Khalil was a lawful immigrant on a lawful student visa who was going through the legal process to gain citizenship by virtue of marrying an American citizen.

Firstly: he was not a lawful immigrant, he obtained his position through dishonesty. This alone would justify voiding his stay. But even if we ignore that and grant everything….

Secondly: Being a “lawful immigrant on a lawful student visa who was going through the legal process to gain citizenship…” makes you subject to the LAWFUL LIMITS OF A GREEN CARD HOLDER AND WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN’T DO.

By any stretch of the imagination Khalil broke those terms, and particularly several subsections under the Immigration and Nationality Act’s Section 1182.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1182&num=0&edition=prelim

§1182. Inadmissible aliens
(a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:

(SNIP)

(2) Criminal and related grounds
(A) Conviction of certain crimes
(i) In general
Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of-

(I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime, or

(II) a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21),

is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception
Clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who committed only one crime if-

(I) the crime was committed when the alien was under 18 years of age, and the crime was committed (and the alien released from any confinement to a prison or correctional institution imposed for the crime) more than 5 years before the date of application for a visa or other documentation and the date of application for admission to the United States, or

(II) the maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the alien was convicted (or which the alien admits having committed or of which the acts that the alien admits having committed constituted the essential elements) did not exceed imprisonment for one year and, if the alien was convicted of such crime, the alien was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of 6 months (regardless of the extent to which the sentence was ultimately executed).

(B) Multiple criminal convictions
Any alien convicted of 2 or more offenses (other than purely political offenses), regardless of whether the conviction was in a single trial or whether the offenses arose from a single scheme of misconduct and regardless of whether the offenses involved moral turpitude, for which the aggregate sentences to confinement were 5 years or more is inadmissible.

(SNIP)

(G) Foreign government officials who have committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom
Any alien who, while serving as a foreign government official, was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as defined in section 6402 of title 22, is inadmissible.

(SNIP)

(3) Security and related grounds
(A) In general
Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in-

(i) any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,

(ii) any other unlawful activity, or

(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,

is inadmissible.

(B) Terrorist activities
(i) In general
Any alien who-

(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;

(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));

(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;

(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of-

(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or

(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;

(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);

(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;

(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;

(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or

(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,

is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

(ii) Exception
Subclause (IX) of clause (i) does not apply to a spouse or child-

(I) who did not know or should not reasonably have known of the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section; or

(II) whom the consular officer or Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe has renounced the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section.

(iii) “Terrorist activity” defined
As used in this chapter, the term “terrorist activity” means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if it had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:

(I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).

(II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.

(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18) or upon the liberty of such a person.

(IV) An assassination.

(V) The use of any-

(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or

(b) explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain),

with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.

(VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

(iv) “Engage in terrorist activity” defined
As used in this chapter, the term “engage in terrorist activity” means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization-

(I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;

(II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;

(III) to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;

(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for-

(aa) a terrorist activity;

(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or

(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;

(V) to solicit any individual-

(aa) to engage in conduct otherwise described in this subsection;

(bb) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or

(cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III) unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization; or

(VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training-

(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;

(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity;

(cc) to a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi) or to any member of such an organization; or

(dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), or to any member of such an organization, unless the actor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the actor did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization.

(v) “Representative” defined
As used in this paragraph, the term “representative” includes an officer, official, or spokesman of an organization, and any person who directs, counsels, commands, or induces an organization or its members to engage in terrorist activity.

(vi) “Terrorist organization” defined
As used in this section, the term “terrorist organization” means an organization-

(I) designated under section 1189 of this title;

(II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv); or

(vi) “Terrorist organization” defined
As used in this section, the term “terrorist organization” means an organization-

(I) designated under section 1189 of this title;

(II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv); or

(III) that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in, or has a subgroup which engages in, the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv).

(C) Foreign policy
(i) In general
An alien whose entry or proposed activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception for officials
An alien who is an official of a foreign government or a purported government, or who is a candidate for election to a foreign government office during the period immediately preceding the election for that office, shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) solely because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States.

(iii) Exception for other aliens
An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.

(iv) Notification of determinations
If a determination is made under clause (iii) with respect to an alien, the Secretary of State must notify on a timely basis the chairmen of the Committees on the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and of the Committees on the Judiciary and Foreign Relations of the Senate of the identity of the alien and the reasons for the determination.

(D) Immigrant membership in totalitarian party
(i) In general
Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception for involuntary membership
Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien because of membership or affiliation if the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa (or to the satisfaction of the Attorney General when applying for admission) that the membership or affiliation is or was involuntary, or is or was solely when under 16 years of age, by operation of law, or for purposes of obtaining employment, food rations, or other essentials of living and whether necessary for such purposes.

(iii) Exception for past membership
Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien because of membership or affiliation if the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa (or to the satisfaction of the Attorney General when applying for admission) that-

(I) the membership or affiliation terminated at least-

(a) 2 years before the date of such application, or

(b) 5 years before the date of such application, in the case of an alien whose membership or affiliation was with the party controlling the government of a foreign state that is a totalitarian dictatorship as of such date, and

(II) the alien is not a threat to the security of the United States.

(iv) Exception for close family members
The Attorney General may, in the Attorney General’s discretion, waive the application of clause (i) in the case of an immigrant who is the parent, spouse, son, daughter, brother, or sister of a citizen of the United States or a spouse, son, or daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest if the immigrant is not a threat to the security of the United States.

(E) Participants in Nazi persecution, genocide, or the commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing
(i) Participation in Nazi persecutions
Any alien who, during the period beginning on March 23, 1933, and ending on May 8, 1945, under the direction of, or in association with-

(I) the Nazi government of Germany,

(II) any government in any area occupied by the military forces of the Nazi government of Germany,

(III) any government established with the assistance or cooperation of the Nazi government of Germany, or

(IV) any government which was an ally of the Nazi government of Germany,

ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion is inadmissible.

(ii) Participation in genocide
Any alien who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide, as defined in section 1091(a) of title 18, is inadmissible.

(iii) Commission of acts of torture or extrajudicial killings
Any alien who, outside the United States, has committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the commission of-

(I) any act of torture, as defined in section 2340 of title 18; or

(II) under color of law of any foreign nation, any extrajudicial killing, as defined in section 3(a) of the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (28 U.S.C. 1350 note),

is inadmissible.

(F) Association with terrorist organizations
Any alien who the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, determines has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States is inadmissible.

That’s a long page and long quote but it is worth going over what the black letter law actually says. I have particularly highlighted sections of interest, that I think could reasonably be argued as either applying to Khalil or being close kissing cousins of applying. As it turned out Rubio would apply 1182-C to justify Khalil’s deportation, which I think is beyond honest contestation, and is far from the worst interpretation or violation Khalil could be accused of.

(And the American citizen had his child, so the marriage was likely not a scam.)

As someone who did volunteer work near the border, including with illegals, I can only laugh bitterly at the faux-naivety or stupidity of Bauxite trying to ignore what the heck an “Anchor Baby” is or how many have exploited that exact strategy in actual sham marriages.

But in any case it’s simply irrelevant; the problems for Khalil have very little to do with whether or not his relationship was a “sham” and have more to do with his violations of the terms of his stay and perjury.

Trump and Rubio chose to revoke Khalil’s visa and stop his citizenship process because of his pro-Hamas activities.

WHICH IS COMPLETELY LAWFUL AND WITHIN THE INTENT AND TEXT OF THE RELEVANT LAW. See: Immigration and Nationality Act Section 1182.

His dishonesty on his student visa application was not known until later.

Which would still be disqualifying in and of itself, but as it stands is just another nail in the coffin of his other offenses. As well as what would realistically be outright crimes against US Law were the DOJ to bother trialing him for them as I believe they frankly should. But alas, let it not be said I believe Trump is infallible.

So, no, Trump was not just “enforcing the law” w.r.t. Khalil.

Note the BS goal post moving.

How it started:

FAOF – Deporting Khalil was not “enforcing the law.”

How it’s going:

So, no, Trump was not just “enforcing the law” w.r.t. Khalil.

Let’s see that again, with emphasis added.

So, no, Trump was not J U S T “enforcing the law” w.r.t. Khalil.

You see what he did there?

Bauxite wants to be able to take a dig at Trump and those that support him, even while claiming he has no problem with Khalil’s justified deportation.

Khalil’s deportation is justified on multiple levels. Firstly that it was in fact “illegal immigration” on the basis of the fraudulent testimony Khalil gave under oath while applying. Secondly that even if we ignored that, Khalil violated the “rules of the road” for a legal immigrant conducting themselves on US soil, violating AT LEAST one part of the INA and probably more, thus justifying his removal. As such there should be no serious question that Trump had the legal right here, and the order was lawful and enforcing the law.

Bauxite on some level seems to know this, but Bauxhab wants to try to claim a hit on the Great Orange Whale and those that dare not believe him the utter devil anyway, without being openly seen to justifying Khalil’s illegal conduct as a foreign national on US soil. So he tries to muddy the waters by claiming “(Trump etc al.) Deporting Khalil was not “enforcing the law.””

This is admittedly not helped by FOAF’s post, which while entirely accurate and justified is not worded the best:

FOAF on November 3, 2025 at 2:01 pm said:
“But how is deportation anything other than “cancelling” someone”

Trump enforcing the law is “cancelling”. Yes, he wants to “cancel” illegal immigration! You’re too much, Bauxy.

Again, FOAF is completely correct on all parts here. Khalil violated US immigration law on at least two counts. There should be no honest disagreement with that by any literate person here. But because Khalil’s fraudulent presentation on the Student Visa allowed him to PASS as a Legal Immigrant (WITHOUT ACTUALLY BEING ONE NOTE, in the same way my passing myself off as Brad Pitt using his ID would not make me Brad Pitt), Bauxite is going to try and grasp the idea that Khalil was a “legal immigrant” (he wasn’t, though he would have had he actually followed the law and not lied, assuming he was let in which was more dubious) with both hands to try and go “ASKHUALLY KHALIL WAS A LEGAL IMMIGRANT!”

A: Again, no he wasn’t.

B: Even if he had been, his actions and conduct were in flagrant violation of the INA and would legally justify his deportation.

On some level, Bauxite knows that Trump was enforcing the law by deporting Khalil. All it will take is for someone to open the webpage and read the black letter law to see that.

So Bauxite being the dishonorable curr decides to move the goal posts to hunt the Orange Whale while trying to pretend they haven’t, by inserting a four letter poison pill to fundamentally change the nature of the claim while hoping nobody will notice.

So, no, Trump was not J U S T “enforcing the law” w.r.t. Khalil.

Inserting the “just” there reveals Bauxite’s idiocy and dishonesty.

I don’t think anybody here is “Just” going to claim that Trump, Rubio, etc. ordering Khalil’s deportation was “”just” enforcing the law” any more than refusing to commute the death penalty of Kenneth Eugene Smith for his contract murder is “just” enforcing the law, since you have to assume some might take personal satisfaction in a good end to bad rubbish, or that it would benefit politically, and I imagine some hangmen took particular pleasure in executing the likes of Lord Haw Haw.

But the important thing is that none of that other stuff matters as a matter of the law, and that as a matter of the law the deportation – like the aforementioned executions – was “enforcing the law”. All else is irrelevant, and any attempt to modify that is Bauxite trying to wiggle his way out of making a provably false statement.

He was exercising his prerogative to remove otherwise lawful immigrants who act against the interests of the United States.

So he was enforcing the law using his legal prerogative against an illegal immigrant who obtained entry into this country on false grounds and proceeded to behave in violation of his legal obligations under the Green Card status.

Play word games or dance around this as you may attempt, that does not hange the fact.

Again – I don’t disagree with Trump on this one,

Then STFU, stop lying about it, and give Bad Orange Man the credit.

but it is simply not accurate to say that Trump was just enforcing the law.

Which is why we didn’t say he was “just enforcing the law”, and indeed even YOU did not say that. You falsely claimed he was not enforcing the law, and then when you realized that you would be skewered by someone who bothered to cite the law you cowardly, dishonestly Motte and Baileyed your way back to insert a ‘just’, thus turning this from the question of whether Trump was lawful to remove Khalil- as he objectively, provably was – to whether it was “just” a matter of enforcing the law, something that is ultimately LEGALLY IRRELEVANT.

And you wonder why I have ceased to afford you the benefit of the doubt and now treat you as a gaslighting scumbag.

I imagine a lot of people picked up on this kind of sleazy, abusive conduct, they just might not have had the time, effort, inclination, or knowledge to try and explain what was wrong or how. And I won’t claim my own effort is a perfect way of doing that.

But it is a way to show. And it certainly is a lot better than what you’re pulling.

neo – I don’t think that you have your facts right.

If you were HONEST you would admit she does have her facts right as much as they apply, it’s just that they aren’t the primary ones of relevance here since Rubio etc. al. cited 1182 C rather than the membership in a terrorist org or endorsement of it. For lack of a better word Neo is barking up a right tree, but not the most directly relevant or invoked one. This is also why never trust an AI to do the work of a human.

But that’s still a heck of a lot better than what you can muster.

The Trump administration is not trying to deport Khalil in the grounds that he is a terrorist or gave material support to terrorists under the section of the INA that Google AI cited for you.

That is the best part of true: technically true, but irrelevant. They COULD And in my opinion SHOULD have sought to do so or even to IMPRISON him on that, but they aren’t.

What they are doing, however, REMAINS AND IS LEGAL UNDER THE INA.

The Trump administration is trying to deport Khalil on the grounds that (I) his presence, in the determination of the Secretary of State, is harmful to US foreign policy; and (II) he allegedly failed to completely disclose his employment history on his green card application. Ground (I) came first, and ground (II) was added a few days later. See below.

This is true, but again is a self-own. Either one of these alone would be lawful grounds to deport, contra what you wrote.

Neither of those grounds invalidated Khalil’s student visa or his green card automatically.

Which is where the hearing comes in to have the state prove its case. But that was done very quickly.

So, yes, Khalil was a legal immigrant with a valid green card until the actions of the Trump administration caused his green card to be revoked.

No, he was an illegal immigrant who obtained a green card by way of fraud, namely lying about his identity, work habits, and agenda under the INA. Lawfully this is the equivalent of fraudulently impersonating another person, ie being Jan Janssen the humanitarian hero of the WWII Dutch Resistance and a Righteous Among the Nations when in reality you’re Hans Totkampf the Golden Badge wearing member of the NSDAP and SS and convicted war criminal. But rather than that, it was “Mohamad Khalil the Hamas-affiliated propagandist and terrorist supporter” impersonating “Mohamad Khalil the law abiding, moderate, peace loving student”.

Since Khalil lied on his visa in a disqualifying manner, the Green Card was fundamentally fruit from the poisoned tree obtained by fraud and thus invalid from the get go.

And even if it *wasn’t* and we pretended otherwise, the fact remains that Khalil’s richly documented actions were grounds for invalidating even a lawful, legitimately obtained and held Green Card by a Legal Immigrant.

Now this is a bit arcane and tricky, but it’s not THAT Arcane and Tricky. Which is why I am not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and that you’re simply just this ignorant or misunderstanding the relevant issues.

The green card doesn’t become retroactively invalid because the administration chose to challenge it.

Correct.

It was, however, invalid at its “birth” because Khalil lied in a disqualifying way, claiming to be an applicable foreigner seeking it when in reality he was not, and conducted a years long deception in order to further this rather than seeking legal dispensation as is possible. It just took a few days after the initial challenge for anyone outside the circle to recognize this fact and prove it.

But even if we ignore that manner in which Khalil’s Green Card was invalid at birth (ie the “SS War Criminal pretending to be Dutch Resistance/disqualifying lie about your identity and actions”), there was the ability to prove it was invalid as a result of Khalil’s actions (“Jan Jansens is who he says he was but also was a Stalinist who decided to advocate for paramilitary violence in line with the Moscow Line even if he never actually held a party card”).

The fact that Khalil’s Green Card was invalidated from two separate ways (at least), One of which proving the card was fraudulently obtained and thus invalid at birth is damning and one reason why this went so fast and saw so little opposition.

Again, I agree with the Trump administration’s policy decision here, but it was most assuredly a policy decision and not a simple matter of enforcing the law.

It was still both, and thus Trump was enforcing the law. Which is why you had to move the goal posts.

See here:

Rather than waste your time with those, why not go to the actual text of the matter?

https://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/mahmoud-khalil-immigration-ruling-removal.pdf

Oh wait. Because it blows your claims out of the water.

In particular see the conclusion.

Again, this is somewhat tricky and complex but not THAT much, and not hard to truly understand. Especially if you are trying to peddle nonsense based on hair splitting regarding a challenge to a Green Card (while ignoring the irrelevance of that on multiple levels, especially the fraudulent basis on which that Green Card was obtained). I also note that while TRICKY to find this text, it is by no means impossible or particularly hard, and it also is well within your ability to scrutinize and critique (though it is hard to do so given the law and the knowledge of Khalil’s conduct).

This is why I do not take you as an honest or good faith participant. This is why I regard you as an unhinged troll on this issue. This is why I believe you are fundamentally dishonest and engaging in longrunning gaslighting and abuse. This is why if I were in Neo’s place this is probably the straw where I would flatly ban you, precisely because of the malevolent nature of this kind of dishonesty and manipulation and what it shows.

Go back to eating Crow, assuming you ever started.

Part 1

Well Bauxite, I hope you’re happy. You obviously saw this post as an opportunity to try and pat yourself on the back more, using Tucker’s dishonorable, unethical conduct as a springboard to try and make this story about you. To convince those of us that you were secretly the Bestest Boi and maybe even right all along.

While defending Khalil and his terrorist advocacy using the likes of PBS.

So congratulations. You managed to make this thread about you. Now enjoy getting it good and hard. I hope you’re fucking happy with yourself, because nobody else on this blog should be.

Last post was my summary. But now, Mr. Substance, I will go through your posts point by point and address their merits (or lack thereof). And the sad thing is had you not tried to be the egotistical, gaslighting shitheel you are, you’d have gotten a lot more sympathy and support. Indeed, I even agree with a few of your points. But no. Like Ahab the Great Orange Whale consumes you.

But enough prologue, let’s dig in.

I’m not so sure Tucker will lose his audience.

Like this one. I half-agree with this point. I do think Tucker will lose a large portion of his audience, probably a majority. He DEFINITELY lost the vast majority of the commentors here, and we can already see how the likes of Dinesh D’Souza and Hillsdale cut ties with him over this issue.

That said I don’t think he will lose his ENTIRE audience, as he is a cult figure and the die hards will probably rally around him, some becoming even more radicalized. So he probably becomes a guru figure sort of like (but more extreme than) say James Mason, Darry Cooper, or Hasan Piker now that “Collargate” has broken (where it turns out what brings down the Islamo-Marxist terror shill and 9/11 defender isn’t the stuff he’s been advocating for, but his dog abuse). And I really don’t think there’s a way to shear him of that kind of audience.

So it’s not a terrible start for Bauxite.

But since Bauxite is apparently constitutionally incapable of missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity and not smearing most of us, they promptly go onto this.

The same instinct that causes MAGA to push back so hard on anyone who notices Trump’s bad behavior will kick in.

“OOOOOOOOhhh DidyouseewhatIdidDidyouseewhatIdid you stupid cultist plebians?”

Somewhere in the yawning void of what is supposed to be Bauxite’s awareness and intelligence, Bauxite probably thinks this was not merely a clever dig, but a sagelike observation. And up to a very small point he’s right in the form of basic tribal identity and hypertension.

Only that gets more than outweighed by a few different points.

Firstly: Bauxite actually has a pretty goddamn poor track record of “noticing Trump’s bad behavior”, of which there is plenty, because noticing said bad behavior means the ability to ACCURATELY NOTICE AND IDENTIFY IT. This is a test that Bauxite has consistently failed, and indeed fails on this very thread because they are overly reliant on mainstream media and left wing smears, which we’ve gone over before like doing the clapping seal impression when the likes of Carroll’s (bogus) accusations and now the “Khalil didn’t warrant deportation! Trust PBS!” stuff.

This isn’t accurately noticing Trump’s bad behavior. This is indeed inaccurately noticing Trump period, because of overreliance on not just BS, but provable BS. At which point most of MAGA and a lot of others (including by now lawyers for even lefties that have skin in the game) notice the accusations, conclude they are unprovable at best or provable BS more typically, and discard them while chalking you up as a useful idiot.

Which you are, Bauxite.

Secondly: This ignores the very basic fact that the epicenter of the backlash to Tucker came from not just within the conservative camp, but within MAGA. Dana Loesch, Dinesh D’Souza, and the growing number of Jewish Conservatives and supporters of Trump have taken the lead calling Carlson and his scumbag friends out, even when this extends to Heritage. Especially since the likes of Tucker and Fuentes endanger the growing number of “Non-Aryan” supporters of Trump, including Jews, Black Americans (esp men), Hispanic Americans (again esp Men), and so on.

Indeed Trump has condemned him directly, as “Kooky Tucker Carlson”, among others.

So obviously there are different camps involved from MAGA pushback on behalf of Trump compared to pushback by Tucker’s (dwindling) audience against the vast majority of everyone condemning him, including most of MAGA.

Thirdly: This promptly ignores the other motives for said pushback. Including knowledge that for all of Trump’s ACTUAL Bad Behavior, and the vastly larger amount of either grey area or false accusations of bad behavior against him, he has done more to advance the conservative cause and its principles than most others in our lifetimes, and took the Republican Party to break into several things the Left thought were unassailable.

But this is different from the pure cultish “Follow Great Leader” tendencies (which I admit DO exist in the MAGA Coalition, and which is what you’re mostly talking about here) but based on a basic analysis.

They will ask, “don’t you know that time it is?” They will insist that those who criticize Tucker, or Roberts, or even Fuentes are showing “division” on the right and strengthening the “real enemy.” That’s pretty much what Roberts did. He won’t be the only one.

You know, it’s downright painful when you are committed to missing a point.

A: Yes, you’re right, that is pretty much what Roberts did.

Now how did that work for him? How successful was that?

The blowback was so intense that Roberts is now spinning and engaging in full damage control while Heritage is going through a schism with many condemning Fuentes, Tucker, and even him as others like Loesch pile on.

So while the tendency you highlight here is not ENTIRELY the imaginary, deluded thinking of your fevered, biased “mind” in the same way the Myth of McCain and Romney’s Superior GOTV was, but it was obviously outweighed by the backlash.

In no small part because of how this very strategy and tactic you highlight has a core problem with it. That what Owens, Fuentes, and Tucker are doing is INHERENTLY DIVISIVE. Tucker condemned “Christian Zionists” in terms far harsher than he did for Islamists, Communists, and Fascists. Fuentes went further by openly condemning Jews as a whole and all non-Catholics. Which means that even cursory engagement with them will involve identifying how their positions are not merely “sowing division” but are totally exclusionary, and of vastly larger portions of the populace than “Excludes unironic Neo-Nazis/White Supremacists/Jihadis/Catholic Confessional Totalitarian Heretics” does.

How did Democrats end up on the cusp of electing an anti-Semitic communist as mayor of New York City? Same process.

Sure. Totally. And it has absolutely nothing to do with a city in a state that has been dominated by a corrupt one party political machine for most of its history, and which since Rudy Giuliani has been dominated again by the Democrat Party Machine, having said machine be taken over by entryism from far left fanatics like those of the DSA, thus that the Cuomo Dynasty has been forced to play insurgent candidate and to cozy up to people like the New York Jews who he demonized. Not at alllll anything to do with Mamdami’s backers, strong Islamist and socialist networking, and Cuomo’s weaknesses and “bad behavior” as a candidate, as well as the frankly authoritarian and over politicized nature of NYC Politics (which were weaponized against Trump and many of his supporters, I might note, in other things you could at best give tepid condemnation of).

You’re an idiot, Bauxite. These were very distinct processes from what you describe.

But on the subject of Mamdami, shall we point out how he received the endorsement of none less than David French, Mr. Conserving Conservativism himself? What does that say about Never Trumpers Bauxite?

The only difference between those who are turning on Tucker and the Heritage Foundation because of Nick Fuentes on the one hand and Trump-skeptical conservatives on the other is that we drew the line in a different place.

Sophist bullshit.

Firstly: I can’t speak for everyone, but I began cutting ties with Tucker over his Putin BS and shilling for Jew Hating “Francoist Fascist’ Darryl Cooper. By the time Tucker began openly simping for Fuentes and Hamas I was so far gone from him you’d need a GPS to find me.

And I was not the only one. I know Neo condemned Tucker as “Pat Buchanan Squared” over stuff like the Putin Interview and his other conduct and that was some time ago.

Secondly: Note how this dishonest, gaslighting, demonizing shitheel is trying to backhandedly accuse YOU or OTHERS LIKE YOU, INCLUDING OUR HOST (who has put up with Bauxite for way longer than you) of being fundamentally on the same continuum as the likes of Fuentes, in his typical roundabout backhanded way.

This is stupid on multiple levels.

To the likes of Thomas Sowell, Colion Noir, Dinesh D’Souza, the Shapiros, or a host of others they couldn’t “erase the lines” that Fuentes and to a lesser extent Owens and Tucker drew even if they WANTED to. For Fuentes in particular the very best they could hope for is some kind of “George Rockwell – Malcolm X” alliance of mutual hates to try and partition the US into dystopian identitarian totalitarian nightmares catering to their preferences, be they Neo-Nazi on one hand and Muslim Brotherhood on the other as in the case of Rockwell and Malcolm X, or some kind of Protestant “Christian American” state on one hand and a “White Catholic Confessional” State on the other.

They have their own specific clubs, and you’re probably not invited. I know I’m not to Fuentes’s little bash in spite of actually being “White”, and I know many others aren’t.

As such, the idea that the only difference between the likes of Bauxite and the hardcore TDS cases, or even more principled or at least less insane “Trump-skeptical* conservatives” on one hand, and those opposing Fuentes and Tucker now, is a drawing of the line is FUNDAMENTALLY FALSE.

Knowing who and what Fuentes, Owens, and Tucker stand for means acknowledging the lines they drew, excluding vast swaths of people by default EVEN IF THEY SINCERELY WANTED TO DRINK THE FUENTES FLAVOR AID OR WHAT HAVE YOU, and excluding EVEN MORE people who were not ruled out as such but understandably didn’t want to – say – destroy America as created on behalf of a totalitarian, heretical ‘Catholic Confessional State” or an anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish, anti-Hindu, etc “Christian” America, is another.

Thirdly: “Trump-skeptical.” Yeah, no. Skeptical has a specific meaning, and it does not fit you. I do not deny there are “Trump Skeptical Conservatives”. I do not even deny that one can be Never Trump but still a skeptical conservative (though that particular bar is narrow and one few have balanced on).

It just doesn’t describe YOU, Bauxite. Because your conduct has been defined by prejudice and abject lack of skepticism about Trump. Because remember: the uncritical cultist who believes everything Trump says or that he can do no wrong is just as uncritical and unskeptical as the never Trump cultist who believes everything lobbed against Trump and thinks he does nothing right.

And even if I were inclined to concede that Bauxite has not QUITE sunk to those lows (I’m sure if I had the best part of a week to look, I’d be able to find a FEW half hearted compliments or defenses of Trump), it’s close enough for the purposes of this analysis. And heartily backed up by how Bauxite twists himself in pretzels over Khalil because he would rather believe PBS and ignore the clear language of Green Cards than give even half a scintilla of credit to Trump for laying down the law (and that IS what it is, THE LAW) regarding a Hamas propagandist.

I certainly respect those here who draw the line at rank bigotry and anti-Semitism.

Then stop gaslighting us and engaging in this kind of backhanded attempt to pat yourself on the back at our expense.

That’s defensible, and laudable.

Indeed, unlike the sum total of what you’ve vomited up here.

And my reasons for drawing the line at a different place are as much about practical politics as they are about morality.

No, no they are not. And this is evident from even a critical examination of this very comment, let alone the rest of your corpus. Even before factoring in that much of what you have ARGUED were practical politics (such as jettisoning Trump, ignoring the Jan 6 Detainees, and so on) turned out to be deeply impractical.

As I pointed out before, the underlying, rock bottom fact that cannot be gotten around for Fuentes, Owens, and Tucker is that their stances are not merely divisive but exclusionary. If you’re a Jew, they don’t want you. If you’re a Zionist, they don’t want you. If you’re a Hindu, they don’t want you. Hell If you’re a Muslim, a White American Protestant, a nonwhite American Catholic, or merely a White American Catholic that objects to blatant racist heresy, Fuentes doesn’t want you. Even if you really really wanted to cross that line you can’t while retaining your identity. As such the matter wasn’t of the audience drawing the line to exclude or cut ties with Fuentes/Tucker/Owens, it was them doing so in the first place.

This is a basic category error on your part.

Secondly: As we’ve discussed before, you have happily turned whatever morality or practical claims you espouse into pretzels or outright discarded them when convenient for condemning the Great Orange Whale or us.

But let this episode inspire some sympathy for the anti-Trump conservative devil.

It did, just not in your case. But I imagine BrooklynBoy and a host of others may be vexed at seeing you descend to the depths of this while being grateful you are serving as a welcome contrast to their “not being unhinged.”

If nothing else they didn’t pretend that this case was about them. Because it’s not.

I’d say that would be a lesson worth learning for you, but I doubt you are capable of it. Prove me wrong.

I’ve long believed that Trump and his movement are actually something quite different from what pre-2016 conservatives see it to be.

Ok, and to a point I’d be willing to agree as far as that goes. I’ve long viewed Trump as a boar and egotist who was seeking the Presidency for his own ambitions and beliefs, but also who was something of a Limo Liberal who was abandoned by the radicalizing Democrat Party and Left.

One of the key differences between us, Bauxite, is that while I try to assess Trump both on my terms and his own and critique or praise him as such while acknowledging the rosy view of many pre-2016 conservatives of him is not so, you seem incapable of acknowledging the Never Trumper view of him is also flawed and often wrong.

Usually egregiously so.

While I’m quite sure that Trump himself is not an anti-Semite,

GAASSP. Bauxite says something vaguely positive about Trump (even with the unspoken But).

Even if it is a fruit that hangs so low some superdeep bore holes cannot reach it.

Well done Bauxite, you are “quite sure” the openly pro-Jewish, pro-Israeli, Zionist President who had Jewish Inlaws, a Jewish daughter, and Jewish Grandchildren , and who helped pioneer the move of the US Embassy to Israel to Jerusalem, s not “himself an anti-semite.”

Let us all bask in the glory of the sheer INDUCTIVE, DEDUCTIVE, RATIONAL MIND of Bauxite, and applaud at the masterful logic and research that led to this conclusion. Bravo, bravo indeed. How ever can anyone doubt your wisdom or question your conclusions.

he has certainly fostered an environment on the right where this sort of thing is beginning to thrive. See also Vance defending the “youths” in their late-20s and 30s who were trafficking in despicable (and profoundly stupid) racist, Nazi shtick.

This seems sound until you remember a few things.

A: “Pre-2016 Conservatives” included the likes of Pat Buchanan, as Neo pointed out with her old reference to Carlson as “Pat Buchanan Squared.”

B: By this logic Trump’s vigorous and open defense of Israel and the Jews and effective exposure of Jew hatred (especially on the Left but also elsewhere, including Carlson himself) can be faulted for helping to spur more vehement Leftist and Groyper Jew Hatred, rioting, and smears on the grounds that it helped radicalize them further by putting pressure, thus “fostering an environment for it to thrive.”

If that sounds stupid that’s because it is, and even moreso than the actual point with Vance (who has notably disgraced himself in this affair, though more for other reasons). But it points to how slippery and kafkatrapping this kind of framing is, especially when applied without HONEST outside references or points of comparison (like just scrubbing the long struggle against Jew Hatred and other ailments on the right such as Buckley’s breaking with first segregationists and then Jew Haters).

As far as Vance’s defense of the idiots on that chat, I find it much less troubling than not just the likes of the DSA or SJP or Hamas shills like Khalil (and definitely of less criminal or security import), but also of Vance’s other issues like his refusal to push back against the person making the blatantly anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli comment, and his closeness to others like Yarvin. Vance’s points were cogent. That as stupid or hateful as these idiots were, they were young and stupid and had done nothing that warranted ending their lives or ruining them. Which is something that SHOULD be said.

That doesn’t mean I want to applaud them, and I think Sears and co were right to demand their removal and stepping down. But it’s far, FAAAAR less despicable, stupid, and racist – not to say criminal – than some of the stuff you are carrying water for or trying to problematize when you think (often wrongly) you can use it as a weapon against your Great Orange Whale or us. It has been a hot minute since I looked through the transcript of the messages but I do not recall any of them publicly justifying genocide or terrorist attacks and calling for repeats or occupation of schools like Khalil did.

I don’t think that Trump has any particular problem aligning with whomever he needs to.

On that front that would be something you and he would have in common, Bauxite. If so.

(I’ve recently wondered if Trump sees pro-lifers as just another set of “crazies” that he had to buy off for votes.)

Which is possible. He is a man of the center right at best and ultimately a Limo Liberal. But even if so he at least has the decency to regard us as “crazies” quietly or in private while advancing our interests publicly and defending our rights. That’s a hell of a lot more than most can say.

The left is worse. Absolutely.

Then act like it, Bauxite.

Stop carrying water for them. Stop spending more time figuring how you can stab us in the back and twist the knife to make yourself look better.

Do you want a cookie for saying something that should be obvious? Do you think I will so easily forget how your “political pragmatism” led you to advocate abandoning not just Trump but abandoning legal arguments and advocacy on behalf of the thousands imprisoned in horrible conditions and treated atrociously by the Biden-Kamala-Obama-Autopen Regime?

No. Get bent, and then get a sense of decency and critical thinking.

But the consequence of “fighting fire with fire” is that you may well find your own house ablaze I think that’s what we’re seeing here.

I think you’re an idiot and a moral cretin on multiple levels, and I have receipts to prove it. Specifically, that analogy is – to use the scientific term – goddamn stupid and self-defeating, and indicates that rather than think the situation or analogy THROUGH competently you defaulted to using intellectually lazy, stupid cliches that would flatter yourself and your prejudices but not actually inform.

Firstly: There is very little risk of setting your house ablaze if you fight fire with fire PROPERLY.

https://wfca.com/wildfire-articles/prevent-the-spread-of-wildfires/

https://wfca.com/wildfire-articles/the-pros-and-cons-of-prescribed-burns/

Secondly: Failing to use fire at all often makes the risk of your house getting on fire WORSE, not better. As a Californian expat the Palisades Fire comes to mind, and it should be thought of a lot here.

Thirdly: The house is ALREADY on fire. You brought up the rise of Mamdami and the DSA rise in New York City, but only so you could (ineffectually, dishonestly) try and turn it on us and blame us for helping to worsen the matter, before promptly discarding it (as if one of the world’s Prime Cities and by far the largest on the US’s Atlantic Seaboard electing an Islamo-Marxist friend of terrorists by way of hijacking the Democrat Party Machinery in New York is not a massive smoke alarm going off).

I realize you have a low opinion of us, and in spite of the faux politeness you have showed that has been painfully evident from how you have conducted yourself. But apparently it is too much to ask for you to at least have a certain level of consistency or memory about stuff you bring up in your own posts.

But because you cannot HONESTLY blame the rise of the DSA in New York Politics primarily due to Trump if you examine its history and timeline it, you try to avoid doing so so you can continue hunting the Great Orange Whale. Especially since that lets you ignore the way many supposed “Trump Skeptical Conservatives” like David French and Jonah Goldberg have mortgaged their supposed principles by not trying to oppose the most prevalent fire hazard in question, or in the case of French outright endorsed Mamdami and others you (at least vocally) accept are “worse. Absolutely.”

And you wonder why you lack credibility here.

(I just want to clarify that I don’t consider folks like Bill Kristol and David French to be anti-Trump or Trump-skeptical conservatives. They’re more accurately described as Trump-inspired political changers.)

Fair enough, but how convenient for you. Almost as inconvenient as the fact that their stated label is still as conservatives. Which brings me back to the point I raised about how “skeptical” has a meaning and you have repeatedly failed to live up to it, and how you spend comparable effort trying to pat yourself on the back and twist the knife in us as you ever have fighting the left or even the Jew hating scum on the right and middle.

It also doesn’t help you quite as much because their brand and stances were quite similar to your own just before this.

Turtler – You make an interesting point that I want to explore a bit. The right is supposed to be against “cancel culture.” But are we really?

In the context of my statement I was talking very narrowly about Heritage Foundation and their relationship/s with Tucker and by extension Fuentes, Darryl Cooper, and who have you. I also pointed out the fact that Tucker has been playing with something even more uniformly damning and dangerous than fire by edging up to and arguably over the lines of defamation, and could be found liable in a civil suit or worse. As such that if we are to talk about “Cancelling Tucker” that Heritage and any other entities involved with Tucker would have better justification than most due to the need to limit their legal risk, which would justify cancelling legal or implicit agreements with Tucker.

That’s distinct from a full spectrum attempt to cancel someone from every facet of life.

Though I will admit that the Right has generally warmed up more towards full spectrum cancel culture not just for criminal actions or unprofessional ones but in general, largely as a reaction to or MAD against the Left. That could escalate badly or out of hand though.

“Cancel culture” could just be described as the system of taboos and cultural consequences that any society uses to enforce a set of moral norms.

And “Government” could just be described as “Something we agree to do together.” That doesn’t make the description GOOD or useful or in keeping with common or accepted use of the term.

I can only criticize you for playing word games so much, Bauxite, since I do that myself, but would it be so hard to ask you to not play word games that re so blatantly dumb, intellectually lazy, and nakedly self-serving?

In that sense, the problem of the last few decades is that the left came up with a new set of (crazy) moral norms and acquired the (mostly cultural) power to enforce those new moral norms against a (mostly) unwilling populace.

Aka the problem isn’t the power, or the means by which it could be leveraged, or the inherently human temptations and tendencies to abuse it. It’s that it isn’t being used by The Right People (TM).

Gee, where have I heard this before? Perhaps Bauxite can show us the Ones we have been Waiting For? Maybe Bauxite is in fact one of the Ones We Have Been waiting For?

No. Farq that. While this power would do much better or at least less harm if used with some scintilla of responsibility compared to what it was, the leviathan is too powerful for any group of people to be trusted. Power once given will be abused, as we saw with the FISA courts and institutional “Fact Checkers” and “Experts”. Moreover, it cannot even claim to make the devil’s deal of “Give up your freedoms, your objections to this sort of power, and I will give you peace” in good faith, given how poorly its success rate is for that.

That is why it is actually worse than fire, because there are legitimate and even necessary and proven uses for fire. Likewise for say Posse Comitatus and the ability of local law enforcement to check military and federal authorities like ICE. But there is none whatsoever for the kind of coordinated harassment campaigns against private life for even what scum like Fuentes said.

This, in my view, is the most significant factor that led to Trump and MAGA.

Of course, what is not in Bauxite’s view (or at least what he is willing to ACKNOWLEDGE as being in his view) is at least as important as what is. Namely: the abject failure of the GOPe/RINOs/etc and even many “pre-2016 Conservatives” to effectively counter Leftist dominance of the news and social media, and use of it for propaganda, ostracization, cancellation, harassment, and worse. This is not to say that all establishment Republicans or even RINOs were ineffectual in this, and Neo has done well to try and balance the ledger with posts on that with the likes of McConnell, but I still remember things like the Rathergate Smear (that the left is now trying to whitewash) and the “Bush Lied People Died” BS, the latter of which I still see come up and which was the thing that came closest to making me boycott Trump’s election. I remember Rove and how in spite of his memetic reputation as Bush’s evil genius he proved INCAPABLE of pushing back on these blatant lies, and indeed on the latter case outright advocated Bush not point to the proof we had of WMD captured (albeit in lesser quantitates and qualities than considered) and details of Saddam’s ties with Al Qaeda.

I am not very old, but I am no longer very young. So I still remember those days in the aftermath of 9/11, hours arguing and dealing with the spin, lies, and messaging against the full bore of the news cycle and countless netroots as they smeared, often in ways very similar to how the Israelis were and are. I still remember how it helped blight us with Obama and the first major crops of DSA goons. At how I believe we handed them an unnecessary victory by adopting the “Red State”/”Blue State” division that let them bury the lede. Especially since I lived in California at the time.

I will Never get that time and effort back. Not in this mortal life on this physical Earth. But I am still one of the luckier ones, since I was a “chickenhawk” (though I am physically incapable of serving) who did not go to the war zone themselves or serve, and a minor writer. Several gave their life’s work dealing with it. Several gave their health and safety. Several gave even more.

So Trump’s tacking with the wind and aping bits of the attacks on the War on Terror enraged me enough to consider boycotting 2012. But as bad as that was, words cannot express how enraged I was to see the Bushes and Rove come out against Trump at least as strong as they did those smearing them as Hitlers and advocating for trials. I suppose I believed that if a war was worth fighting and having people sent to kill or die in, it was worth defending to the utmost. I suppose not though, so how much of the world will ever know of the chemical WMD so many of our troops found and suffered from? Of the networks to the Iraqi Mukhabarat and Osama?

Not enough. Indeed some on here still don’t (a few of you might remember me lighting into Mike Bunge over that. Speaking of, haven’t seen them in a while. What happened to them?). Trump’s ability to have staff able and willing to take the blows and fight back is welcome, and it’s something people that support or at least tolerate him constantly reference back to. Especially since it dealt a major blow to the narrative control of the Left.

But there is no acknowledgement of this FACT by Bauxite, no attempts to analyze what could be done better, what went wrong. Instead before the election he had the audacity to claim any other candidate would have been better than Trump. That if Trump lost Bauxite would spew red hot anger at those of us who did not advocate ditching him. The absolute muddle headed delusion and idiocy.

Mark Steyn predicted that if the “respectable” politicians would not deal with messy but nasty issues, the populace would turn to non respectable ones. Well, he was originally referring to the Le Pens in France, and Trump is far more respectable than them.

And yet Bauxite has managed to do worse than Victor Hugo’s summary of the French Bourbons, who he said Learned Nothing and Forgot Nothing. Well, Bauxite certainly gives a good impression of having learned nothing, but it seems clear they are happy to forget and have forgotten plenty.

In other words, the fight between left and right is not for and against “cancel culture,” instead it’s about who gets to drive the “cancel culture” car. In that sense, one who is against “cancel culture” is actually against any sort of common moral norm, which makes it very difficult to justify why someone like Nick Fuentes should be expelled from your political movement.

Again, I can only criticize you for playing word games so much, but you do no favors by playing it in such a dumb and nakedly self-serving fashion, Bauxite. Moreover, Fuentes is not a part of the MAGA political movement, as he admits when he talks about turning the US into a “Catholic Confessional State” or other things. And several of his ilk like Richard Spencer have self-expelled due to not finding us to his liking.

The bigger issue is not freedom of association (which includes the freedom to DISassociate and to refuse to associate, including cancelling contacts) but the ability to use full spectrum harassment and cancellation of all life on someone. That is the more conventional meaning of cancel culture, and also a more honest definition.

Barry Meislin – I don’t think your point works.

Of course you don’t. Because if you accepted it did, it would invalidate your lazy, muddle-headed word games.

The reason that progs don’t cancel Mamdani, AOC and Ilhan Omar is because Mamdani, AOC, and Ilhan Omar are all consistent the progressive moral code. Progs place their settler/colonialism and oppressor/oppressed frameworks above the avoidance of racial and religious discrimination.

Bullshit. Oh to be fair that’s PART of the explanation, but it is so far away from being the only one and so inconsistent as a whole explanation it is ultimately bullshit. Because there are few hatreds or rivalries like fraternal ones, because there are few more vicious cases of cancellation than among “progressive” parties (see: Corbyn v. Starmer, Browder vs. the Doctrinaire Stalinists, etc). If this were true unto itself Sanders would have been the candidate in 2012.

In truth the reality is more complex but also simpler. The Party Protects Its Own, and who it defines as “Its Own” is dependent on the party’s believed interests and pecking order. A lot of that is wound in to the preferences you describe, but they aren’t enough to explain.

All three of the figures cited above have a commonality. Membership in the Democratic Socialists of America, more Socialist than Democratic or “of America”, who have semi openly talked about taking over the Democrat Party and skinsuiting it. And over the past decade plus they have made great inroads into doing exactly that, taking over the party machinery and resources. Which is why they have moved from parachuting AOC into a Congressional District in New York to having Mamdani take over NYC as a whole. That ability to get in and be the party bigwigs choosing horses plus general exhaustion and disillusionment with the Clintons, Cuomos, and other careerists helped fuel their rise, but it started well before Trump.

So, in practice, they don’t believe there can be any racial or religious discrimination against people who are part of the oppressor or settler/colonialist classes.

No, they can and do, it’s just they increasingly approve it.

And it’s great for the right that so many are drawing a line at Fuentes’ anti-Semitism and general nuttery,

Helped by Fuentes drawing the lines himself.

but man, standards are slipping.

Bauxite, I doubt you have the capacity to recognize any standards, let alone whether or not they have slipped.

Ten years ago, it would have been inconceivable that Tucker Carlson would have lent his media platform to anyone who blithely praised Adolf Hitler or that the Heritage Foundation would have defended him over it.

True as far as it goes, but Roberts was active that far and actively shilling Pat Buchanan, whose depths of his nonsense were not entirely known but who was still poisoning matters. Moreover, David Duke managed his own entryism and hijacked the Republican Party’s Governor Candidacy in 1991. So stop pretending history began with Orange Man and the Escalator. Or rather that you get to ignore the parts of history you find inconvenient before Orange Man and Escalator.

(Gee, I wonder where progs got the idea that the right is a bunch of Nazis?)

And so the Oh So Concerned “Conservative” asks if we have stopped beating our spouses, because they are oh so ethical and upstanding and conservative.

You wonder where? I might have a few ideas.

https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2024/07/14/76-years-of-the-lefts-hitlers-from-the-little-man-on-the-wedding-cake-to-donald-trump-n4930688

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2005/04/the-left-and-al-sadr/

But you and your fellows in that particular strand of “Trump Skeptic Conservatives” and the “Trump-Inspired Political Changers” that sounded almost identical to your fellow five minutes ago don’t want to ADDRESS Those facts or the Duke 1991 Governor run because they show that ultimately the problem is far deeper than Trump or Vance or even Tucker and Fuentes. Which saves your egos but does not save anyone or anything else.

For now it seems that praising Hitler and being an out-and-proud anti-Semite is still a no-go for a big chunk of the right, hopefully still a majority. I guess we’ll see.

“A Big Chunk” is putting it mildly. Try the vast majority, and growing.

This is another reason why I am incapable of regarding this sort of nonsense from Bauxite as being made in good faith. When you really study the language, the attitude, the methodology, it all reeks to high heaven. Stupidity and naivety and ignorance I can all tolerate, but the abusive gaslighting, bad faith conduct, and dishonesty are another thing.

Anyways – progressives want to cancel people whose behavior transgresses their own moral norms. Conservatives, despite what we say, also want to cancel people who transverse our moral norms, perhaps in a softer way,

Bullshit bothsidesism is bullshit. Especially since even you admit it is in “a softer way.” The fact remains that there are certain expectations for holding a position of trust or professional job. Not only is a childrens’ educator abusing their position to push terroristic propaganda or exalt in murder evil and a betrayal of that, it is so stupid it is disqualifying. But the number of people on the right that want them to have a Social Credit Score ranked Negative 1984 with no ability to live even a private life is thankfully very low, and in sharp contrast to the Struggle Sessions we saw against the likes of Gina Carano or that Starmer has deployed in Britain.

although Mahmoud Khalil may disagree.

Firstly: Mahmoud Khalil would disagree about whether or not Hitler was the bad guy in WWII. He certainly disagrees if Amin al-Husseini Hitler’s loyal ally and fellow anti-Jewish genocidaire and terrorist was. So he can get bent.

Secondly: Khalil was “cancelled” and is subject to deportation because he BROKE THE LAW and particularly the terms under which he as a foreign national and migrant was allowed to stay in the US. More on this later.

Thirdly: Admitting that “the Right” and specifically the “Non-Trump-Skeptical” part of the Right are the camp whose “moral norms” accords with stringent enforcement of US Law and punishment of those that advocate terrorism. This is one hell of a self-own on your part.

Fourthly: I kind of disagree with Khalil being deported because I believe he should be in a high security prison for an extended period of time and THEN Deported, because the less time he has in contact with his fellow goons the better in my opinion.

Fifthly: Why is it that Khalil is the go-to example for the midwits trying to demonize Trump and ICE and the DHS for this when by its own admission Homeland has kicked out foreign nationals for WAY LESS egregious conduct than what Khalil is proven to have done (let alone did)?

https://www.greaterbelize.com/us-revokes-visas-over-comments-on-charlie-kirks-death/

Now to be fair, I view these people as idiots and possibly evil, certainly ghoulish. But I do not deny this is not a crime and should not be a crime, nor is the US Government claiming it is. It simply claims it violates the terms under which these people were allowed into the country and now they can leave.

Moreover, I also admit they had Visas, not Green Cards like Khalil, but at the same time their offenses were vastly less than Khalil’s.

Art Deco – I don’t think your distinction based on tactics works.

Of course you don’t, because if you admitted it in more than token fashion it would make your argument bend back on itself to admit the fundamental differences, including in both degree and kind.

The right and left use different tactics for “cancelling” their opponents, but that doesn’t make one cancelling and the other not.

True, but there are differences between cancelling someone’s contractual relations or a business relationship and seeking to cancel someone and their entire life or social presence.

Take the deportation of anti-Semitic, pro-Hamas students like Mahmoud Khalil.

Who by any stretch of the imagination violated the law, obtained his residency by fraud, and was party to several terrorist connected networks while publicly advocating for terrorism and the violent rioting and occupations on campuses. This is a matter of the law.

I have no problem with how Khalil was handled, especially if it is true that he lied on his visa application about working for UNWRA.

I pity anybody who actually is naive enough to believe you when you write this. Because I have been around the bush a few too many times to be among their ranks. I can already hear what is coming next.

Wait for it, Wait for it….

But

Of course. Of course.

But how is deportation anything other than “cancelling” someone who traversed (previously universal) moral norms against anti-Semitism and the glorification of terrorism?

This just in: Bauxite cannot even keep their own equivocation fallacies straight. Or alternatively believe REVOKING A GREEN CARD, IMPRISONING SOMEONE, AND DEPORTING THEM is a “softer” form of cancellation than what happened to Gina Carano, who for all she suffered did not go through anything comparable.

That alone should tell you that Bauxite is really making this up as they go along in a desperate attempt to be proven correct. It should also tell you they are fundamentally not gifted at thinking through their arguments and instead bend like pretzels. It also should cue you in to the fact that the cases ARE NOT COMPARABLE.

It also tells us they’re dishonest and gaslighting, claiming that the norms against antisemitism and the glorification of terrorism were “previously universal.” Which is an absolute crock of BS to anyone who has ever studied the 1960s or 1970s, or remembers whose living room Obama started his political career in.

In any case, Khalil wasn’t cancelled for “violating not-so-previously-universal norms against anti-Semitism and the glorification of terrorism.” He was taken into custody and subject to deportation for violating 1. The terms of his Green Card under which he stayed by advocating for terrorism and unlawful conduct, and 2. The law by obtaining his status through fraud, and with the intent of supporting terrorist activity. Sadly we are only going after him for the first categories of non-crimes in earnest.

As to your point about whether anyone is de-banking Carlson or Fuentes or trying to censor their podcast, you’re not wrong that the right isn’t doing that. But the right is undoubtedly trying to limit their platforms and their reach, to the extent that Carlson and the Heritage Foundation can be effectively opposed from the right.

A: “To the extent that Carlson and the Heritage Foundation can be effectively opposed from-” Biotch the most effective opposition to Carlson has come from the Right.

B: More substantially, this is more fallacious equivocation for you. It is drawing a comparison between a book store or publisher refusing to print copies of Mein Kampf or Das Kapital with an attempt to make it Illegal or Practically Impossible for anyone else to do so. Only the latter is an attempt to cancel entirely. The former is simply a choice to engage or not engage with someone, and underlined by the fact that nobody has an obligation to associate with X or Y without some kind of legal mandate. The latter is an attempt to deprive people and institutions of the choice.

The difference strikes me of one of degree rather than kind.

No it does not, you’re just pretending that is the case because otherwise you’d have to come clean and rejigger the basis of your argument.

(And there are many “cancellation” techniques used by the left that just aren’t available to the right due to lack of cultural or political power.)

Sure but some that are the inverse.

But just because “cancellation” comes in different flavors from the right and the left doesn’t mean that it isn’t cancellation.

Good people, find someone who loves you like Bauxite loves the Equivocation Fallacy.

The underlying point is that the right is better than the left not because the left “cancels” and the right doesn’t or even because, Khalil and his ilk excepted, the right “cancels” in a more civilized manner than the right.

Again, upholding the law against propaganda and support of terrorism and violent unrest on American Soil by foreign nationals and seeking their lawful, peaceful deportation is the essence of civilized manner, and necessary to maintain civilization. I would hold this to be true even when a left wing leadership does this.

So this not only shows that Bauxite is talking out of their ass (yet again) and trying to draw false parallels, but also that they have lost the script on what civilized manner is.

The right is better than the left because the right’s moral code is superior to the left’s moral code, which, as I’ve stated, is crazy.

That is one reason, but it is not the only one. And frankly the people that believe the Moon is made of Cheese are crazy, the Left’s “moral code” has far worse.

Everything else is just tactics.

That reminds me of a certain someone… oh yes. “There are no bad tactics, just bad targets.” Sound familiar, Concerned Oh So Conservative?

No, not everything is just “tactics.” Beyond morality and beyond tactics there remains things like ethics (and yes, Bauxite, there is a difference between morality and ethics), and professionalism. And I am probably missing a few things. But in any case, I’ll take this as another unintentional self-report. That you believe your camp is better because your moral code is better, and that all else is just tactics. That it is permissible to lie, spindoctor, gaslight, abuse, insult, and harass others without comparable provocation or justification because your moral code is superior.

That’s certainly a way to conduct oneself.

Don – I’d put MTG in the same category as Candace Owens. I don’t think either really deeply understood the issues or had a well thought out conservative POV before they became famous. Which is why both of them have been sounding a little off recently. A house built on sand. . .

On that much I do agree. Though I am inclined to suspect similar for others, like our friend David French and especially Bill Kristol.

Don – I completely agree about the discrediting of expertise and experience. So many on the right are getting a thrill out of Trump exploiting and pointing out the bankruptcy of our expert class. And the experts are getting what they richly deserve. But I don’t think enough people on the right see the whole situation for the tragedy that it is.*

*The tragedy is not that people stopped trusting experts. It is that experts stopped being worthy of people’s trust.

I’d say both are tragedies, though I think in many cases the “experts” were never worthy of our trust.

Don – Re: Khalil – I think it depends on how you define “stirring up.”

And so here we reach the point in time where we are basically at the “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” stage. By any stretch of the imagination Khalil openly celebrated, justified, and apologized the mass gRape, murder, kidnapping, torture, slavery, and murder on October 7th, and also tried to justify the genocidal platform of Hamas and its allies like Islamic Jihad and the PFLB. He openly defended and justified unlawful campus occupations and riots, and positioned himself in league with terrorist related networks. That fits the definition of “stirring up” and while I have my issues with Rubio his summary of this fits well.

Frankly I think it clear Khalil is guilty of several outright criminal offenses and so should be imprisoned like other criminal foreign nationals on US soil, but that isn’t how it is going. One thing I do take issue with for Trump and co.

My understanding is that Khalil was careful to avoid participating in the any of the riots or building “occupations” and that he was, instead, acting as a spokesperson and negotiator.

This is stupid on its face for three different reasons.

Firstly: The activity you describe would still be by definition “participating” in those things, especially since it is not like he was brought on as a neutral intermediary to negotiate as is sometimes the case. This is the kind of “oh look at how clean my hands are!” approach that command responsibility and racketeering laws are meant to go after.

Secondly: He still openly justified and celebrated these things, which is more than enough to invalidate his Green Card.

Thirdly: His Green Card was obtained by Fraud, which even if we ignored the aforementioned would be enough to justify deportation if not incarceration.

Fourthly: By absolutely any standard whatsoever he was guilty of what Rubio stated he was doing (unless you believe a vehement propagandist for Hamas advocating “Globalize the Intifada” and that other people commit crimes on behalf of his cause is not undermining US security and interests).

(I’m open to correction on that point if I’m wrong on the facts.)

https://www.jfeed.com/news/cnn-interview-mahmoud-khalil-terror-apologist

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2025/07/12/khalil-defends-intifada-chants-first-second-intifadas-were-civil-resistance-against-apartheid-and-occupation/

Please spare us the tendentious faux-legalities about how he has the right to say what he did. He does not have the right to advocate others break the law as he did such as advocating for squatting and building occupations.

Also spare us the claim that “Globalize the Intifada” should be protected by the First Amendment. That is coming up to the line in terms of advocacy for violence or even genocide, especially in the atmosphere he said it. But in any case as a resident alien you have limitations on your free speech far beyond that of citizens, and this is one of them.

That’s participation, for sure.

To put it mildly.

Maybe that counts as “stirring up”

“Maybe.”

“Maybe.”

“Maybe.”

You can always tell when Bauxite is bending over backwards to try and defend it.

and maybe you can say that he was engaged in some sort of conspiracy to foment campus riots.

“Maybe” That’s easy, considering the nature of SJP and his on the word records.

(Jack Smith would certainly think so!)

Not really, or else they’d have gone after him. Though the evidence is certainly moreso.

In any case, don’t scream “FIND A FINAL SOLUTION TO THE JEWISH QUESTION” or “OBTAIN LIVING SPACE FOR OUR CHILDREN” during a riot and then try to explain in a softball interview that you were merely calling for solidarity and a peaceful, final solution by which Jews and Non-Jews will live in peace and obtain living space in say a terraformed Mars.

That’s technically a possible interpretation of the words. But forgive us if the context makes us disbelieve that interpretation. And that in any case your conduct and saying of them in an inflammatory situation justifies you getting yoinked even if you had done nothing else wrong (which I don’t think is defensible with Khalil).

Context matters, as does one’s character and actions.

(I’ve noted that I actually don’t have an issue with and even somewhat support the dictionary meaning of the justifiably hated and infamous 14 words, “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children,” or even the followup but somewhat dumber “because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth.” Leaving aside the geneological issues of assuming “White = Aryan” I do believe in defending the those things and preventing them from perishing from the Earth.

The difference isn’t in that. It’s in the fact that these scumbags seek to “accomplish” that by causing the untold deaths and murders of millions of “non-white”, “non-Aryan” “children” and “women.” Which is why you will basically never catch me using it in spite of agreeing to the *explicitly stated* sentiment, because I know what it is used for and because I believe in defending the beauty of all innocent life, “Black”, “Brown”, “Yellow”, or Polka Dot.

And in any case, Khalil has no justifiable argument. He was no child of an expat’s child who did not know the expressly genocidal content of “Globalize the Intifada” or “From the River to the Sea”.)

But it’s not difficult to characterize Khalil’s actions as w nothing more than speech.

There are two problems with this.

Firstly: “Nothing more than speech” can get you thrown out of the US Legally if said speech can be shown to endanger US interests or safety while you are not a citizen.

Secondly: It really is difficult to argue it is just that when we can directly point to people following Khalil’s direction and inspiration in criminal acts. And why I am kind of disappointed he is not being outright prosecuted.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, just pointing out that the a violence vs. speech distinction with Khalil is not so easy to make.

There are lobotomy patients that could understand it, especially when they understand the expressly genocidal intent behind the slogans Khalil did or if they could be guided through the relevant law.

Something you have pointedly refused to address, precisely because it stomps on your “Akshually Guys” shtick like a bug.

FAOF – Deporting Khalil was not “enforcing the law.”

Yes, yes it was Bauxite.

Moreover, you are going to tacitly admit it is in this very post.

I’ll respond in more detail later. But suffice it to say, Bauxite rarely misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. All Bauxite had to do was literally nothing and he’d have been less of a hate-worthy irritant. Failing that, they could have raised points without acting unhinged or dishonest, or idiotically trying to smear the majority of Trump supporters as being on a similar spectrum to Fuentes and Tucker (while leaving aside some of the reasons a few of us had reason to be grateful for SOME of what Tucker did before, like helping to expose the chicanery and unethical, often illegal conduct imposed on the Jan 6ers, the very same people Bauxite condemned and advocated we abandon because they were supposedly toxic; this does not come CLOSE to exonerating Tucker Carlson this sort of stuff, or even condoning him, but I do think it helps put some perspective as to why the neutral-to-pro-Israel-and-Philosemite Majority of the Conservatives rallying around a guy with Jewish Grandchildren and a longstanding positive relationship with even the most orthodox of New York’s Jews would have been able to rub shoulders with Tucker before even if we won’t do so now).

Indeed, the irony is I’d actually agree with some of the points Bauxite raised, such as how unfortunately the conservative coalition and particularly the Trump coalition does have elements like this involved, even if it has regularly been casting them off (like with David Duke and Richard Spencer, who came out against him back in 2020).

But no. Bauxite cannot drop the issue. Bauxite cannot avoid smearing people using dishonest leftist agitprop in some of the most heinous, disgusting fashions, even if it is often parsed in superficially polite or civil fashion.

For whatever my differences in the past or future with BrooklynBoy, at least they know how to read the situation and the the fucking room rather than trying to make this story about them.

Well Bauxite, congratulations. You’ve made the thread about you. Enjoy the blowback.

I’d advise people stop treating Bauxite like they are acting honestly or in good faith on this issue. Bauxite is not, they’re acting like a gaslighting, abusive, dishonest troll. While I may have my doubts about Selfy, I have no real reason to discard what they claim yet or to not treat them at face value.

That is not the case with Bauxite.

Note also: what they cite and what they DON’T. They choose to cite known, unhinged left wing media sources with a known track record of anti-Trump and anti-Conservative bias and of fucking up legal facts, and who are overly reliant on Khalil’s defense team.

What they DON’T cite are the actual, primary source documents of the case or failing that the likes of Legal Insurrection or others with a much greater track record of not hating our very existence, and of getting legal facts right.

https://x.com/AGHamilton29/status/1985404337137287428

https://x.com/EFischberger/status/1985431101251219668

Bauxite ALSO is idiotic by contradicting themselves, claiming that the removal was not upholding the law, but cannot refute the basic fact that Khalil broke the law and thus would have his removal be justified. The best they can muster are (probably intentional) mis-parsing of what being the “negotiator” for unlawful campus occupiers and a propagandist for SJP who defended the October 7th Massacre amounts to, and also ignoring the fact that Khalil’s conduct violates the terms of his stay, as such his removal is lawful.

I’d call this Gell-Mann Amnesia writ large, but I don’t think there is any actual amnesia going on. Bauxite is happy to cite smears they have no reason to believe the truth of as part of his vendetta. This is classic malicious trolling behavior – as is the bullshit sophistry – and frankly at this stage Bauxite should be glad that they did not pull this species of horseshit on a forum or server or blog I moderate, because this pattern of behavior would’ve gotten them banned.

They should also be glad that I will bother giving these screeds more time of day and effort than they deserve going through them point by point, because I believe om’s response is frankly the best. This is not the work of someone acting in good faith, even that of a biased idiot. This is enemy action.

STUPID, Classless enemy action. Which I hope to address more.

I will engage with your post in good faith and take your claims at face value.

I am neither antisemitic nor “prosemitic.” I support Israel’s right to exist and defend herself against her enemies.

Fair enough, though I agree.

There seems to be a coordinated effort to cancel Carlson and Owens.

I agree. Largely because of the disgusting and possibly legal-attention-worthy conduct of both. In particular their use of Charlie Kirk’s murder (a man who worked alongside both and whom they purported to be friends with) as an avenue for grandstanding and spewing accusations that Charlie Kirk was turning against Israel and was murdered by Israel and/or Jews as a result, and even claimed friends or family of Charlie were involved. Owens went further and outright claimed to have privileged knowledge of an email in which she claimed there was strong proof of this, only to be bluntly refuted and shown up by both the Israelis and Erika Kirk revealing it, all while Owens could produce nothing to substantiate her claim, or even any evidence it existed.

LET ME MAKE THIS PERFECTLY CLEAR: THIS IS PROBABLY DEFAMATORY. The US Legal System intentionally makes it very hard to prove defamation and makes plaintiffs stretch very far to clear those thresholds, especially if the plaintiffs are public persons, but this probably fits it. This makes anyone who platforms her while she spews this utter bullshit at risk of legal blowback should the aggrieved decide to press charges (as bluntly I believe they should). It is quite literally a blood libel.

Tucker has been marginally less odious and careless, but he still peddled borderline sacrilege and definite bullshit such as alluding to the hatred of the murderer by comparing them to people “eating hummus” planning Jesus Christ’s Death (as a former Roman Re-Enactor I note he never bothered to talk about the people sitting around sipping sour wine or eating fine sausages planning his death in spite of the fact that the Roman military authorities under Pilate were the other side of the conspiracy along with most of the Jewish Sanhedrin and the Judean Royal Court) and also platformed Nick Fuentes the totalitarian terror shill in spite of Charlie explicitly condemning him and criticizing Dinesh D’Souza from even debating him (in an actual earnest matter, not Tucker’s soft ball enabling) on someone else’s platform.

In any case both have behaved in morally bankrupt and at best “sus” ways for supposed friends, and often far worse.

I don’t follow or support either Carlson or Owens.

Fair enough.

I think The Heritage Foundation is a good organization.

I would have thought the same until this, though upon hearing some feedback from others I definitely question it. In particular I despise what I view as the bad faith and frankly disingenuous and hostile way Roberts conducted himself on behalf of the Foundation.

I’m not impressed by Neo’s unreadable quoting of Kevin Roberts’ statement interspersed with her multiple objections, several per sentence.

Firstly: I imagine you are going to hate me then.

Secondly: If you find Neo’s quoting of Roberts to not merely be unimpressive but “unreadable” I have a few questions regarding literacy. I do think Neo could have formatted things better, and even on the substantive points I do disagree with a few (for instance, I can at least suspect a few people who place the US’s interests below those of other powers, including Israel, Iran, etc, and we could differ), but on the whole she did well and made hay of Roberts.

I would also add that if the Heritage Foundation did not come to play the role it has by “cancelling our people”, it definitely did by being able to identify who “our people” were. I do not think it has made a habit of platforming or funding Hasan Piker, Mark Bray, or a host of others. And for a very good reason. They are nutjobs and sworn enemies of everything the Heritage Foundation in particular, American ideals in general, and American conservatives are SUPPOSED to stand for. Some basic understanding of who is friend and who is not merely not-friend but a sworn or mortal enemy is key. That is something that Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens have obviously failed with their embrace of figures that are vastly and more unambiguously worse than even the most demonic caricature of Netanyahu, with Owens and Tucker both carrying water for Hamas and Tucker now platforming Fuentes, a pro-Nazi (and apparently now I know Stalin fan) nutjob who favors a racial and religious purge to try and create a Catholic “Confessional State”.

I support America First, period. Not Israel First, Mexico First, India First, Ukraine First, China First, EU First, Russia First, etc.

Very admirable. I agree.

But supporting America First by definition requires identifying those who not merely do not place America First, but who go further and support ideologies, figures, and causes that would stand for the destruction of America and its foundational principles and laws. Such as Hamas (which should need no explanation but here we are, is a regional chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood and a totalitarian Islamo-Fascist nightmare dedicated to global conquest and the establishment of a theocratic, totalitarian Sunni Islamist state worldwide) and Fuentes with his particular flavor of Clerical Fascist, White Supremacist” Catholic Identitarian” nonsense that is unironically heretical even to the Papacy.

I am prepared, for the sake of argument, to admit Hitler was “Cool.” He certainly had a fine sense of style and sophistication, and his visual and design senses were finely honed. Let it not be said I am not above giving devils their due.

But he was also utterly evil (as even Fuentes admits). A mass murderer, terrorist, and totalitarian dictator who organized the deaths of his political rivals before going on to either spark or help spark a series of conflicts that killed something like 40 million people (20 million of whom were out of combat), with the ultimate goal of creating a new world order starting by forcibly uniting Western Eurasia under his banner in order to wage a war of obliteration against the “American Union” (as he persistently called it) to destroy Judaism, Christianity, and Capitalism (as well as Communism). That would be bad enough. But he also murdered countless of “his” own people or betrayed others to be persecuted and murdered, like the South Tyrol Germans who were told to submit to Mussolini’s brutal forced Italizication, return to Germany proper, or die. Moreover from Fuentes’s POV as a supposed Catholic, Hitler was a lapsed Catholic turned virulent Neo-Heathen who desired the obliteration of the Catholic Church in particular and Christianity in general, with plans to kidnap and murder large swaths of the Church hierarchy

Stalin should need no further introduction, being another evil mass murderer bent on global revolution who helped spark said world wars, and who killed at a slower rate than Hitler but for a more protracted period of time, causing the deaths of perhaps 40 or 50 million people (most of whom again off of the battlefield) and being at an intermediate stage of planning a Third World War when he died.

The Muslim Brotherhood have been the world’s premier sponsor of Sunni Theocracy and terrorism, being ideological godfathers of the likes of Al Qaeda and Daesh, to the point where I would legitimately argue even the Quasi-Communist Quasi-Fascist Nasser (who has the dishonorable mention of having partnered with both Hitler and Stalin) was a lesser evil precisely because for all his faults he did not desire to drag the planet back to an iron age theocracy.

And Fuentes himself talks about scourging or even cutting the tongue off of the likes of Dawah Guys who he admits are friends of his for blasphemy, and creating a white supremacist “Catholic Identitarian” State on the corpse oft he US.

A certain wise man said that the difference between a society choosing capitalism and socialism was equivalent to choosing between drinking a beverage and drinking poison. Well, for the purposes of the US that is exactly the case here. Even if Fuentes and his frenemies in the Muslim Brotherhood or his idols with Stalin and Hitler could win and form a halfway functioning state, it would still be incompatible with and result in the destruction of the United States as founded. In contrast the US has had “Christian Zionists” for basically its entire existence and even before and survived just fine.

The USA should not recognize dual citizenship.

I am open to that, though I keep going back and forth on it.

But I fail to see the relevance of it to this.

If your primary allegiance is not to the USA, you should leave the country or be deported.

Agreed, unless you are a foreign national in the country openly and legally and with declared interests.

Sundance recently wrote that Tulsi Gabbard is probing possible foreign support for Charlie Kirk’s assassination, while Kash Patel is opposing that probe, instead seeking an unmuddied conviction of Tyler Robinson. Of course, any and all accomplices or facilitators of Charlie’s killer must be exposed and brought to justice!
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/10/29/fbi-leadership-stakes-a-position-in-opposition-to-expanded-authority-of-director-of-national-intelligence/#more-277469

Agreed on the last part. As for Sundance, they’ve broken a lot of stuff before, but have also screwed up plenty before. Kash Patel has been a bit of a disappointment from where I sit but still by far the best person to hold his office in my lifetime. In any case I imagine the evidence of foreign involvement would pointedly not indicate what Owens has outright accused and Tucker has claimed.

In any case, Roberts disgraced himself. Fuentes is scum and always has been scum, but that isn’t the point. The point is what Tucker has done and hasn’t done, and particularly how Roberts was incapable of defending the matter honestly or on some kind of principle and instead had to resort to smears and ironically defending needless, hateful division of the conservative camp and the American Right while Tucker spewed blasphemy falsely accusing people of heresy and claiming he hated them for believing Israel has a right to exist more than he did Islamists, Nazis, and Communists.

And I am far more libertarian than say Charlie Kirk, in that I actually would be willing to defend platforming Fuentes (at least on a moral, ethical, and legal level regarding principles, even if not on practicality). But that does not mean giving softball questions to an avowed enemy of the US and its principles, or most of the population in it.

Scott Jennings gave a magnificent speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition summit in Las Vegas. There were a lot of great “quotes” but trying to excerpt any of it would not do it justice. The full transcript is at the Washington Free Beacon link, but here is part of his conclusion:

I have four boys—16, 12, 10, and 8. Three are here with me this weekend. When I think about their future, I don’t just want them to grow up in a prosperous country. I want them to grow up in a good country.

A country that believes in truth, individual responsibility, and the rule of law. A country that knows the difference between good and evil. A country that stands with its friends—especially when the spirit of the age demands otherwise.

A country that inspires us to live boldly for something greater than ourselves. A country that says “Never Again” and means it.

We’re not just fighting for policy positions. We’re fighting for the soul—for the very existence—of Western Civilization.

We’re fighting for the radical proposition that free people can govern themselves, worship as they choose, and live in peace. We’re fighting for the idea that a Jewish state has the right to exist and defend itself. That Jewish children should be able to wear their yarmulkes to school without fear. That “Zionist” isn’t a slur but a statement of belief in the Jewish people’s right to self-determination.

So as I close tonight, let us remember that defending Western Civilization is not an act of nostalgia—it is an act of stewardship.

We are heirs to a legacy purchased by the courage of those who came before us—men and women who believed that truth was worth dying for, and that freedom was worth defending.

The Jewish people know this better than anyone. For millennia, you have been the keepers of the flame—preserving not just your own traditions but the moral foundation upon which all of Western Civilization rests.

Through exile and persecution, through pogroms and the Holocaust, that flame never went out. As Churchill said… it flickered at times, but it never died. And in 1948, it blazed forth again with the rebirth of Israel.

That flame burns brightly today—in the courage of Israeli soldiers defending their homeland, in the faith of those who still pray at the Western Wall and at the Shabbat table… and in the determination of every person in this room who refuses to be silent in the face of old hatred that has once again reared its disgusting head.

Our charge is to keep that flame alive—to carry it into a confused world that desperately needs clarity… into a divided culture that needs courage… and into a dark age that still longs for the light.

Because if we remain faithful to God and to the truths that built this great civilization, then our best days—and the world’s—are still ahead.

And you have my word: I will never—NEVER—stop fighting for you, for America, for Israel’s right to exist, and for the West… in every debate I ever have.

Every time I sit down at that CNN desk to debate these issues, I think of the survivors I met at Nir Oz and at Nova. I think of the families still waiting for their hostages to come home, God rest their souls. I think of the Jewish students who are still afraid to walk across their own campuses.

I think of Edit Ohel—who I met this summer—a mother waiting for her boy Alon to be returned to her. I think of how broken she was. And today I think of the video of her family as they welcomed their son back home.

And I think of our President, Donald J. Trump. For without his intervention, his unique talents, and his unwavering moral clarity when it comes to telling the difference between the good guys and the bad… Alon would still be trapped in a Gaza terror tunnel today.

And I think of all of you—the guardians of Western Civilization, the defenders of the covenant between America and Israel. We all now have a responsibility to carry the torch into the future.

To stand up when others sit down. To speak truth when others spread lies. To defend civilization at a time when the barbarians are quite literally at the gates.

Failure is not an option. History will judge us not by our words but by our courage. Not by what we said we believed… but by what we were willing to fight for.

Twenty-five years ago, when I started in politics, I couldn’t have imagined we’d be here—fighting not just for electoral victories but for civilization itself.

Of course that changed on 9/11. And sometimes I fear we’ve forgotten the lessons of that day—that there is evil in this world and that moral clarity, principle, and backbone are required to defeat it.

But here we are. And here we must stand. The enemies of civilization are counting on us to grow weary. To grow silent. To abandon Israel in its hour of need.

They’re wrong. Because in this room sits the living embodiment of resilience. Together, we will ensure that the light of Western Civilization continues to shine.

That America remains Israel’s unshakeable ally. And that our children inherit a world where freedom triumphs over tyranny, where good defeats evil, and where the Jewish people live in peace and security in their eternal homeland.

Thank you, Republican Jewish Coalition. God bless you, God bless Israel… and GOD BLESS the United States of America.

The Trump administration is trying to deport Khalil on the grounds that (I) his presence, in the determination of the Secretary of State, is harmful to US foreign policy; and (II) he allegedly failed to completely disclose his employment history on his green card application. Ground (I) came first, and ground (II) was added a few days later. See below.

Neither of those grounds invalidated Khalil’s student visa or his green card automatically. So, yes, Khalil was a legal immigrant with a valid green card until the actions of the Trump administration caused his green card to be revoked. The green card doesn’t become retroactively invalid because the administration chose to challenge it. Again, I agree with the Trump administration’s policy decision here, but it was most assuredly a policy decision and not a simple matter of enforcing the law.

See here: https://www.npr.org/2025/04/10/nx-s1-5356481/mahmoud-khalil-dhs-evidence-detained-palestinian-protests-columbia-antisemitism#:~:text=Attorney%20representing%20a%20student%20protester,evidence%20to%20support%20that%20conclusion.

And here: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/immigration-judge-rules-mahmoud-khalil-should-be-deported#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20Three,from%20a%20%E2%80%9Ckangaroo%20court.%E2%80%9D&text=Here's%20a%20look%20at%20where%20things%20stand%20in%20the%20ongoing%20legal%20battle: