There is controversy at George Mason University after Nicholas Decker, an economics PhD student published an essay asking “When Must We Kill Them?” in reference to Trump and his supporters. The essay captures the growing violent ideation on the left, fueled by rage rhetoric from politicians and commentators. The danger is that, for some on the extremes of our society, the question is not “when must we kill them?” but “when can we kill them?”
On his Substack “Homo Economicus,” Decker warns that “evil has come to America” and that Trump is “engaged in barbarism” and seeking “to destroy the institutions which oppose” him. He then suggests that the answer may be murder and violence.
“What remains for us to decide is when we fight,” Decker writes. “If the present administration wills it, it could sweep away the courts, it could sweep away democracy, and it could sweep away freedom. Protest is useful only insofar as it can effect action. Our words might sway the hearts of men, but not of beasts.
If the present administration chooses this course, then the questions of the day can be settled not with legislation, but with blood and iron. In short, we must decide when we must kill them.“
This is obviously just the reckless rhetoric of one individual. However, it is indicative of a larger and growing problem on the left where people are increasingly turning to political violence. Rage gives people a sense of license to break free from basic norms of civility, decency, and even legality.
Decker is an example of that unhinged hatred masquerading as logic.
I found the essay deeply depressing. This is a student who clearly must be interested in teaching, but has not only undermined his chances of teaching but has adopted the very antithesis of an intellectual life.
Yet, I do not believe that this essay should be the basis for prosecution. The university has referred the matter to federal and state authorities for investigation. I have long opposed violent speech from being criminalized.
As someone who has received death threats for years from the left, I do not take such viewpoints lightly. However, I have long disagreed with sedition and violent speech prosecutions as a general matter.
College is often a time when students dabble with extreme or controversial viewpoints. Most quickly return to the center and moderate their positions. Some yield to the impulse to shock or to unsettle others.
Again, it does not excuse the chilling statements made in this essay. While Decker added that “violence is a last resort,” he still maintains that it is an option. He ignores that Trump is the product of a democratic process and that the legal process is working to sort out these disputes.
Trump is likely to prevail in some cases, but not all. Our system does not guarantee that you will prevail in such controversies, and failure to succeed is not a license to use violence “as a last resort.”
What I am more concerned about is the culture that is producing such increasingly violent rhetoric on our campuses.
Many current faculty have long espoused such violent positions. Indeed, some faculty members continue to make the news for violent political acts.
It is now common to hear inflammatory language from professors advocating “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. One professor who declared that there is “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence as killing conservatives was actually promoted.
That is the culture that produces this type of extreme rhetoric among students. These faculty members have normalized violent speech.
Of course, some professors have gone further and committed acts of political violence. Such conduct should be prosecuted and those faculty members fired. However, even in those extreme cases, liberal faculty have often rallied around their colleagues.
Years ago, many of us were shocked by the conduct of University of Missouri communications professor Melissa Click who directed a mob against a student journalist covering a Black Lives Matter event. Yet, Click was hired by Gonzaga University. Since that time, we have seen a steady stream of professors joining students in shouting down, committing property damage, participating in riots, verbally attacking students, or even taking violent action in protests.
At the University of California Santa Barbara, professors actually rallied around feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller-Young, who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. Despite pleading guilty to criminal assault, she was not fired and received overwhelming support from the students and faculty. She was later honored as a model for women advocates.
At Hunter College in New York, Professor Shellyne Rodríguez was shown trashing a pro-life display of students.
She was captured on a videotape telling the students that “you’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.”
Unlike the professor, the students remained calm and respectful. One even said “sorry” to the accusation that being pro-life was triggering for her students.
Rodríguez continued to rave, stating, “No you’re not — because you can’t even have a f–king baby. So you don’t even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.” In an Instagram post, she is then shown trashing the table.
Hunter College, however, did not consider this unhinged attack to be sufficient to terminate Rodríguez.
It was only after she later chased reporters with a machete that the college fired Rodríguez. She was then hired by another college.
Another example comes from the State University of New York at Albany, where sociology professor Renee Overdyke shut down a pro-life display and then resisted arrest. One student is heard screaming, “She’s a [expletive] professor.” That, of course, is the point.
This student is voicing the same rage that he has heard from teachers and commentators. The current generation of faculty and administrators has created this atmosphere of political radicalism and moral relativism on campuses.
I genuinely feel saddened by Decker’s essay because we likely share a desire to teach and to be part of an intellectual community. The most essential part of that life is to defend a diversity of viewpoints and oppose violence as a means to force ideological compliance in others.
I hope that Decker and others in our community will come to understand that in time.
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.”
An inverse of Patrick Henry? Give me liberty or give me death has been turned into I am G-d you do not deserve to live.
I’m Hispanic and I’m telling you White Conservatives.
Carry a weapon and don’t be afraid to defend yourself.
No more multiple warnings or pleading, if someone is trying to hurt you…Put them down hard.
They will not stop and you’re a fool if you think you can reason with them.
The US has been getting a progressively more violent ethos ever since the US Capitol example of Jan 6, 2020.
Oh for f**k’s sake. First, it was Jan 6, 2021. And I suppose, in your estimation, the “Summer of Love” in 2020, which resulted in 30+ deaths and $billions in damage, was merely a celebration of the life of a true American hero. For you, history may have started on Jan 6, 21, but those of us who have lived a while remember the SDS and the Weather Underground and all of the bombings and violence. The Left has ALWAYS used violence and murder to try to achieve their ends.
It would be more accurate to say ZEALOTS have always used violence and murder to try to achieve their ends.
That way, there needn’t be any distinction between mob lynchings during Jim Crow, the German Nazi Party thugs, the Bolsheviks, the Jacobins, Mexican cartels, Shin Aumriko, or the Weathermen bombers.
What’s dangerous mentally is to not recognize one’s own slippage into zealotry, which is defined as the point where common sense balance is pushed aside in the quest of a “cause”. The first sign is taking sides when crime is committed on the side of the perpetrator(s), as some have done with Luigi Mangione, or the J6th cop-bashers.
The blurring of the moral compass is the “tell” that fanatical thinking is beginning to have effect. That blurring takes the shape of a double-standard, different for “us” vs. “them”.
The Left is the problem, always has been, Jim Crowe, Nazi’s, antifa, blm, all leftists. J6 was proven a setup by corrupt FBI instigators and democrat legislators that refused added security. So your comment I assume by the way it was written was to deflect and excuse the leftists by falsely asserting conservatives are also violent. When in fact if conservatives were a violent problem, the leftist violence problem would be over. So factually it’s all the leftists under a multitude of names but all leftists that are the violent ones and have been for decades!
well said
J6 violence was started by the FBI, Capitol police and Antifa. Watch the tapes, even the few they have made available. It was entrapment. The only people that died that day were protesters. Let that sink in. Most of the people where defending themself against undercover police brutality.
Previously Unreleased Document Exposes Government’s False Insurrection Narrative: Only 56 Officers Reported Minor Injuries on January 6
The document shatters the government’s narrative of a violent “insurrection,” exposing it as a deliberate lie designed to smear President Donald Trump and interfere in the 2024 election.
Even more striking, the filing reveals that while only 56 officers reported injuries, approximately 180 MPD members reported using force against protesters. – politicom 24/04/2025
as someone who likes the notion of 2A I think you people are fooling yourselves if you’ll every have a clean deposition.
From the most culpable inner circle to the cop doing their job to the innocents hit by bullets when you try to get past that outer circle of “just doni my job cops”, you’re going to cause chaos and destruction of life thats innocent. Its just how that works.
#. Looked up Nicholas Decker and Homo Economist. Read the article and one other. He reminds me of Theodore Kaczynski . He is being investigated. Prepare to die, is definitely unhinged.
The existential movement results in chaos. Decker and Jeffrey Sachs both want to end poverty. They have the little world cultures to toy with and both believe the US must be brought low. My opinion…
#. Add^^^ some of Deckers reading suggestions look interesting.
Overall the United states can reasonably split up and no killing necessary. Unfortunately some in leadership are the slow and stupid ones…
#. As to split up, the states would rapidly form alliances for defense. The people would quickly learn what is important in United.
#. A psychiatrist would need to diagnose the left. It has some failure to understand priorities. It is like autism. Is it a dollar or penny.
What a tragic failure. People after having complete freedom showed who and what they are and the contents of their hidden selves.
What’s important? Rivers, lakes, tributaries, interstate roads, dams, utilities and energy, borders, defense.
Trade among states is states. Agriculture is by state, lumber and materials states and governors can meet and coordinate.
Until all people, domestic, are fed, sheltered and clothed to a good degree there shouldn’t be exports. If dairy has a glut, lower prices and we’ll eat more cheese.
Feds have gotten involved in personal business. States have, also. It’s concerning governors don’t meet regularly. Arkansas can tell Florida we need more oj. We’ll plant more cotton. Etc…
It seems to me that when the Left gets frustrated, they get violent. If they can’t convince you with their propaganda, they try to silence you with violence. Consider all the deaths that are attributed to Leftist governments. They number in the millions.
My dad used to tell us, “When (Leftists) are in the minority, they clamor for ‘free speech’. When they are in the majority, they suppress it.” They want to be the ONLY voice so that they can be the AUTHORITARIAN voice. Leftists are authoritarian in nature, and they want to be the authority. They will not tolerate any other voices.
Thanks for showing us that you failed history.
Every Leftist government (and that includes Hitler and Mussolini–they were not “right wing” governments except when viewed from a Communist viewpoint) has repressed opposition. Some more violently than others. Don’t bring up Sweden–it is not a Leftist government. Unless you are ready to come up with some specifics, your comment,”Thanks for showing us that you failed history,” is nothing more than hot air. Instead of dismissing me, refute me.
History confirms the truth of what you said.
“A Wisconsin teenager accused of murdering two family members and plotting to assassinate President Donald Trump was inspired by Terrorgram, a white supremacist network that operated on the Telegram messaging and social media platform for half a decade, according to federal court records.”
What? Not possible. Right wing people are peaceful (i.e. Jan 6 Capitol Building), patriots (look at all those flags), respectful (Nothing but good words for Obama), christian (lower case christian as their actions make Christ cringe).
Sadly, another example of unhinged leftists trying to normalize violence. This is the modern Democrat party for you.q
That ^^ was me.
I’m totally shocked that Turley so easily excuses such horrific rhetoric. The following quote from the Professor highlights the problem I have with his position.
“ I genuinely feel saddened by Decker’s essay because we likely share a desire to teach and to be part of an intellectual community.”
Seriously? To teach? What? The justification of murder? To be part of an intellectual community? Like the intellectual community of Pol Pot, Mao or Hitler?
I am totally astonished.
“ While Decker added that “violence is a last resort,” he still maintains that it is an option. He ignores that Trump is the product of a democratic process and that the legal process is working to sort out these disputes.”
So what? Even John Say has advocated for political violence as a last resort. Many posters engage in similar rhetoric and calls for ‘revolution’ or ‘persecution’ of the left in thinly veiled threats. Turley likes to pretend these issues are solely of the left.
He didn’t discuss the MAGA florida shooter. Which would be clear poltiical violence against the left by a deranged MAGA nut job inspired by the right’s rage rhetoric.
Turley likes to keep pushing these “rage rhetoric” pieces that ironicaly instill rage on the other side. Perhaps he should analyze that aspect, but it would contradict his current narrative of leveling blame on the left.
You’re comparing an 18 year old with some disability to a 28-30. PhD student
Poor George Mason University. Always struggling to get noticed. This doesn’t help.
Their econ dept used to have Walter Williams and James Buchanan, both solid economists. It also had Russ Roberts, who was behind the awesome “fight of the century” rap battles between Keynes and Hayek (which are easily found on YouTube). More generally it has been the East Coast branch office of the University of Chicago, both in terms of law, and economics. IOW, a rare center of conservative thought in academia.
Which makes it that much more surprising that such a violent left-wing screed would come from its econ department.
Okay, let’s now talk about how a gun decided to kill in a mass shooting. You see, 2A haters, it’s not a gun’s fault; it’s the mentality of the hateful person that causes carnage. This individual in the post is exposing, once again, the stupidity of blaming an object for murder.
Maybe not referring for prosecution, but this man’s behavior and associations should be observed. Too often we have failed to observe budding mass murderers until it is too late.
As we just read, with reference to the Professor running around with a machete, subsequent to a previous violent occurrence. The violent and aggressive tone of much of the protests of late has become more pronounced and frequent, witness all the utterly unhinged vandalizing of Teslas and twice-attempted assassination of our President.
And further witness that today we have mentally deranged commenters on here, comparing these unhinged machete-wielding professors and Tesla fire-bombing terrorists to the Founding Fathers.
oldman
In our earlier discussion, you ended the debate by simply saying that I am unreasonable.
When you simply declare an opposing view to be unreasonable, you are simply admitting defeat.
If you are unable to formulate a cogent and coherent rebuttal to an argument, then you have conceded that the opposing view is correct.
If you believe I am wrong in my assertion that Trump is acting like an abusive wannabe king who would have been reviled by the Founders, then provide a counter argument.
Simply declaring that argument as unreasonable doesn’t cut it the real world.
Now, who would have thought that the posturing to defund the police and to fundamentally transform our constitutional republic would lead to an era of rage and violence ? As though riots and lawlessness were not already acceptable as initiated by some segments of our population.
This was a wonderful response Dr. Turley. It was also kind. I think we would agree that we are now dealing with a generation, some of whom know nothing more than to seek response. This is how they communicate.
I am a MAGA. I look forward to the conflict. We’ll settle this once and for all.
The Russian Revolution and Chinese Cultural Revolution all wrapped up in a neat little bundle.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
“[We gave you] a republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
_________________
You couldn’t.
Once more, exactly 250 years ago the revolutionaries fired upon the British at Concord and Lexington.
…and eventually prevailed over the later mad George III’s parliament.
Uh, is Trump sane?
That’s the kind of thing people always say when there’s a new sheriff in town who is disrupting the old, corrupt, wasteful, and fraudulent way of doing things.
America is $37 trillion in debt due to all that corruption, and the fact the politicians cared more about their own payoffs than making sure America could compete under fair terms on the world stage, and refused to close the border or rein in the accelerating growth of the central government. Trump is the closest thing we have to the Founding Fathers, in that he is upsetting the old corrupt order and trying to installing a better, more honest, less corrupt way of doing things so that America can thrive in the future. You, sir, are on the side of the oppressive King.
Kansas elder, there is a right way to accomplish all that: have Congress write the appropriate laws.
Then the President faithfully executes those laws.
That’s not what is occuring with the felonious madman at the helm.
Have Congress write the appropriate laws. Then the President faithfully executes those laws.
Like immigration laws that Biden refused to enforce, but Trump is now enforcing?
That will do for a start.
Like this one (which makes Garcia’s witholding claim null and void): Section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does specify that suspected affiliation with terrorism can render an individual deportable and ineligible for certain forms of relief, such as asylum or withholding of removal. Let’s break this down based on the relevant details provided in the web search results and the context of the INA.
Key Provisions of Section 237(a)(4)(B)
• Deportability for Terrorist Activities: Section 237(a)(4)(B) of the INA identifies terrorist activities as a ground for deportability. This section applies to non-citizens (referred to as “aliens” in the INA) who have engaged in, are engaging in, or are likely to engage in terrorist activities after entry into the United States. The term “terrorist activities” is broadly defined under INA Section 212(a)(3)(B) and includes acts like providing material support to a terrorist organization, planning or committing a terrorist act, or being a member of a designated terrorist organization.
• Impact on Asylum and Withholding of Removal: According to the web result from MyAttorney USA, aliens who are deportable under Section 237(a)(4)(B) are explicitly ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. This means that if the U.S. government determines that an individual has engaged in or is associated with terrorist activities, they cannot seek protection from deportation through these mechanisms, even if they face persecution in their home country.
• Asylum: Asylum is a discretionary form of relief under INA Section 208, allowing individuals to remain in the U.S. if they demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. However, terrorism-related grounds under Section 237(a)(4)(B) bar eligibility.
• Withholding of Removal: Withholding of removal under INA Section 241(b)(3) prevents deportation to a country where the individual’s life or freedom would be threatened on account of the same protected grounds as asylum. However, like asylum, this relief is unavailable if the individual is deemed deportable under Section 237(a)(4)(B).
Additional Consequences
• Special Removal Proceedings: The web result notes that individuals subject to removal under Section 237(a)(4)(B) may face proceedings before a special court established under INA Section 501, rather than a standard immigration court. This special court is used when the Attorney General has classified information indicating the individual is an “alien terrorist.” This process allows for heightened security measures and potentially limited transparency due to the sensitive nature of the evidence.
• Mandatory Detention: Section 236A(a)(3)(A) of the INA mandates detention for individuals described under Section 237(a)(4)(B) (and the related inadmissibility ground, Section 212(a)(3)(B)). This means that if the government has reasonable grounds to believe someone is involved in terrorist activities, they can be detained without bond during removal proceedings.
• Related Inadmissibility Grounds: The web result also references Section 212(a)(3)(F), which makes an individual inadmissible if the Secretary of State or Attorney General determines they are associated with a terrorist organization and intend to engage in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the U.S. This provision complements Section 237(a)(4)(B) by preventing entry in the first place, while Section 237 applies to those already in the U.S.
Context and Implications
• Broad Scope of “Terrorist Activities”: The definition of terrorist activities under the INA is expansive. It includes not only direct participation in acts of terrorism but also providing material support (e.g., funding, housing, or transportation) to a terrorist organization, even if the support was not intended for terrorist purposes. This has been a point of contention, as some advocates argue it can unfairly penalize individuals who may have acted under duress or without full knowledge of the organization’s activities.
• Security Focus: Section 237(a)(4) as a whole encompasses various security-related grounds for deportability, such as espionage, participation in genocide, or activities aimed at overthrowing the U.S. government. The emphasis on terrorism reflects post-9/11 legislative priorities, particularly through amendments like the USA PATRIOT Act and the REAL ID Act, which expanded the government’s authority to deport individuals suspected of terrorism-related activities.
• Practical Application: In practice, the government must have “reasonable grounds to believe” an individual is engaged in or likely to engage in terrorist activities. This can be based on classified or unclassified evidence, and the threshold is lower than proving a criminal conviction. For example, membership in a designated terrorist organization (as defined by the Secretary of State) can be enough to trigger these provisions, even without evidence of a specific act.
The national debt is too large. So raise taxes on the filthy rich.
Trump and the GOP are looking to do that – raise the top tax bracket – while keeping the promise of no tax on tips and overtime, which obviously helps lower income workers.
But . . . it will only make a small dent in the national debt. Much, much more needs to be done, such as reducing wasteful spending, which Trump and DOGE are trying to do, but the Dems are trying to block.
Kansas Elder — Fine. Have Congress pass the appropriate laws which the president then faithfully executes. As it is, he is in violation of his oath of office.
Benson, can you be more specific? How is he in violation of his oath?
Failing to spend the funds appropriated by Congress of U.S.A.I.D.
Etc. ad nausem.
P.S. I’ll be gone for the next hour or more.
By your own standard that’s only a violation of his oath if Congress wrote the legislation to require certain specific expenditures. But my understanding is that a lot of the spending is discretionary. Can you identify a specific expenditure expressly required by Congress, as written into law, that he is refusing to make? If you can, then I will agree with you.
#. I’ve actually seen that happen– throwing gold bars off the boat as the year closes out…
Discretionary spending in the federal budget just means that Congress has to re-authorize the expenditure every year or two. For example, the defense budget. It doesn’t mean the the president can withhold the expenditure.
Mandatory pending is a prior obligation of the federal government such as Social Security.
If spending money on specific USAID items is discretionary, that is, not specifically mandated by Congress, then by definition he is not obligated by law to spend our money on it. It follows that if he doesn’t, he is not in violation of his oath.
If any particular spending is mandated, then those affected by a failure to obey the law can file a mandamus action and force it to happen.
Again, I will agree with your point if you show that Trump is refusing to spend our money on specific items that the law requires. So far you have not identified an example.
Kansas Elder — I already have. Read
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/can-a-president-refuse-to-spend-funds-approved-by-congress
#. He’s carrying over what he doesn’t spend so the 37 trillion is a tiny bit lower. Instead he’s buying vanilla beans bundled in the dirt by barefoot people. It’s a job.
#. DJT admin asked for receipts and the money is paid. Last reading 187,000 paid. Receipts are hard to get I guess.
Good to see you are alive and kicking, David. I thought of you recently as I read James Watson’s 1968 book, The Double Helix. CalTech featured prominently because of Linus Pauling. I don’t know if you crossed paths with Pauling since he held his position as director of chemical engineering at CalTech until 1959 but he seemed to have shared your politics. Fascinating book. But Watson was quite the bigot esp his views on Rosalind Franklin.
In 1936, Pauling was promoted to chairman of the division of chemistry and chemical engineering at Caltech, and to the position of director of the Gates and Crellin Laboratories of Chemistry. He would hold both positions until 1958.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling
Estovir, one of my freshman chemistry lectures was delivered by Linus Pauling. Vey impressive to look at the chart of elements posted to the side of the lecture space, which he couldn’t see, and listen to Prof. Pauling reel off the names, in atomic number order, of all 92 natural elements.
By the way, element 94, Plutonium, ought to be considered to be natural due to the Oklo reactor in Africa. Maybe there is a teaspoon full.
#. OMFK, THIS ^^^ is the msm product.
That’s a very interesting article, but it didn’t give any examples of Trump disobeying the law. It talks in very general terms about temporary pauses in spending, which it says have been restored. It also has an informative discussion about impoundment of funds, which it describes as a temporary measure subject to limitations passed by Congress un 1974. As well, it discusses the short-lived line item veto, which the Supreme Court struck down in a 6-3 vote. That, to me, was unfortunate. If America dies because of runaway debt (which looks increasingly likely to happen), then what use will that Supreme Court decision be?
Overall, thanks for that, it was interesting. But I realize at this point we will have to agree to disagree on whether Trump has violated his oath of office.
“Trump and the GOP are looking to do that – raise the top tax bracket”
I didn’t see anything that showed Trump was planning to do that. I did hear a similar comment from someone in his administration, but that is not Trump.
Trump’s way of doing things is sometimes impossible to guess, but his program makes sense when completed. The ultimate goal is frequently greater than he could hope for, and he has many ways of getting there. Those ways confuse those surrounding him and lead people to say things that are ultimately wrong.
#. What will or would you do with the tax money from the filthy rich? Sure, we can buy directly from China and wear the knock off Jordan Nike Air for $1.50. Gates will tank, too, buy direct.
You’ll need to.lower your wage to $500.00 dollars per year but it fixes inflation.
Burn wood for fuel. Plant trees. Yeah
The president exclusively holds complete dominion over the exercise of executive power.
No legislation or adjudication may usurp or exercise any aspect, facet, degree, or amount of executive power.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
oldman
As usual oldman has a completely distorted idea of what is going on.
Trump is not the equivalent of the Founding Fathers, who opposed the repressive king.
Trump is the equivalent of the repressive king who wants to establish a unitary government wherein all power is invested in himself, just like King George.
Under King George we had rule by an absolute monarch, a single man.
The Founding Fathers created a much more expansive government of three co-equal branches with numerous checks and balances. They wanted a large central government more responsive to the people, and under the control of the people.
Trump is doing his utmost to destroy that system of government.
He is unilaterally destroying entire departments of the government that were set up by the other co-equal branches of the government. These departments were created by the people through their elected representatives in those co-equal branches.
Thankfully the courts are attempting to restrain Trump’s destructive activities, but it remains to be seen whether Trump will ignore the courts.
This is exactly the abuse that the Founders talk about in the Declaration of Independence.
They rebelled against the king’s usurpation of control of their own affairs through their elected representatives.
It is not democracy if a single man can simply destroy governmental entities created by the elected representatives of the people.
You are perfectly free to disagree with the existence of those governmental entities, but in a democracy they can only be dissolved by the people through their elected representatives.
Trump is the very personification of an abusive tyrant intent on usurping the power of the people to control their own affairs through their elected representatives.
Yep, he noticed the economy had collapsed. Most likely he thought he needed to fix it. Lower expenses.
#. If those in congress and the appointed dem judges could read law or understand law or were moral it would be quite different. There’s an absence of good will for the American people and the US.
ok
“Under King George we had rule by an absolute monarch, a single man.”
“We” had no such thing.
England had a parliament and a prime minister. It was *parliament* that passed laws and significantly governed the country. It was *parliament* that passed the execrable Intolerable Acts.
The rest of your screed is equally accurate.
LOL. The left, now with dick cheney and crew, is the central authoritarian, statists you clown. We will no longer take your taxation for tranny columbian free trade coffee pickers, we will not longer pay you tax to fund soros and the atlantic council. We are the ones rebelling, dolt. You are the ones crying for the status quo – waste, fraud, corruption, and infinite wars. JFC.
I ignore the Nonny Mice. Choose a handle if you are not willing to use you actual name.
Civil conflict can spring from democracy–or any circumstance–when a significant portion of the populace is willing to excuse violence without committing it themselves. We are there, ladies and gentlemen. The bleeding edge of the Left has declared war by all possible means, and the rest of them are just making excuses. Most Democrats are ok with the mischief. The Summer of Love is back like it never left.
This is far more of a problem on the Left. J6 was exaggerated precisely to excuse flagrant abuses of power by the Democrats. J6 was eventually used to divert attention from their corruption as well… and Democrats are still making excuses.
I would prefer a quieter, more nuanced, Trump administration, but it’s also true that everything that the Left is accusing Trump of, they’ve perpetrated shamelessly. In response, many voters backed Trump, not because they loved him, but because they had learned to fear and despise the Left so much.
I had hoped the election would settle things, but I’m now starting to wonder if there is any way to live in peace with leaders of the Left in any Western country. It’s far worse in Europe. The Left have the power they want and are using it to cancel elections.
Quo vadis?
Proclamation 80—Calling Forth the Militia and Convening an Extra Session of Congress
“On April 15, 1861,…President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation calling forth the state militias, to the sum of 75,000 troops, in order to suppress the rebellion. He appealed ‘to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union.’”
Proclamation 92—Warning to Rebel Sympathizers
“[On] July 17, 1862,…I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim to and warn all persons within the contemplation of said sixth section to cease participating in, aiding, countenancing, or abetting the existing rebellion or any rebellion against the Government of the United States and to return to their proper allegiance to the United States on pain of the forfeitures and seizures as within and by said sixth section provided.”
__________________________________________________________________________________
Abraham Lincoln was a Great American President.
Now President Donald J. Trump MUST implement his rendition of “The Lincoln Era,” close the border, rescind rebel sanctuary cities, compassionately repatriate all illegal and unassimilable aliens, revoke birthright citizenship, make English the sole official language, commence a war to defeat the rebellion, impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus, “smash” rebel printing presses, networks, podcasts, and social media platforms, and imprison political opponents and rebel judges, all in order to save, not the Union, but the Nation, eradicate the communist American welfare state, and place America squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including absolute freedom, free enterprise, free industries, free markets, private property, and minimal taxation and regulation, alongside infinitesimal constitutional government.
(SARC/ON)
The Rebellion Must Be Suppressed To Save, Not The Union, But The Nation.