop Russian disinformation is a justification for pulling security clearances.
Worse still is selling a phoney dossier and bogus claims about secret messages to Russian banks.
Why would the administration wish to provide security clearances to people who compormised national security with bogus claims ?
“We all know the current occupant on the throne is a petty and vengeful tyrant. His style of governing mimics those of former rulers of old who engaged in personal retribution against their perceived enemies.”
Trump did not buy and produce the Steele Dossier.
Trump did not sell the Alpha Bank Hoax to the FBI.
Trump did not sic a special prosecutor on his political opponent.
Manufacture as fake classified documents claim – while having a real one himself.
Trump did not meet with State prosecutors to gin up even more fake charges.
Trump has not SWATTED and arrested pro choice protestors.
Trump has not had the FBI Spy on catholics.
I can go on and on.
Those who did participate in all these and more fraudulent and possibly criminal conduct should feel lucking that they are not being criminally prosecuted.
“Need an example? On March 6 DJT issued an EO targeting the law firm of Perkins Coie in Seattle. He ordered that lawyers from PC were barred from interacting with federal agencies re pending litigation; they could not even enter federal buildings and the lawyers security clearances were revoked.”
Good for Trump – Perkins Coi was thoroughly enmesses in the Steele Dossier and the Alpha bank hoax.
I am glad that improper and probably illegal conduct has consequences.
“Now the Q is why DJT would target only one law firm in his EO? It seems our “ruler” does have a long list of those he thinks wronged him in the past–and Perkins Coie is at the top of his hit list. The firm represented Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign. They hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on DJT. Fusion GPS in turn hired Christopher Steele who became famous or infamous for his “Steele dossier”. DJT was so angry about the dossier he filed a personal lawsuit against PC. The suit was eventually thrown out by the courts in NY. In addition, Perkins Coie represented Michael Sussmann when he was charged with lying to the FBI. Sussmann was acquitted by a jury of those charges. So it’s clear why Perkins Coie was on DJT’s target list for retribution once he got back into office.”
All sounds like excellent reasons they should not have a security clearance – BTW Sussman worked for Perkins Coi, and the jury aquited Sussman because they beleived the FBI KNEW Sussman was lying – Sussman admitted that he lied. His defense was that the FBI Knew he was lying – therefore there was no crime. That even appears to be true.
Regardless, it protects Sussman and maybe Perkins Coi from criminal charges – but not all consequences.
Either Perkinds Coi knowingly shilled a lie to FBI or they were duped by Hillary into shilling a lie to the FBI
Either way they should not have a security clearance.
“But Perkins Coie did not take DJT’s EO lying down. They immediately filed a lawsuit in DC. alleging “It’s plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the President perceives as adverse to the views of his Administration,…” Judge Beryl Howell just ruled in favor of Perkins Coie. Howell found that DJT’s EO “on its face” violates the constitutional restrictions on “viewpoint discrimination”, i.e., a violation of the First Amendment. Howell compared DJT’s EO to Alice in Wonderland where the Queen of Hearts yells “Off with their heads” at annoying subjects.”
I am sure Trump expected a lawsuit. I am sure the conclusion with the most biased against Trump judge on the DC bench was a foregone conclusion.
No the EO does not violate the constitution on its face.
Perkins Coi was engaged in Legal ACTS – not arguing viewpoints. regardless – you can be denied a security clearance because of your viewpoint – wehere that viewpoint is damaging to national security.
Regardless Perkins Coi will lose this – because it is not a first amendment case. You do not get away with assassinating Trump, because somewhere sometime you spoke negatively against Trump.
Free speech does NOT innoculate you for prior or subsequent bad possibly even criminal conduct.
Separately – power over classified information is the most ABSOLUTE power of the president. It is a pure executive power.
It is not reviewable by the courts.
There is absolutely no right to a security clearance.
Constitutionally the president can give them to or deny them to anyone he wants
“The “emperor” thinks he can use his enormous powers to bully a law firm with whom he has crossed swords in the past. ”
trump does not think it – the constitution dictates it.
“Judge Howell found that a violation of Perkins Coie’s free speech rights.”
You listed some of Perkins Coi’s legal acts – these border on Crimes – Sussman would have been guilty of a crime had the FBI not KNOW that the Steele Dossier and the Alpha Bank nonsense were a Hoax.
Trying to perpitrate a Hoac on the federal government – even when the government KNOWS it is a Hoax, is an Act – not free expression.
” Now you could discuss this important First Amendment case at the panel discussions this weekend in Tucson.”
Just because you idiots on the left think this is a first amendment case – does not make it one.
I would note – that Perkins Coi has NOT written Op Eds declaiming Trump. What they have done money launder the payments for the production of several national security hoaxs, and then sell them to the FBI.
For “George” and JohnSay:
Respectfully, you both have gone back and forth over an issue regarding the arrest/detention of Mahmoud Khalil. I do not wish to use up space over this OT subject but This is what happens when the media controls information.
It is my understanding that Khalil is being detained on an INA statutory clause addressing an alien whose presence represents “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”__And Sec’y of State Rubio’s burden is not what George purports.
The language has been updated to apply to aliens who are here on green cards. You can find the original language (denying entrance) under the INA Sec. 212. [8 U.S.C. 1182] (a)(3)(C) (i) see also 241(a)(4)(C)(i).
The same language is repeated in Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) which pertains to deportation rather than ineligibility for entrance.
(Apologies to all for using up this OT space)
No need to apologize for giving information that helps the leftists come to grips with the fact that Khalil will be deported. Why the Democrats would try this hard to find yet another 80/20 issue to side with the 20 is beyond me, but it sure is fun to watch.
Lin, keep up the good work.
Lin,
Thank you for your comment and information.
Turley’s article – like the majority of his articles is about free speech.
I think Khalil is on topic. There is no doubt that Khalil engaged in first amendment activities that he can not be deported for.
If that is all DOJ/State have then Turley should speak out.
If and when that proves to be the case – Turley should be critical.
That said I am expecting DOJ/STate to prove their case without much focus on Khalil’s protected speech.
I am also expecting – and DOJ/State and Trump are saying – this is the first of many such deportations.
Deporting Khalil may be difficult – because he is a legal permanent resident. He does not have the same rights as a citizen, but he has more rights than a Visa holder. If DPJ/STate succeed with Khalil – they will have less dificulty with others.
Further this case is likely to have all kinds of twists – it is my undersanding Khalil received legal residence in Dec 2024.
Any fraud or misrepresentation in his Visa or effort to seek a green card – will also allow him to be deported.
There is some strong suggestion of financial ties between organizations that he founded or had power within and HAMAS a terrorist organization.
There is lots that needs to be explored here.
But if everything else Fizzles and this devolves to purely first amendment issues – THEN criticism of Trump is warranted.
I do not expect that, and until that proves to be the case, unlike George I take DOJ/State at their word – particularly given other evidence in the media, and the fact that a criminal prosecution is not necescary 0 even a crime is not necescary – just a threat to the security or misrepresentations on his Visa or Green Card paperwork that would have denied his application.
While George is premature and making wild claims, and I do NOT want to hear from Turley until things are more clear,
This is a relevant issue for this blog.
“. . . Khalil is being detained . . .”
As Rubio put it: If during his visa application, Khalil had said that he plans to do what he has done, his visa would have been denied.
LIn, the problem is the vagueness of the statute. Rubio wil have to specify exactly what it is that would pose a “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
The SoS will have to explain what exaclty Khalil did that affected foreign polilcy. Israel being offended is not a reason. Because Khalil exercising political speech and organizing a protest is not a crime or has any “serious consequences for U.S. foreign policy. The “crime” is contrary to the 1st amendment and that is going to be very difficult to argue in court. You also have the fact that Khalil has not been accused of being violent or inciting violence. The government has not charged him with a crime because they don’t have evidence. Their only recourse is a vague declaration from Rubio justifying the arrest. Their argument is fundamentally weak and Turley knows it. That’s why he won’t even bring it up for discussion because he knows he will have to be critical of the Trump administration and accuse it of attacking free speech. He doesn’t want to do that for reasons that are clear. He doesn’t want to face MAGA’s wrath and unhinged threats. ACB is already experiencing that with bomb threats to his sister from MAGAs upset over her siding with the liberal justices on a ruling against Trump.
George: Well, true to form, you’ve tried to move the goalposts again.
Yesterday, on multiple occasions, it was all about your repeatedly-raised defenses: no unprotected speech and no charge or conviction of a crime. I simply pointed out that you were arguing the wrong criteria/burden. While either or both could be presented to support the gov’t’s position, neither is requisite under the INA statutory clause(s).
But today, you implicitly acknowledge same and instead adopt a new argument about what Rubio must prove.
I respond, and accordingly, I expect many of my own thoughts/musings to be adopted and presented in later posts…by you/others…..to wit:
PRO-gov’t position:
(1) the relevant statutory language only requires that Rubio’s position has “a facially reasonable and bona fide basis,” and/or “is facially legitimate and bona fide” (see. e.g., Matter of Ruiz-Massieu)
(2) the precise language only demands “potentially” serious adverse consequences to national security/foreign policy interests. Likewise, the word “presence”
(3) In that vein, In Turner v. Williams, SCOTUS previously affirmed the gov’t’s right a/o “power of self-preservation.”
(4) Despite your narrow view of the issue (free speech/no crime conviction), I would expect that Khalil’s conduct will play an important role in Rubio’s presentation. In particular, if there is evidence of him handing out pro-Hamas flyers. There are two cases I can find that find such activity as INA-actionable , specifically, “providing material support of a terrorist organization” —6th Circuit’s Hosseini v. Nielsen and 9th Circuit’s Bajnoordi v. Holder.
WEAKNESS of gov’t position:
(1) there is no real objective standard against which the gov’t’s position can be assessed, bringing up potential for vagueness.
(2) there are limiting exceptions to the statutory power, for which Khalil could attempt to argue as applying to him.
Thanks for your response, George, and I did read all of it.
p.s. it appears that Khalil was the local head/go-to representative for the student group known as Columbia United Apartheid Divest (CUAD). CUAD prides itself in its goal to “eradicate” Western civilization and praise Islamist terrorists that act to promote that goal.
Still, I expect that a “due process” defense will be raised highlighting (as in (2) above) lack of notice/warning regarding what he may deem as free speech.
With the wind of the Dunning-Kruger effect pushing on your back, you continue with your arguments because you think yourself a genius. You are sure the lawyers are wrong, but that assurance is based on ignorance, not fact.
Elsewhere, Lin has pointed out quotes from the INA that allow for the detention of green card holders.
“would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
“would be prejudicial to the public interest or endanger U.S. foreign policy or national security.”
A green card holder might have all the rights of a US citizen, *****but they are subject to immigration laws*****, which adds the possibility of deportation (and arrest)
Despite what you think is your genius, you don’t mention these points in your reply. Instead, you keep repeating the same talking points without understanding the response you read and what you write.
I affirm there are three genders. Male, female and fruitcake!
I guess the fruitcake is available with or without nuts? 🤣
Trump wants to annex Canada because, as a convicted felon, he would not otherwise be permitted to enter.
Your comment fits right in with this article’s focus on democrat mental-disorders. Best of luck –
Your corrupt, illicit, communist lawfare debacle is still unresolved – your “felon” didn’t get a penalty, he received a promotion, he didn’t go to prison, he went to the ——- White House you ——- communist enemy.
TRUMP has replaced Global Warming as the go to cause of all misfortunes.
UK finance minister blames Trump for UK stagnant economy.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/03/britains-finance-minister-blames-trump-her-countrys-shrinking
No doubt women and minorities affected most, as usual.
“Collectivist Cult of Enviro-Wacko Global Warming”
Young, you make a good point. A few years ago the climate was the reason for living for the left and their benefactors, but on October 7, 2023 Hamas took over the conversation of the left as a new way to help weaken America and the west, i.e. Israel.
Notice that as of October 7th you now see zero protests regarding the climate and even Saint Greta is now just another champion of Hamas and for the destruction of the one Jewish state. The funny thing is that they bet on the wrong horse. They were doing ok as they were starting to make headway with the Biden team, staffs filled with progressive Jew haters. Biden was slowly being turned and I believe that if he or Harris had won Israel would have been sold down the river.
Hullbobby: “[if Biden] or Harris had won Israel would have been sold down the river.”
I think they were already setting Israel up for total annihilation. I don’t understand why. It makes no sense to me that the West would be hostile to Israel or Jewish people anywhere. Envy perhaps. But it is hard to deny. I like Trump’s idea of moving the savages out of Gaza. A two-state solution would never work with such a people. Trump asked some of the returned hostages if anyone in Gaza had shown even the barest bit of compassion. None did. Just hatred.
I can’t help but think of the most famous quote from Rafał Gan-Ganowicz
Old fish,
Thanks for that.
#74. Scientists genetically altered mice by inserting HUMAN language DNA. The mice born have different pitch vocalization. This is beastiality. Tragic.
As far as I can see the people will need to separate by State. It’s all wrong.
Gbye one and all. Thank you professor.
Immeasurable hubris seems to lead to unspeakable cruelty. Lefties freeze up when asked to define a woman. I have my own private definition of human. It is longstanding but has become clarified in recent years.