972 Comments
User's avatar
Anonymous's avatar

"Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences."

-Sincerely, the International Left

Expand full comment
Jim D's avatar
2dEdited

Not sure I get your point, but there are actions that violate the law but uphold principle and then there are consequences that violate not only principles but the law. That’s a distinction with a significant difference. “Good Trouble” protest is an example of the first and the violation of Mr. Kitchen’s First Amendment rights of the second. Our Constitution affords protected rights to ALL, not just citizens.

Expand full comment
Kristi's avatar

He’s not an American he doesn’t have 1st Amendment rights.

Expand full comment
Jim D's avatar

Wrong. If any person is on US soil they have First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as others. I suggest you consider auditing a US Government class at a local high school or community college.

Expand full comment
Colin Kersey's avatar

I'm not a lawyer, but the 14th amendment refers to, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Expand full comment
Jim D's avatar

“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” You forgot that part.

Expand full comment
Colin Kersey's avatar

Again, refers to citizens.

Expand full comment
Andrew Wilson's avatar

...except that he had deliberately excluded his drug use when he applied for his ESTA (assuming he is not on an alternative travel visa or PR). Irrespective of politics, he attempted to enter the country after falsifying a document that is a legal contract. He isn't the first to do this, definitely won't be the last.

Expand full comment
Meee's avatar

I think you all are missing, he was not allowed into this country. Technically, he was never on US soil. The US Government has lawyers that know that difference.

Expand full comment
Jon Muir's avatar

Great reply to Kristi, Jim. Probably Trump should too. Vance is a graduate of Yale Law School, as well, but apparently they didn’t cover Marbury v. Madison

Expand full comment
VEE LAVALLEE's avatar

FUCK VANCE!

Expand full comment
Joseph Crenshaw's avatar

So NOW we see who you really are, not enough brains to even argue your case, so the result is ignorant profanity.

Expand full comment
Lewis Johnson's avatar

Ha Ha Ha Ha....... bit sensitive in your britches.

Expand full comment
Lorne Montgomery's avatar

Ooooh. You’re nasty

Expand full comment
Meee's avatar

He was refused to be on US soil so no right

Expand full comment
Bruce Brittain's avatar

Last I checked, LA is located on US soil. Maybe you got your geography in a red state.

Expand full comment
Ron's avatar

But I think you have to go through the immigration/customs entry point to be "in" the US. He didn't get that far.

Expand full comment
Meee's avatar

He was not allowed entry. Until he is NOT on US soil.

Expand full comment
Lorne Montgomery's avatar

You’re wrong. Customs entry points are not considered a pass to entree country-

Expand full comment
VEE LAVALLEE's avatar

THANK YOU!

Expand full comment
Lewis Johnson's avatar

Not a citizen, non-U.S. citizens have certain constitutional rights in the United States, including the right to due process, which ensures fair treatment and legal hearings when their freedom is at risk. However, the extent of these rights can vary based on their immigration status and circumstances. His freedom was not at risk, but he was denied entry for reasons that were legally allowable.

Expand full comment
Jim D's avatar

Agree with most of your points, but this post is about the real reason he was denied entry- his political expression on social media. The agents essentially told him he was being detained because of his politics. They then went fishing for a reason to deny him entry. If he is to be believed, they violated the spirit of the law and his First Amendment rights. There’s no reason not to believe him since we have a host of other similar incidents which corroborate his story. I think the story is significant because we’re just a step away from this administration deciding they don’t need to fish for a reason to deny entry or due process once a person is here. Or a citizen.

Expand full comment
Lewis Johnson's avatar

No, we do not have to believe him. Why should we? His viability of truth is lacking. He falsified his entry documents, lying about Drug Use, History and Conviction(s). So, where and when do we believe anything he says? The first deception to hide shame, the second is to minimize guilt and assuage the shame. Is there TRUTH to his reporting? OR is it to his viewpoint and beliefs? Bottom line he was in violation of the Laws of the United States and since he was still in "the neutral zone" qualified for immediate deportation.

Expand full comment
VEE LAVALLEE's avatar

This is definitely a loophole that they can/will use to stop even a citizen from re-entering the country if they don't like his politics. This is a greasy slope you're entering into America watch your step!

Expand full comment
Meee's avatar

He must be allowed on US soil. He was not! So he has no rights in this country.

Expand full comment
Jim D's avatar

Wrong.

Expand full comment
A.C. Cargill, All-Human Author's avatar

US citizens are covered by the Constitution.

Expand full comment
Jim D's avatar

Yes, and for certain rights “any person” and “all persons” are covered. The Constitution distinguishes citizens by using the word “citizen” for rights that apply just to citizens, like voting or holding public office.

Expand full comment
Lorne Montgomery's avatar

WRONG

Expand full comment
Jim D's avatar

Nope. He was in CBP custody. That’s US jurisdiction and thus all rights afforded to all persons or any person apply.

Expand full comment
Joseph Crenshaw's avatar

Not true.

Expand full comment
Jim D's avatar

Oh, contraire. When under the jurisdiction of the US, the rights guaranteed all persons apply. I’m pretty sure being in custody counts as jurisdiction.

Expand full comment
Nancy Kanzenbach's avatar

If he has a foot on U.S. soil he is afforded the same rights of any generation of Americans. Sorry but that’s truth and that is exactly what the maga crowd is fighting against. I prefer rights to anyone being sent to out of country prisons without recourse. That is flat out wrong and morally inexcusable!

Expand full comment
Meee's avatar

The Supreme Court has sided with Trump that he can send these illegals out of the USA. Where are our rights, Nancy? Where are our rights not be raped and killed. To have our children, not raped by an illegal because he wanted too. Where are our rights when your Communist Dem judges release them with no bail. Where is our right to live in peace? Tell me Nancy, Where are our rights in all this? That illegals can steal people's homes? Illegals get things that our own citizens do not get? Tell me where is our right to SS when we retire, and they give it to illegals to never paid into it? Where are our rights? 10 to 20 million illegals BROKE OUR LAWS, but we have to stand by and let them take our jobs, take all our resources meant for our citizens. Tell me how your Communist Dem Gov's are looking after our citizens rights first? Imbeciles, all of you buying into their lies and lies. Wake up. Illegals are killing our citizens and are getting away with it. They are attacking our police and ICE that have every right to escort them out of the USA. They are blocking our traffic, protesting in our streets, attacking people in their cars that need to get to work or pick up their kids because they think they can and get away with it. Wait till they BURN your city and your home. Wait till they attack your children or grandchildren, Don't come crying then!

Expand full comment
Nancy Kanzenbach's avatar

You’ve been lied to, those things are not happening like you say. Get a grip and quit blaming someone else for your lack of knowledge and critical thinking skills. Turn off the mass media and Fox, owned by billionaires, and research other legitimate news sources from across the world! If you think our economic and physical well being are threatened by immigrants you are sadly mistaken. Immigrants contribute more than 60 billion a year and they don’t receive anything back from our social programs. We have rights in our country that are being taken away every minute of every day by the likes of the multi millionaires on the Supreme Court and in Congress and sitting around DJT’s table. Good luck finding any kind of help after the oligarchs get finished buying everything that can be bought.

I wish you well in your ignorance!

Expand full comment
VEE LAVALLEE's avatar

Do you or have you spent your entire life hating? That's so sad.

Expand full comment
Gary Grigioni's avatar

You gotta be a Muppet

Expand full comment
littleoldMDme's avatar

Not a US citizen. Customs may refuse entry to any non-citizen for a host of reasons. Lying to them is one of the many violations. Stupid argument. I love Substack, so don’t make me roll my eyes at you. Poor excuse of an article. I want my 3 minutes back…

Expand full comment
Fredrick Armstrong's avatar

Read it…the first amendment.

Expand full comment
Gary Grigioni's avatar

You’re 100% wrong

Expand full comment
BigT's avatar

His rights do not include the right of entry into the USA.

Expand full comment
Jim D's avatar

He has the same rights as anyone else when entering on a work or tourist visa. He was targeted and excluded because of speech, which is a violation of the First Amendment, AND not a great advertisement for our country. Tourism is down and will continue to fall, impacting our economy. I have a number of Australian friends; I’m looking forward to hearing from them on this incident.

Expand full comment
Mary-Ann Lovejoy's avatar

I’m Australian Nobody I know is coming to the US until (if…?) this repressive regime is gone and “normal” relations are restored. Trump has done huge damage to international trust in the Rule of Law in USA.

Expand full comment
Jim D's avatar

Amen. Don’t blame you. The decline in tourism is hurting our economy. But as long as it doesn’t hurt Trump’s bottom line or the bottom line of his billionaire benefactors… They could care less.

Expand full comment
Janine's avatar

He's not here. He was trying to be here. He has no right to come into America. Anyone claiming that Tourism is going to be hurt by our expulsion of illegal alien criminals has drunk too much woke-punch. Stop consuming media that makes you stupid. Countries have borders.

Expand full comment
Mary-Ann Lovejoy's avatar

Note the decline in tourism to USA. I’m Australian and nobody in our family and acquaintanceship is choosing US as a destination. Going elsewhere until “normal transmission is restored.”

Expand full comment
VEE LAVALLEE's avatar

Hopefully in 2028 although pressy has broken all the other laws, what's one more?

Expand full comment
Watermelon Jo's avatar

Yep, here comes North Korea in the U.S. God forbid you should let humanists into Trump Country.

Expand full comment
publius_x's avatar

Globalize the Naqba.

Expand full comment
Watermelon Jo's avatar

I'm too scared to go again.

Expand full comment
VEE LAVALLEE's avatar

I know of family members who had booked holidays in the States and now say they daren't come here because the people are so crazy. How's that for a tourist brochure read.

Expand full comment
Gary Grigioni's avatar

The people are so so pee brain Muppet that I’ve ever seen ever heard

Expand full comment
VEE LAVALLEE's avatar

He was on US soil. End of argument!

Expand full comment
Gary Grigioni's avatar

SSSHOLE

Expand full comment
Dave Sylvester's avatar

The courts have held that the full protections of the Constitution do not apply at border crossings. Officers may detain and question individuals for any reason and exclude them if they do not answer completely and truthfully. I do not believe for one second that CBP questioned him about his politics. They are way too busy for that. I have been questioned several times by CBP officers and have given a thorough search for suspected drugs. (My travel itinerary gave rise to suspicion.) I have always found them to be unfailingly courteous and professional.

Expand full comment
Jim D's avatar

You’re way too busy to read, but not to twist the truth and delve into alternative facts. We know they asked him about his politics. This administration targeted him — they were waiting for him, so he was on a list. And please, cite your court cases and the specifics. There’s a difference between speaking to someone on the ground while they’re still in Mexico or Canada and someone on US soil who’s entered the country on a visa.

Expand full comment
Dave Sylvester's avatar

Court cases include US v Montoya-Hernandez, Carroll v US, US v Moya and many others. What you do not seem to understand is that under US immigration law you are technically not in the US until you are allowed in by the CBP due to the unique legal status of the border zone. (Zadvydas v Davis.) As to the questioning about his politics, I do not believe him for a moment. I believe he lied about that because it sounds better and gets more attention than admitting he was turned away for lying about his prior drug use. Liars lie.

Expand full comment
Jim D's avatar

You’re intentionally missing the point and blowing smoke. The point is that he was denied entry because of his published political opinions, not because he lied on any form. He bought an airline ticket and was entering on a tourist or work visa. CBP detained him because of his speech and asked leading questions until they found an excuse to deny him entry, thus shitting on the First Amendment. If you don’t buy the facts being reported maybe you should unsubscribe.

Expand full comment
Armando Rosales's avatar

Why does the US need an excuse not to allow someone in our country?

Expand full comment
Dave Sylvester's avatar

I don’t believe everything that’s reported, Jim. People report all sorts of things that aren’t true, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not.

I also clearly understand a lot more about immigration process than you do. I also travel outside the US a half dozen times a year. I’ve been questioned by immigration authorities all over the world. (The best was when a border guard at a remote station in Malaysia looked at my passport and wanted to know if I was related to “Rocky!”)

A visa doesn’t exempt anyone from questioning at the border, nor does residency or US citizenship. The CBP isn’t going to waste their time asking him about politics when he clearly disqualified himself by admittedly lying about his past drug use.

I look at this case and see what makes the most sense. You look at it and seem to believe what fits your preconceived political views.

Expand full comment
Christopher Johnston's avatar

Zadvydas v Davis does not support your argument.

Zadvydas v Davis is not about 'unique legal status of the border zone.'

The issue in the case was that no country was willing to accept Zadvydas, who was a resident alien and ordered deported after a criminal conviction. As a result, Zadvydas could have ended up permanently detained (which is unconstitutional) awaiting deportation.

The court ruled that 'detention of unremoveable admitted immigrants cannot exceed six months unless removal is in the foreseeable future or if there are other special circumstances.'

Granted, Kitchen had not been admitted by CBP to the United States and they detained him. However, CBP informed him that they planned to deport him on the next available flight to Australia, not detain him indefinitely because no country would accept him. Therefore, Zadvydas v Davis case has no relevance to Kitchen's situation.

In summary, your argument doesn't follow based on Zadvydas v Davis. The other cases you cite don't support your argument either for similar reasons.

Expand full comment
Dave Sylvester's avatar

So wrong case, right principle. The point is that full constitutional protections do not apply at the border. It’s irrelevant anyway since the guy is obviously lying about what happened. No one cares what he wrote about.

Expand full comment
Nancy Kanzenbach's avatar

You were lucky! Not everyone is!

Expand full comment
Dave Sylvester's avatar

Luck has nothing to do with it.

Expand full comment
Nancy Kanzenbach's avatar

Yes it does, my facial feature are of many ethnicities. I’m often asked where I’m from and people always assume it’s not from the U.S. I was born here and have lived most of my life here, it’s just that I do not look like a typical light skinned American. I am in fact, Indigenous, Irish and German. So, if you’ve not been stopped and questioned at a border you are in fact lucky.

Expand full comment
Dave Sylvester's avatar

Once again for those who don’t read an entire thread, I posted earlier that I have been questioned at border crossings all over the world and was searched for suspected drugs entering the US. So what? That’s what they’re there for.

Expand full comment
Watermelon Jo's avatar

Until they are not....

Expand full comment
Daniel Morse's avatar

Then change it. If WE are not for ourselves and our people, no one will be. So USA first and shaft everyone else.

Expand full comment
Jim D's avatar

🤣 It said “WE”! That’s funny!

Expand full comment
Janine's avatar

It said "funny", while being dumb.

Expand full comment
Nancy Kanzenbach's avatar

BS

Expand full comment
Grace Stage's avatar

EXACTLY! So many people miss that point! If you are on American soil those rights apply to you!

Expand full comment
DESIREE BEAUDRY's avatar

The Spirit of the Law vs. the Letter of the Law.

For example, the Title IX designed to help level the playing field for female athletes used to claim reverse discrimination by a man who wanted to participate in an all-women's backpacking class. He won!

Expand full comment
Rhonda Lee's avatar

No. Not at all.

Expand full comment
John Glavin's avatar

Freedom of speech is for ALL of us. Even those who live elsewhere and come to the U.S. Why are you so afraid of another opinion, even one that is directly opposed to yours? Isn't that supposedly the pull of America? Short of direct violent threats, we should tolerate ANY speech. To do less is to be less than what the Founders intended.

Expand full comment
Butch Heilig's avatar

They can't stand it when people who don't look, talk, act, think, love, or anything else differently from them have the temerity to have opinions that differ from theirs.

Expand full comment
Janine's avatar

Why would he have to be inside America's borders to have opinions.....or to write for Substack?

Do leftists ever stop to think? I guess not.

Expand full comment
Brenda Matsumura's avatar

Who is THEY?? You are being ridiculous. A Country is defined as the land area WITH BORDERS. BTW, ICE found 60 missing minors used for sex trafficking, another 14 year old pregnant by the men using her and 130 Iranians with terror ties, sniper for IRCG and another with Hezbollah ties and yet another with a 9mm weapon in his pants. You can't seriously believe this tale. He vastly overrated his importance and understates the real reason he was sent HOME.

Expand full comment
Del Masters's avatar

The Supreme Court has affirmed that legal permanent residents and those with established ties to the U.S. have the same basic constitutional rights as a U.S. citizen. There is some nuance as all things government related.

Expand full comment
Heresolong's avatar

And the subject of the article was neither.

Expand full comment
Daniel Morse's avatar

Not true. The FF didn't intend that to be a suicide pact. You let a few thousand others speak for their values and you won't have any.

Expand full comment
Nancy Kanzenbach's avatar

Always afraid that someone might not like what you think or say. Get over it!

Expand full comment
Nancy Kanzenbach's avatar

Not true! Our country was founded by immigrants and those who chose to escape from tyranny!

Expand full comment
Karen's avatar

Go look up sedition... if you come from another country on a temporary Visa, you may not protest against what our country does. WELL.. you can. But you can then be deported ( even with a green card) or refused reentry

Expand full comment
Jessica's avatar

That sounds like right-wing Nazi propaganda to me. Do you wear a mask while abducting brown people, by chance?

Expand full comment
Richard's avatar

So typical for you progressives. If we don't agree, we're Nazis. Get over yourself. WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU COMMUNIST THINK

Expand full comment
Nancy Kanzenbach's avatar

Well her comment to you rings true!

Expand full comment
Janine's avatar

Jessica acting like she has any idea what right-wing even means. Or "Nazi" for that matter. 'iT jUsT mEaNs TrUmP, der'

Expand full comment
Nancy Kanzenbach's avatar

Sounds like he might!

Expand full comment
Tankster's avatar

Bocephus learned that when he was fired from MNF. The right to swing your (not you) fist ends at my nose. I don't think the 1st amendment applies only to citizens.

Expand full comment
Doug SchexnayderPhD's avatar

it sure can… it was written for Americans NO OTHERS…

it’s called the Bill of Rights!

Expand full comment
Tankster's avatar

Uh, no. Read it, maybe? I'll save you the time. It says "people," not "citizens." Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Expand full comment
Janine's avatar

Tankster never stopped to think that the reason it says people is that there was no such thing as an American Citizen at the time of the founding fathers. It was all about the states at that point. Too bad people like Tankster don't stop and think and just regurgitate what the leftist media says.

Expand full comment
Nancy Kanzenbach's avatar

It’s not leftist to believe in our Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This country was founded on principles not some right wing bullshit wish!

Expand full comment
Tankster's avatar

I'm not rising to the bait of ignorant jerks. A supermajority of the Supreme Court are "originalists" and they understand the Constitution just like the "leftist media, apparently.

Expand full comment
Butch Heilig's avatar

Cue crickets chirping... Must be because they're all reading the Constitution for the first time, eh? Lots of big, multi-syllable words their moms need to help them look up.

Expand full comment
Bob Calt's avatar

It applies to everyone!

Expand full comment
Daniel Morse's avatar

It should. Lots of places could walk a few divisions over either border and then demonstrate for their values. Keep our house intact and screw the rest.

Expand full comment
Gery's avatar

A deadly view imho.

Expand full comment
Brandon Pringle's avatar

Here is the problem with "freedom of speech". Like a drivers license, you get the freedom to drive ANYWHERE in the world, ANYTIME you want, provided you accept the BOUNDARIES of getting a license, agree to follow the regulations and get insurance.

under the guise of "freedom of speech" in 1973 the Supreme Court sided with Hustler magazine, unleashing PORN onto an unsuspecting population. Hundreds of millions of women and children have been raped and murdered because of porn. The serial killer Ted Bundy admitted that porn was what led him down the road to evil 😱

FREEDOM comes with GREAT responsibility. What the radical left wants is the "freedom" to say whatever they want whenever they want - WITH NO CONSEQUENCES.

Should I have the freedom to tell a child to drink bleach? Of course NOT!

But this is EXACTLY what the radical left wants. This is exactly what the radical left is fighting for. The "freedom" to have the car without taking any RESPONSBILITY not to drive drunk!

the radical left is constantly promoting it's "right" to promote insane communist propaganda which has only led to the slaughter, torture, and deaths of hundreds of millions of people 👹

Communism always leads to these results because these results are EXACTLY what communism is designed to create 🤮

Those who claim "its because communism is not done right" are either clueless or satanic evil themselves.

We don't want communism. Communism is death.

Furthermore, conservatives generally champion the right to free speech because they are assuming the other side has the best motives and intentions.

The radical left is typically at best disingenuous and at worst EVIL because their motives and intentions are not to "make sure that all voices are heard". Their motive is to DECEIVE people into following ideologies that only end in death.

- If you are paying attention, during 4 years of Biden, the conservatives simply posted online, had peaceful rallies and took the government to court to address grievances.

THE RADICAL LEFT on the other hand, immediately began to copy the same playbook as in the summer of 2020. "Freedom of speech" to the radical left means murdering 25 people, burning down police stations and 2 BILLION dollars' worth of damage😱

fast forward to 2025, and here we have the radical left burning Tesla vehicles, shooting Tesla dealerships, and vandalizing Tesla vehicles all over the United States.

-Conservatives use free speech for the reason it is intended - to keep people safe from a tyrannical government and protect children from evil ideologies.

- The radical left abuses the freedoms of "free speech" in order to destroy and civilization that does not accept satanic communism.

I highly recommend watching this YouTube video that explains this historically. You will be wiser and more knowledgeable than anyone you know if you do.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=understanding+the+culture+with+william+federer

If the link doesn't work just search UNDERSTANDING THE CULTURE WILLIAM FEDERER

Furthermore, everything that didn't make sense before - will now make sense.

Expand full comment
Gary Grigioni's avatar

You are so wrong you Muppet

Expand full comment
Gary Grigioni's avatar

What’s the first five amendments Muppet you got the first one wrong

Expand full comment
Nancy Kanzenbach's avatar

You’re full of 💩

Expand full comment
Curtis Harvey's avatar

We have had hate laws for decades.

It is illegal to print or say anything that promotes hatred or violence against anyone or a group. Speaking in disagreement with the government is a constitutionally protected right. If they are allowed to take that they will take every right you have.

Expand full comment
Nancy Kanzenbach's avatar

They are already doing that!

Expand full comment
Uycunwk's avatar

The Left is the one that quells any speech or thought that doesn’t agree with them . lol

Expand full comment
Gordon Odell's avatar

A cowardly fascist, who'd have thunk it?

Expand full comment
Carter Crain's avatar

All the responses to this (before this one) are ridiculous.

Expand full comment
Gary Grigioni's avatar

Muppet

Expand full comment
Carter Crain's avatar

Chaos Muppets are out-of-control, emotional, volatile. They tend toward the blue and fuzzy. They make their way through life in a swirling maelstrom of food crumbs, small flaming objects, and the letter C?

Or do you have another intention.

Expand full comment
Pastor Tee's avatar

I cringe when I hear this phrase now because I only hear the Left use it to justify assault and violence. Ive heard it used for antifa, rioting protesters, disrupting speakers and the like. I never here it used by the right or government officials.

Expand full comment
T-1000's avatar

Lol.

You used to call that "Cancel Culture."

Expand full comment
A.C. Cargill, All-Human Author's avatar

Every freedom must be exercised with the idea that there are consequences to face.

Expand full comment
Abel Cavalcante de Matos's avatar

Se eu questionar (aqui) o modelo de eleições no Brasil, as urnas eletrônicas, e outras coisas mais, não seria eu também acusado e talvez até preso por isso?

Expand full comment
Gary Grigioni's avatar

Sub sack sucks

Expand full comment
Nancy Kanzenbach's avatar

Then don’t use it Ahole!

Expand full comment
Phisto Sobanii's avatar

Is Kitchen's story true?

Expand full comment
Richard A. Buller's avatar

Was he here on a work visa or a tourist? If he was a simple tourist he enjoys no such rights to come here and do what he did.

Expand full comment
Everybody's Mamá's avatar

Everyone who travels to the US has freedom of speech - well we used to when we had a real President and a democracy. The article clearly says he was reporting.

Expand full comment
Richard A. Buller's avatar

He doesn’t have a right to lie on federal firms when entering the country and that’s what he did.

Expand full comment
Charles Lagattuta's avatar

You have a freaking president that every word out of his mouth is a lie. By the way he says regime change in Iran. I would say as millions of others the regime change should be here for this perverted degenerate bankrupt felon who claims to have all the answers also take the bald headed freak Miller with him!!!!!!

NOW THERE IS SOME FREEDOM OF SPEECH …..

Expand full comment
Laura L's avatar

TDS alive and well in your incoherent rant.

Expand full comment
Alan Spector's avatar

Trump Cult Syndrome is evident in those folks who bend over backwards to make excuses for every lie that comes out of his mouth. Or don't you think he ever lies? Or is it okay if he lies because he's your Champion? Cultist.

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

It’s funny when you can’t cite a viable argument in your denial of Trump’s actions that make him incorrect.

Expand full comment
Charles Lagattuta's avatar

Laura, how are you doing? Any common sense in that head?

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

There’s none in yours

Expand full comment
Pickleball_al's avatar

Not incoherent at all. Read it and absorb its truth.

Expand full comment
David Shaffer's avatar

Unfortunately for you millions more do not support your TDS views. We needed regime change in the last “so called” administration.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
2d
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Richard Mytton-Mills's avatar

"fagtard"? Seriously?! Are you in 6th grade? LOL!

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

I have no respect for those who disavow the integrity of the Constitution and its meaning. You get what you deserve.

Expand full comment
John Glavin's avatar

At least you're being an adult about it...

Expand full comment
FreedomFighter's avatar

I can't comment on his particular case, having not read his Substacks. Even for US citizens freedom of speech is not without some limitations. Calling for somebody or a group of people to be killed is not permitted. There are a few, very few, things not within freedom of speech. If you are a visitor here, common sense and respect to the host country limits free speech. For instance, calling for the violent overthrow of the government is not permissible, not to mention poor behavior. Cases need to be judged on an individual basis. Again, free speech is not unlimited, especially for visitors.

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

Yes US citizens have rights far more than non citizens. We are given latitude and flexibility whereas noncitizens aren’t.

Expand full comment
Melissa's avatar

Journalist, no?

Expand full comment
FreedomFighter's avatar

Me? No.

Expand full comment
Wendi's avatar

Charles, your emotions get the best of you and what you’re saying is a complete lie. Not every word out of his mouth is a lie, but I will say that Biden did not have any idea what was going on around him at any given time and did not even run the country, but you have no problem with that.

Expand full comment
Alan Spector's avatar

Do you really really need a list of all the lies that Trump has stated? Do you have a couple of months to read them all? Or do you really believe he never lies?

Expand full comment
Wendi's avatar
2dEdited

Alain, your extreme in everything you say. Biden lied as well but you choose to ignore it. You are blinded by your allegiance to the Democrat party. Every politician lies, wake up.

Expand full comment
Pickleball_al's avatar

Oh boy; Your English needs some work. Your reply brands you as ill educated. You're a poor excuse for your grade school.

Expand full comment
John Glavin's avatar

I thought it was criminal that Biden was protected from us knowing how bad off he was, but that's not the point here.

MAGA is famous for Whataboutism. We're talking about Trump and his minions wanting to stifle free speech.

Expand full comment
Wendi's avatar

Have a drink - I find the liberals insufferable and constantly complaining. You should live life a little bit and have yourself a little happy hour. You might be tolerable to be around.

Expand full comment
Jedi Senshi's avatar

DT & maga are also great at projection.

Projection is a psychological defense mechanism that involves attributing one’s undesirable traits, feelings, or impulses to other people.

For instance, someone who is dishonest might accuse others of being dishonest, thereby shifting attention away from their dishonesty.

Expand full comment
Bob Calt's avatar

If you take an honest look at where the country was at the end of Trump’s first term and where is was four years later you would understand that Joe did a good job. The mistake he made was thinking he was healthy enough to go four more years. Think back of what had happened with Covid, unemployment, and how we got along with our allies. Yes we had inflation from disrupted supply lines. When there are economic problems they take time to fix.

Expand full comment
Jim D's avatar

That was the cover for denying him entry based on his political views. It wasn’t the real reason he was put on the flight home. After they determined who he was they fished for something to reject his entry, and they probably lied and did so in a manner that would get thrown out by a judge. All persons on US soil are afforded the same rights by the Constitution and the actions of the border agents denied his First Amendment rights and show the world who this current administration really is, despite their First Amendment talk.

Expand full comment
Richard A. Buller's avatar

They looked into him once they had him in custody. That’s when they discovered he lied on his entry forms, and I’m guessing made statements supporting Hamas and probs my other terrorist groups while at Columbia. That’s enough to get you booted and permanently banned from entering this country.

Expand full comment
Jim D's avatar

You’re guessing wrong; you just have to read the article. They didn’t look into anything. They asked incriminating questions, probably reminding him of the consequences of lying to a federal officer, until they got him to admit to -using- drugs on a previous visit. They then used that as a pretext to reject his entry after they determined they didn’t like his political opinions. That’s the whole point of the article.

Expand full comment
Daniel Morse's avatar

I sincerely don't like druggies. I wouldn't let him in either.

Expand full comment
Bob Calt's avatar

Only controversial speech needs protection. Justice William O. Douglas

Expand full comment
Alan Spector's avatar

If he didn't lie on Federal forms you would still say he should be deported because you don't like his political views. So at least be honest and stop hiding behind fact that he gave misinformation. If giving misinformation was a crime.... your hero Trump would be in big trouble.

Expand full comment
Alan's avatar

HE WAS NOT DEPORTED! GET THAT CLEAR.

HE WAS DENIED ENTRY!

Free speech is nonsense - he was denied entry because he was trying to enter for reasons unacceptable to the US. I'm wishing there was more denial, not less.

Expand full comment
Richard A. Buller's avatar

Nope. Now if he supports terrorists, then we have the right to deport him. That’s established law.

Expand full comment
John Glavin's avatar

Yes, but that IS different from stating an opinion.

Expand full comment
Richard A. Buller's avatar

It’s my understanding that he did cross the Rubicon there…

Expand full comment
Marium Khalid's avatar

This word lie seems like a joke to me . Isra(hell) and US are the biggest liars on the face of this earth ever. The breaker of International law, indulge in every filthy act and destroyed the world. They stole, put people to starve, theft people land, children killers. Yet they make laws ? Just to portray themselves as peace makers? They are hypocrites. Period!

Expand full comment
Richard A. Buller's avatar

Then you are an enemy of civilization. International law is a joke. It doesn’t exist. It has been usurped by authoritarian savages who are allied against civilization.

Expand full comment
Marium Khalid's avatar

Do you condemn the killing of innocent children ? Does this make a person an enemy of enemies are those involved in ethnic cleansing . What are your views ahan?

Expand full comment
Gus's avatar

BS

Expand full comment
Richard A. Buller's avatar

It’s the law. Deal with it.

Expand full comment
Gus's avatar

See below and deal with that MAGA man.

Expand full comment
Jeff B. Patterson's avatar

I didn't see any mention of him lying on FORMS.

Expand full comment
Larry Simkins's avatar

Omission same as lying

Expand full comment
Jeff B. Patterson's avatar

You omitted the “is”. Lying?

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

No they don’t, as visitors they are not afforded our rights by law or the Constitution. The Constitution is for naturalized citizens or natural born citizens. No one is getting thrown out for simply criticizing the government but those who adamantly protest and criticize are given a chance to express their views unless they turn violent or their intentions to cause harm are discovered.

Expand full comment
Jim D's avatar

Wrong. Our constitution makes no such distinction. The rights it conveys are to ALL.

Expand full comment
Bob Calt's avatar

Wong Wing vs the U.S. a 1896 Supreme Court case says noncitizens have the same rights under the Constitution as citizens.

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

The Constitution doesn’t state that at all, despite your feelings, you are inferring errant logic into a Constitutional argument when only citizens are entitled to our rights, not “people”. We the people isn’t Us the people. It’s not inclusive. It’s exclusive for US citizens only.

Expand full comment
Totallyfedup1's avatar

That’s an interpretation. It is not stated as such in the constitution.

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

Yes. All citizens.

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

It says nothing about applying individual rights to those who aren’t here by legal means. Otherwise we could be swamped by anyone coming here claiming a right to vote, a right to demand our services and such. This has never been allowed legally.

Expand full comment
Jim D's avatar

He bought an airline ticket and was entering on either a work or a tourist visa. That’s generally legal last I checked. The Trump administration is killing tourism from western countries. This incident is not going to sit well with the Aussies.

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

Excellent. No one cares. Coming here is a privilege, not a right.

Expand full comment
Daniel Morse's avatar

Then it is wrong and should be amended.

Expand full comment
Jim D's avatar

Well, you’re welcome to get busy. Amending the Constitution is quite a process.

Expand full comment
Totallyfedup1's avatar

You don’t have freedom of speech in the UK if you go there and say or do anything they don’t like. They will arrest you. And news flash. We have no Kings. We have elections every 4 years so take the no kings idiocy somewhere else.

Expand full comment
John Glavin's avatar

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO with free speech in The US?

Expand full comment
Totallyfedup1's avatar

Take a breath MR ALL CAPS. OMG hilarious.

It has everything to do with it. The point is you don’t get to come to a foreign country and do and say whatever you want. Free speech in the US is guaranteed right of its citizens not so sure about foreign nationals stirring up trouble.

Expand full comment
jqi's avatar

You're the only one even bringing up No Kings. Which is ironic, since clearly the entire point of it flew over your thick head.

Expand full comment
Jeff B. Patterson's avatar

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, shits like... It's a duck, fella. Denial is futile!

Expand full comment
Jason's Pontifications's avatar

False.

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

Our Constitution denies the Kings argument you claim while “bravely” proclaiming this is “false”.

Expand full comment
Jason's Pontifications's avatar

No it doesn’t. No matter how many times you write it, no matter how many times you scream fascist, king, Nazi, blah, blah, blah, blah it’s never going to make it true.

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

I think you are responding to another part of the thread I thought was insisting we were fascist or Kings. I apologize.

Expand full comment
William Willis's avatar

So, You think Demented Biden being lead by Obama 3.0 & crew was a REAL President and had a "democracy" (<~we are not a democracy but rather a representative Constitutional Republic; a democracy is where 51% rule the minority who have no Bill of Rights)?

Expand full comment
Eli Sanchez's avatar

A journalist from Australia, writing for Australian publications is not employed in the US nor receiving remuneration subject to US taxes is a tourist.

Expand full comment
Richard A. Buller's avatar

Then they got him for lying on the paperwork he filed coming into the country. Reminds me of a story of two Australian (might have been Kiwis) women who were flying to Fiji on vacation. On the form they wrote in prostitute when for profession. They were summarily deported. If the Fijians had found out later that they lied about their profession, they would have also been deported.

Expand full comment
Eli Sanchez's avatar

What does your anecdote have to do with the subject matter discussed on this thread.

Expand full comment
Re's avatar

So was his visa for work as journalist? Can you share that info?

Expand full comment
Richard A. Buller's avatar

Yeah, that didn’t come across in the article. Even so, we need to know who’s coming in that doesn’t have our best interests at heart. He proved that with his vile writings at Columbia.

Expand full comment
Eli Sanchez's avatar

1st Amendment freedom of speech to all persons. Working or not working. Your faux argument is without basis.

Expand full comment
Melissa's avatar

I'm sure journalists all over the world will be delighted to know that, Eli.

Expand full comment
Gery's avatar

Perhaps his opinion could have influenced you to open your mind.

Expand full comment
Richard A. Buller's avatar

In what universe would an idiot like him change my mind?

Expand full comment
Gus's avatar

Takes one etc

Expand full comment
Gery's avatar

Perhaps nothing in any universe can change a mind closed to new ideas. Consider this is not so much about his freedom to speak as it is your freedom to hear.

Expand full comment
Eli Sanchez's avatar

Definitely not in your Private Idaho.

Expand full comment
Richard A. Buller's avatar

I e spent 20 years loving and working in Europe and debating German leftists on stuff like this in German. I’m good.

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

My mind is wide open, his bullshit is unwelcome as I already have enough fertilizer in there.

Expand full comment
Philip Bridger's avatar

Enlighten me what did he do?

Expand full comment
Richard A. Buller's avatar

The Department of Homeland Security later stated he was denied entry for providing false information about prior drug use.

He was here to further the leftist agenda like he did at Columbia. Now he doesn’t enjoy visa protections like he did then. I have no problem finding these people and deporting them if they’ve lied on their way into this country or have otherwise violated their right to stay here. I say that as someone who has legally lived and worked in two foreign countries for almost two decades.

Expand full comment
James Abrego Garcia's avatar

Why are right-wingers so fragile they can't even tolerate anyone expressing a view different from their own?

Expand full comment
Wendi's avatar

The most fragile group are the extreme leftists who say that they are tolerant and inclusive until you don’t agree with them on a subject. And there are many Democrats, who have also been excluded from the party because they will not tow the party line on certain issues. But continue being tone deaf.

Expand full comment
James Abrego Garcia's avatar

Yeah, remember all those stories of foreign journalists, scientists etc who were detained at airports and denied entry because they criticized Joe Biden on social media. Remember all those stories? Can you name one time it happened?

No, you can't. It never happened. But the cult of Trump cannot be questioned.

Free speech in Trump's America:

https://popular.info/p/the-state-of-free-speech-in-trumps?r=2g9ey&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false

Expand full comment
Wendi's avatar

I guess you don’t know about the influencers who were de banked, demonetized, pushed off certain platforms at the bidding of Joe Biden. Do you remember how they suppressed the Hunter laptop from hell with all of his pornographic crack prostitution episodes? Suppression is real on the left- get real! You’re not supporting a bunch of saints as much as you’d like to think you are

Expand full comment
John Glavin's avatar

Pot - meet Kettle...

Expand full comment
Richard A. Buller's avatar

Good grief! Are you consciously or unconsciously exercising Repressive Tolerance here?

Expand full comment
Butch Heilig's avatar

You're a punk-assed little Nazi snowflake, Dickie.

Expand full comment
Wendi's avatar

You’re a little bitch

Expand full comment
Phil from Arizona's avatar

Didn't you mean to say "left wingers"?

The left is so insane, people can't even drive their Teslas, for fear they might get torched. And don't get me started with the violent protests -defacing, burning, looting, rioting. Its not the Right doing all that.

Expand full comment
Tim Hughes's avatar

You know, some of these comments are amusing, many are bemusing and confused and a lot of them are quite frightening. I prefer free speech generally because at least we know what the other person is thinking. It does not give anyone a free pass to say what they like, there must be consequences for incitement to violence and hatred but if we stop one group then ultimately all become silenced. This climate in America is genuinely scary and it isn't much better in the UK and Europe either.

Expand full comment
Richard A. Buller's avatar

If we know they support terrorism, they don’t have a right to come here. Otherwise, let them in. Just Gabe enough balls to own up to your (not you personally) support of terrorism. If he had the conviction of conscious people are attributing to him, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Hope that made sense. I’m walking three dogs in sweltering heat and humidity typing on this stupid phone…

Expand full comment
Butch Heilig's avatar

"Further the leftist agenda" - that tells us all exactly as much as we need to know about your Nazi c*nt ass.

Expand full comment
Wendi's avatar

Hey Butch, you’re the only Cunt over here

Expand full comment
Butch Heilig's avatar

OUCH!! Your blazing intellect is a sight to behold. Your wit is as sharp as a bowling ball.

Expand full comment
Wendi's avatar

Your face is one only a mother can love I’m sure and a personality to match

Expand full comment
Barbara Laman's avatar

Prior drug use? As in “I ate a gummi once in Oregon”? You funny like hell.

Expand full comment
James Abrego Garcia's avatar

And as the story says, he wasn't initially detained for the vague history of drug use. It was his political views.

Expand full comment
MG's avatar

As he tells the story. What a great source!

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

Critical of our nation’s policies on foreign relations. Foreign visitors have no rights in accordance with free speech as they are not citizens.

Expand full comment
Prometheus's avatar

Not precisely accurate. It isn’t so much that non-citizens have no right to free speech (which per our founders’ understanding is an inherent right granted by God—not government). But the right to be in the US? That’s not inherent—and not absolute. If you’ve no “right” to be here—you’d best behave like a good guest (he didn’t).

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

Actually, they don’t have a right to free speech. Our founders gave it to citizens of the US and its Constitution. Visitors need to be respectful of our culture and assimilate appropriately. Visitors cannot just say Fuck Trump and not expect a harsh consequence of that, especially when citizens are allowed to without any drawback.

Expand full comment
Greg's avatar
2dEdited

Enlighten me how non-citizens don’t have free speech rights. This is not flame bait. What is the legal authority for that? Many people think the Constitution only applies to citizens. But for over a century, ever since the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, SCOTUS has held that’s not true, at least for some parts of the Constitution. Recall as well that the Founders viewed our rights as natural rights, that the government not only is prohibited from infringing, but exists primarily to protect. So help me understand how non-citizens do not have a right of free speech.

[Note, this is distinct from the “right to be here,” which I think is enjoyed by citizens exclusively. How we extend invitations to be here is a much thornier issue in my view, and how it intersects with natural rights is the source of the controversy here. If this guy did lie on a form, by all means, show him the door. If he’s attempting to misuse a tourist visa, ditto.]

Expand full comment
Prometheus's avatar

Precisely correct.

Expand full comment
Butch Heilig's avatar

They can't, because not a single one of them has ever actually *read* the Constitution. That's patently obvious.

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

Because they can be deported whereas citizens can’t be by a government who disagrees with them. Is this not clear to you? Are you really this daft?

Expand full comment
Prometheus's avatar

“Actually, they don’t have a right to free speech. Our founders gave it to citizens of the US and its Constitution.”

I get the sentiment—but the notion that our inherent rights are granted by government is not just inaccurate —it’s perilous. Rights granted by the government (like the right of a noncitizen to reside in the US) can be taken away by the government. Inherent rights (like free speech) are different, natural rights. That understanding is what makes America different.

Expand full comment
Butch Heilig's avatar

Still waiting for you to cite the paragraph where it says "for citizens only". Asshole.

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

Calling me an asshole doesn’t win you any arguments. Facts are facts. Constitution is for the Citizens of the US. Calling me a Nazi or an asshole doesn’t make you correct.

Expand full comment
John Glavin's avatar

WRONG AGAIN.

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

So everyone who is here has equal rights? Why doesn’t the court agree with this, and refuse all deportations if anyone who wants to can just “stay here”?

Expand full comment
Richard Mytton-Mills's avatar

Wrong!

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

Cry more leftist activist, because you can’t debate. There is no point in being naturalized if the Constitution protects everyone.

Expand full comment
Butch Heilig's avatar

Really? Cite us the paragraph from the Constitution where it says that, you Nazi moron.

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

The part where non citizens become naturalized to earn favor for the rights of the Individual per the Constitution, otherwise why become citizens?

Expand full comment
MG's avatar

Lied about his drug use.

Expand full comment
T-1000's avatar

Is that why the border agents said he was detained?

Expand full comment
Gus's avatar

Who hasn’t?😎

Expand full comment
Deborah Barnum's avatar

The Constitution applies to everyone present in the US. Could a person visiting the US be prevented from practicing their religion if the government didn’t like it? Can people visiting be arrested for a crime with no probable cause? If multi-National corporations are “people” for purposes of free speech, then so are visitors.

Expand full comment
Laura L's avatar

Did he not express views in support of a terrorist group? THAT is a threat to our national security and our government can tell him "you are out". Doesn't matter if you party favors the same Terrorist group or if you dislike our president. Laws are laws. Secretary of State alone can give him the boot.

Expand full comment
Deborah Barnum's avatar

My understanding is that he was critical of the enormous number of people killed by BiBi’s gov’t. That’s not supporting Hamas; that’s not anti-Semitic. It is critical of our gov’t appearing to support such whole scale slaughter.

Expand full comment
Renee Cunningham's avatar

So, a tourist doesn’t have the right of free speech? I don’t remember there being rules about what a “foreigner “ can say or print (on tiktok or facebook or even the NYT or Substack) no matter their politics. 🤨😵‍💫

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

Tourists are legal guests with limited privileges which we afford them as come here through legal channels.

Expand full comment
Richard A. Buller's avatar

Yes. The Arabs illegally and cowardly use women and children as human shields wanting them to die for their sick propaganda. Only idiots think it’s the Israelis fault. The only ethnic cleansing attempt was done on October 7. The consequences of October 7 were an exercise in fuck around and find out.

Expand full comment
PERSONALITY DISORDERED's avatar

Amen Brother! Delusional people think Christians don’t support the Jewish people, Israelis and I don’t think they counted on just how many Christians love and support our Jewish brothers and sisters!

Expand full comment
Don's avatar

With all of the criminals and terrorists the dems have enticed to illegally enter the country it makes it mandatory for law enforcement to question foreigners who have shown disdain for our laws about possible sleeper cell involvement or activities. An objective perspective would highlight that’s what it sounds like was being described here. Instead of spinning this as some threat to free speech you should thank those that are working hard to protect and save this country.

Expand full comment
Carla Sardeira's avatar

I am extraordinarily saddened by the exchange here.

Freedom of speech is sacred to all of us and respect for each other’s points of view is vital for our Nation to BE.

All, please, take a deep breath… remember what all who came before us withstood to continuously make our Nation greater generation upon generation… let’s move each other forward and not insult one another.

Different points of view are always challenging and the core of our foundation as a Nation is clear, all men are created equal.

Although those exact words did not genuinely represent all People in the USA at the time the original document was written and signed, it evolved to include all men.

Unfortunately, to this day, women (like myself) continue to be excluded and no amendment to rectify it has passed our Congress and our Senate to fully and authentically represent all USA Citizens.

I BELIEVE we ARE better and WANT better for our future generations.

Place respect, and acceptance of all human beings as they are; as long as each does not want to, or does inflict any intentional harm on others (all included… physical, monetary, mental, etc.), and CHOOSE TO CONTINUE BECOMING GREATER, and the BETTER EXAMPLE for HUMANITY to aspire to BE.

All, stay safe, love one another❣️

❤️🤍💙 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

Expand full comment
Bradley Dick's avatar

All persons present on United States soil are equally entitled to due process and respect of all rights granted to United States citizens under the United States Constitution and United States law. "All persons" literally means every single human being, whether or not they are a U.S. citizen. So, your question and distinction of foreign visitors into those holding tourist visas and those holding other types of visas are specious, trivializing, misleading, and absolutely wrong in the face of a long line of court decisions that almost universally assert the equal entitlement to due process and other constitutional rights, such as the right of free speech, of every person physically present in the United States.

Expand full comment
James's avatar

Anyone here in the USA whether here for work, to live (documented or not) visiting for whatever reason are protected by the US Constitution. You don't go to another country and think you are above their laws at least not for long. The problem with the MAGAs is they think there two sets of laws one for them to do as they please and one for everyone else to shut the hell up. I have news for them you will go to jail when this mess is over. So don't follow your leader blindly half of his last cabinet went to jail so what makes you think he really cares for you.

Expand full comment
Bob Cousins's avatar

Not at all. There are three classes of people despite claiming they are all equal. Citizens are afforded the rights of the Constitution, aliens are provided privileges by our legal acknowledgment of their entry here, and non citizens have none at all.

Expand full comment
Butch Heilig's avatar

Really? Can you tell everyone what article of the Constitution says that? Oh, you can't? huh, really? Moron.

Expand full comment
Stephen Craig's avatar

So if he disagrees with you he has no rights? Sounds like someone has drunk the grape koolaid.

Expand full comment
Loren's avatar

He was "visiting friends."

Expand full comment
Sandie Bello's avatar

What did he do? Admit that he has taken drugs before? How doea that ban him from visiting the U.S.? We’ve got more drugs than anyone else!

Expand full comment
Wendi's avatar

Go play some Pickleball Boomer, I don’t give a fuck what you think

Expand full comment
Kenneth's avatar

No one has the right to come into this country as a guest. No more than I have the right to go into someone else's house uninvited. We have the right to deny "guest" entry into the US to anyone, for any reason, or for no reason.

Expand full comment
James Abrego Garcia's avatar

So much for "the land of the free."

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

Well, apparently 20 million risked their lives to come here . And this dude is from Australia. That’s laughable . Australia doesn’t have a bill of rights , has tight restrictions on gun ownership, and you must have a visa to enter. It even states honesty is critical and more importantly do you remember Novak Djokovic deported and not permitted to play in the open. So Mr anonymous, go cry your river elsewhere !

Expand full comment
Montie Craddock's avatar

Sloganeering and trafficking in false narratives ?

Expand full comment
Dave Sylvester's avatar

It’s free when you legally enter.

Expand full comment
Robadob's avatar

What part of freedom allows to blatantly ignore or break the law?

Does a government not have the right to enforce its laws?

Expand full comment
James Abrego Garcia's avatar

Er, freedom of speech maybe?

Criticising the government is not against the law, and nor should it be. Ever.

Expand full comment
Robadob's avatar

He was not detained for speech nor was he arrested or charged for it. He lied on an official record to obtain his visa and was denied entry to the country.

Thats not a violation of the first amendment

Expand full comment
James Abrego Garcia's avatar

"The Department of Homeland Security later stated he was denied entry for providing false information about prior drug use. According to Kitchen, a border agent elicited his admission of drug use only after detaining him, searching his phone, and questioning him about his writing and political beliefs."

Expand full comment
Eli Sanchez's avatar

So you do not have the right, as an American, to visit Hungary and write a letter to your family about their government and restrained freedoms.

Expand full comment
Melissa's avatar

And be sure not to complain about the food!

Expand full comment
WRF's avatar
2dEdited

Free speech is a right guaranteed to US citizens in the constitution. If you are a visitor you are a guest in our country and are held to a higher standard. If in the judgement of the State Department they pose a threat to the United States your visa can be revoked. The Supreme Court upheld this discretion in the 2024 case Bouarfa v. Mayorkas. While I don't know what Alistair Kitchen said to draw the attention of the State Department it is not an indication that US citizens don't enjoy the full protection of the 1st Amendment.

Expand full comment
Carol Jones's avatar

Was he denied entry because officials found in his writings that he was Palestine supporter and was the high probability he would join the protests?

We have enough foreigners here protesting already!

Expand full comment
Laura L's avatar

NO just "He might protest"

HE is showing material support of a terrorist group. That alone should be enough to kick his as# out. All it takes is for out state department (Rubio) to say he is a threat to our national security and showing support for terrorists is a threat. If he doesnt like it he can go back to Australia and write about his own government. He will probably be thrown in jail.

Expand full comment
MG's avatar

Now Progressives are demanding drug users be given visas? Really.

Expand full comment
Carol Jones's avatar

Give me a break!!!! But not surprised.

Expand full comment
Gus's avatar

How many? Source please.

Expand full comment
Tankster's avatar

Not so fast, my friend. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not apply exclusively to citizens of the United States. Its protections extend to "the people," a term that has been interpreted to include individuals within the jurisdiction of the United States, regardless of citizenship status. The text of the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Expand full comment
Laura L's avatar

that does not matter. he is a non citizen showing support for a terrorist group. THAT is grounds for removal. Has nothing to do with free speech. He can say what he wants but he cannot support terrorists.

Expand full comment
MissAnneThrope's avatar

Holy crap! He was supporting ISRAEL? 😎 Now THAT'S what I call terrorism! No war with Iran! Stop the Zionist genocide. Arrest Netanyahu.

Expand full comment
WRF's avatar
2dEdited

The term "the people" in the U.S. Constitution doesn't have a single, clear-cut definition that explicitly limits it to citizens or includes all persons within the U.S., and its meaning depends on context. The Constitution never directly defines "the people," so we look to its usage, historical context, and judicial interpretations.

In the Preamble, "We the People of the United States" suggests a collective body forming the government, which, at the time of drafting (1787), primarily referred to citizens who could participate in the political process—free persons eligible to vote or ratify the Constitution, excluding most non-citizens, enslaved people, and others without political rights. This leans toward "the people" meaning citizens in a political sense.

Regardless as I stated above The Supreme Court upheld the State Department's discretion in the 2024 case Bouarfa v. Mayorkas to revoke or deny visa's to visitors they deem a threat to the United States.

Expand full comment
Kathy Loves Flowers's avatar

By your interpretation then, We the People included only white land owning men. Women, slaves, non citizens, and poor white men were all excluded from the political process. Let’s not even go there. Obviously your interpretation is outdated, but apparently the GOP is trying to drag all of us kicking and screaming back to those good old days. A broader interpretation of We the People seems to be in order today more than ever.

Expand full comment
Totallyfedup1's avatar

The “people” they were referring to were the citizens of the newly formed country. They were not referring to non residents. The key to what you said was “the interpretation”. Your interpretation is just that. It isn’t fact

Expand full comment
Franco's avatar

A country build by immigrants for immigrants in a land that already had natives and some would argue was already a nation

Expand full comment
Science is Political 2.0's avatar

right: and he ain't a citizen.

Expand full comment
Eli Sanchez's avatar

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Expand full comment
Totallyfedup1's avatar

The people were the citizens of the newly formed country.

Expand full comment
Butch Heilig's avatar

Wait, you left out the part where it says "for citizens only". Surely that's in there, right?

Expand full comment
Eli Sanchez's avatar

Nope!

Expand full comment
Eli Sanchez's avatar

Nope. Go read the 1st Amendment.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Ronald Reagan Library (.gov) says. 

Expand full comment
Jesse's avatar

We used to hold the principle of freedom of speech to be sacred for everyone. Now it's qualified - freedom for me but not for thee. Thus is a terrible, terrible trajectory and it will hurt America in the long run.

Expand full comment
Butch Heilig's avatar

No. It. Factually. Is. Not. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "for citizens only". You're a fucking moron.

Expand full comment
WRF's avatar

I never said it says "for citizens only". I mentioned above only that historical context would indicate in the preamble that "This leans toward "the people" meaning citizens in a political sense." Fyi--dropping the "F" bomb in a Substack chat and making a personal attack highlights that you don't have a cogent argument to make.

Expand full comment
Laura L's avatar

BTW even if he has free speech, he is showing support of a terrorist organization! That is grounds for removal of a non citizen. Who does he think he is coming here to complain? He needs to shut his mouth and go back to his own country where he can be jailed for years for just a hateful social media post!!

Expand full comment
Franco's avatar

So if the world decides to ban the United States from visiting there country it will be justified cause we also have no rights to travel freely to there country by your logic or benefit from working with them in trade and global economics?

Expand full comment
WRF's avatar
2dEdited

As sovereign nations they have the right to refuse entry the anyone they don't see as fit to travel to that country. I don't have any expectation about a "right" to travel to any country where I am not a citizen. I travel there at the pleasure of the host country which can be revoked if they deem my behavior unacceptable.

Expand full comment
Franco's avatar

So your not a citizen of the world I’m sorry I didn’t now when the world was created it was divided? This is your garden the whole world not just one area humans were created to be free not be trapped by man made boards if you erase the hate for other people wouldn’t there peace and no reason the fight each other why do humans feel the need to feel superior based on where they were born or the skin pigment?

Expand full comment
Pluviophile l's avatar

News flash, Yes, the world has been divided since the world began, whether it be by tribe, nations or empires?

Expand full comment
Franco's avatar

When the world began there was no humans. Animals came first and they were free to roam. When humans came they were allowed to travel explore and find there own tribes to belong too you were meant to be free that’s why you have free will hate is the forbidden fruit that divides you. Humanity is in a internal cycle on this earth

Expand full comment
SunshineToRoses's avatar

Yes exactly. It is their country and there are already rules for going to other countries.

Expand full comment
Christopher James Hollins's avatar

Leftists have to accept that they aren’t gods who are above everyone else.

Being a leftist does not confer a privileged status whereby they can trample on us at will.

The border people weren’t going to roll out the red carpet for some foreigner who despises the American people.

Expand full comment
MG's avatar

Substack writers aren't gods above everyone else either.

Expand full comment
KDC's avatar

Neither does being a right-wing facist, but y'all seem to think it does.

Expand full comment
Totallyfedup1's avatar

As opposed to what, being a left wing fascist anti semite pro Hamas pro Iran imbecile??

Expand full comment
KDC's avatar

Not Anti- semite, Not pro Iran, Not pro Hamas, and not facist. I want us ALL to be free. I also know we (or our families) were ALL immigrants to this country, so deporting those who were Going Through the LEGAL PROCESS is WRONG. And are YOU going to work in the EMPTY farm fields that are now full of Rotting food because there are No immigrants to pick the crops? Didn't think so. I physically can't anymore…

Expand full comment
Pluviophile l's avatar

Poor thing, how will you ever survive without relying on slave labor picking your fruit & cleaning your toilets🙄🤦‍♀️

Expand full comment
Jason's Pontifications's avatar

The greatest thing ever is you Satan infested dipshits think screaming fascist over and over is going to get you somewhere.

NOBODY CARES.

You dipfucks don’t even know what it means. You are the fascist. YOU.

Expand full comment
KDC's avatar

🤣🤣🤣 I have a DOCTORATE. YES, I Do know what it means. Also, my grandparents were in WWII. SO shut the heck up. Buh-bye, litte boy.

Expand full comment
Montie Craddock's avatar

Churchill mentioned Communists beget National Socialist ( fascists) or vise versa ?

Expand full comment
Eli Sanchez's avatar

Woo! You appear to be a bit living in the land of hysteria or hyperbole.

Expand full comment
Jason's Pontifications's avatar

You usually take a knife to a gun fight? I’d recommend you stop doing that.

Expand full comment
Eli Sanchez's avatar

You trying to be threatening. Cuz it ain’t happening.

Expand full comment
Christopher James Hollins's avatar

Being a classical liberal is an ontological crime, it sounds like.

Expand full comment
Eli Sanchez's avatar

Perceived loss of privilege by while male nationalists is the basis for the racism that is at the core of limitations on rights of immigrants.

Expand full comment
Totallyfedup1's avatar

LEGAL immigrants have rights. Illegal immigrants have the right to be deported back to where they came from and that’s it. This whole due process BS get a court date and never show up is a modern construct. They should be turned away immediately if not entering legally.

Expand full comment
Eli Sanchez's avatar

The Constitution provides for Due Process for every person. As much as you believe differently, it is what it is. Get over it bc we are all going to die.

Expand full comment
Christopher James Hollins's avatar

It says here.

Expand full comment
Pierce Randall's avatar

How are people who write things you don't agree with trampling you?

Expand full comment
Christopher James Hollins's avatar

I did not say that, now did I?

You know better.

Expand full comment
Pierce Randall's avatar

You said leftists want to be able to trample people like yourself at will in response to a piece about a writer being turned away at the border for what they write about.

Expand full comment
Christopher James Hollins's avatar

That's right!

Using "free speech" as a guise is what communists do.

It's just like Democrats talking about an "our democracy" that is not mine and has nothing to do with popular self government because it is about oligarchy.

Lie after lie.

Leftists need to come up with something more creative.

Expand full comment
Pierce Randall's avatar

I don't see how this has anything to do with Kitchen, unless you think that, somehow, by using free speech as a "guise" and writing about student protests in Columbia, he "trampled" you.

Expand full comment
Christopher James Hollins's avatar

That person’s right of free speech is not removed simply because that person is deprived of being able to come from their country to mine.

That person is perfectly free to exercise that right there.

This is dishonest.

Australia might not want me there if I were engaged in controversy there before

Expand full comment
Christopher James Hollins's avatar

I have the RKBA.

But I don’t have a right to use it make people fearful or angry.

Expand full comment
Don McKibbin's avatar

The U.S. is behaving like a dictatorship.

Expand full comment
Wes Ruff's avatar

No, it's not. No citizen has lost their rights. The President is working to shrink the government and its reach, which is precisely what dictators do not do.

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar
2dEdited

Alex Padilla is not only a US citizen but a US senator elected by millions of people to represent them.

When he tried to ask a question of Kristi Noem at a press conference, he was thrown up against a wall and then to the floor and handcuffed.

How is that not taking away the right to free speech by this dictatorial regime?

And BTW you don’t have to be a leftist to disagree with Trump and get shut down.

Expand full comment
SunshineToRoses's avatar

And then he got let go once they found out who he was. He was starting a scene, wasn't wearing his senate pin and they thought he was a threat.

Expand full comment
Totallyfedup1's avatar

Uh no. He bargain was disruptive and would not STFU until it was his turn to ask a question. He isn’t above the law even though democrats like him think they are. It’s all on video so he can say what he wants but the facts and video speak for themselves.

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

Forget it.

There’s no bringing truth to people who refuse to see the possibility of another viewpoint. Or how incredibly hypocritical it is use “the no one is above the law” statement when Trump himself breaks the law constantly and still has all you people believing democrats are the enemy, not the other half of the country.

Expand full comment
Totallyfedup1's avatar

Oh as if the left are the only arbiters of truth. Please tell us how Trump constantly breaks the law when all the judges who have tried to stop him have been reversed? And please don’t even talk to me about the bs case in NY which will be overturned on appeal. The facts are you don’t like Trump or republicans in power and that’s really all it is you didn’t seem to mind that Biden wasn’t even fit to be president and Democrats lied and perpetrated a massive fraud on the American people. Then they pushed him out and installed the walking talking nitwit and she lost. Period. Yes. Forget it when there are people who refuse to even acknowledge or recognize the truth when it does t suit their beliefs.

Expand full comment
Don Lowrance's avatar

He was obviously grandstanding and trying to get attention. It was designed to get on the news.

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

Really? That’s what you believe?

I guess you can’t argue with blind people about what’s going on right in front of them and expect them to see.

Expand full comment
Don Lowrance's avatar

Again, it is not just a ‘right now’ thing. It involves a Worldview and an understanding of history, the Constitution and laws. It requires depth in thought and not trigger reactions. Just because your like-minded friends agree with you still does not mean it is right. A riot is not right because all your friends are involved. Talk to people who don’t agree with you.

Expand full comment
Wes Ruff's avatar

That was Padillas claim. He was not sent away, and he purportedly shoved a federal agent, and didn't follow their directions. The idea that he was only arrested for speaking is not accurate.

Again, a dictatorial regime does not cut its own budgetary bloat, nor does it seek to decentralize any part of its government apparatus. I'm aware of how the media is presenting these issues, and much of it is just propaganda.

Alex Padilla is like so many other Democrats who want to make a scene and pretend to be Rosa Parks, sitting on the bus. He wanted a photo op, shoved a federal officer, and got his photo op. He failed to follow instructions, and he isn't the only rep to get arrested.

Expand full comment
Pluviophile l's avatar

Padilla staged a photo op so simpletons like you would go out & repeat the lie that he was somehow treated unfairly for asking a simple question. He stormed the press conference, & attempted to storm Kristi Noem at the podium instead of acting like a civilized adult, he purposely chose not to initially identify himself or show his senate badge to security when entering the press conference area. He acted like a fool & got treated as such. His very own security would react the same way if an unknown person did the same to him at a press conference.

Expand full comment
Jason's Pontifications's avatar

He probably shouldn’t have charged the podium. NOBODY buys your bullshit, contrived, planned crap.

Expand full comment
TV's avatar

Funny how Democrats could Mandate EXPERIMENTAL vaccines, Censor Freedom of Speech, put a candidate up for President without any votes and that’s all okay because the mindless sheeple were told by Fake News to believe it’s fine. Then Jose (Alex) Padilla approaches a government official without identifying himself and is stopped to protect the government official and you people melt down. Liberalism is a blatant mental disorder! You people have zero critical thinking skills.

Expand full comment
Thys's avatar

So that is why Trump is taking away all these citizenships. Or people have been disappeared without having a chance to prove their citizenship status

Expand full comment
Wes Ruff's avatar

Where are the people who have had their citizenships removed? The only people who have been deported are those who are here illegally, with a specific focus on criminals and those who would wish to see the US fall. In our country, you can't simply "remove" a citizenship, and that has not happened.

Expand full comment
Thys's avatar

The statistics tell otherwise. Or do you think that all the people working in the fields, hotels and meat plants are criminals? People who follow the process of becoming a citizen are disappeared as well. If the Trump family came to the US now they would be disappeared as well

Expand full comment
Wes Ruff's avatar

No, they do not. And the reality is that the deportation has slowed for those folks, with an increased look at criminality. And no, wrong again. Come here legally. As many of my friends and family have. When the Biden admin allowed over 12 million to enter this country illegally, he created this problem and nearly 500k illegal aliens are known to have criminal, cartel or terroristic ties. This issue affects national sovereignty and your ridiculous claim that even the Trump family wouldn't get in is a joke, front to back. She did it legally. She didn't come in and preach the death of the Great Satan. She didn't come in and burn the American flag. Your over simplified, surface level analysis is woefully uniformed. Every single country on the planet has done what we're doing right now, to one extent or the other. The UK is getting ready to do this. Several countries in Europe are. The truth of the matter is that they are going to have to go and that's how it is, and it in no way, shape or form reflects your claims. Which are absurd.

Expand full comment
Thys's avatar

There was indeed a surge of undocumented immigrants, but you are exaggerating the number. Most of them payed taxes, but could not get any benefits. Due process and habeas corpus. You could be next. For the exact numbers see the CBO report here https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-u-s-net-immigration-by-president-2001-2024/

Expand full comment
Melissa's avatar

Who is "she'?

Expand full comment
MG's avatar

Quit with the "disappeared" b.s. Some people had deportation orders back to 1999. They should have taken the $1,000 and gone back home. Now there's a chance they'll be living in South Sudan.

Expand full comment
Thys's avatar

And they still disappeared for days or weeks before they were able to contact friends, family or lawyers. An American congressman had to fly to cecot for the first counsel that Kilmar Garcia got since he was pulled off the streets

Expand full comment
Thys's avatar

Does the name Kilmar Garcia ring a bell?

Expand full comment
MG's avatar
1dEdited

Does the name Sarah Root ring a bell? She was just 21 years old when she was killed by a drunk driver, hours after graduating college. The illegal immigrant from Guatemala was granted bail and "disappeared."

How about:

Patty Morin: Mother of Rachel Morin, who was brutally murdered by an illegal immigrant from El Salvador.

Tammy Nobles: Mother of Kayla Hamilton, who was murdered by a known MS-13 gang member from El Salvador.

Chris Odette: Father of Chrishia, who was killed in a hit-and-run by an illegal migrant in Texas.

Agnes Gibbony: Mother of Ronald D. Silva, murdered by a previously deported criminal illegal alien gang member.

Angel Miriam Mendoza: Mother of Sergeant Brandon Mendoza, who was killed by a repeat illegal criminal.

These are the people I mourn; not sex traffickers and wife beaters. You Dems can fly all over the world and have margaritas with them.

Expand full comment
Thys's avatar

How about Kyle Rittenhouse? There are evil people everywhere. You can't stop evil from happening. But it doesn't give you the right to do evil yourself

Expand full comment
Don Lowrance's avatar

How long have they been here illegally and not tried to get citizenship?

Expand full comment
Thys's avatar

The only true American is an American native. Everyone else is illegal. And made up the paperwork after the fact to make it 'legal'

Expand full comment
Totallyfedup1's avatar

LOL no one was disappeared. They weren’t killed or tortured. They were removed or deported but they definitely exist just not here. They were not disappeared. That’s what your pals in China and Iran and Russia and North Korea do

Expand full comment
Thys's avatar

I think the girl from Austria wouldn't agree with you

Expand full comment
Butch Heilig's avatar

Really? What about the US citizens who have been illegally detained without charge, and deported to El Salvador with zero due process of any kind? You're a fucking moron.

Expand full comment
Wes Ruff's avatar

Kilmar will likely come back to jail. Each President in modern times has had issues with precisely what you mention, including Sleepy Joe Biden, who had "some instances of arrests at immigration courts during routine check ins (which) have drawn criticism, as they can deter individuals from attending their hearings and complying with the asylum process." According to an AI summary, "Under the Biden administration, there has been a noticeable increase in the average number of people detained by ICE, from 15, 444 at the start of his presidency to 30,003 in July 2023. Biden also had "dcoumented instances of concerning practices and legal challenges related to immigration detention under the administration." So, from one fucking moron to another, you're going to be ok.

Expand full comment
Thys's avatar

So he is the lucky one that escaped the dragnet of shitpantz. He shouldn't even be there. Who else is there that no one knows about. Elbows up!

Expand full comment
KDC's avatar

🤣🤣🤣 OMG, you're SO blind. NO citizen has lost their rights?? Just because you only get your news from Faux doesn't mean that there's not Reality going on.

Expand full comment
Wes Ruff's avatar

That's correct. No citizen has lost their rights. And I get some of my news from Faux. Certainly not all. I also never suggested what you contend regarding reality. And the reality is the Trump stopped a nearly nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India. The reality is that he is brokering a cease fire between Iran and Israel. The reality is that thousands of criminals who entered this country illegally are being sent back to their COO, as they should be. The reality is that Trump has brokered literally trillions in stateside investments from the Middle East, and is forming partnerships everywhere. The facts on the ground is that the left wing is engaging in hyperbole over the topics and ideas that trend well with their benighted base, and that's going to continue.

Before you presume to call anyone blind, you need to make sure that you see.

Expand full comment
KDC's avatar

Oh, and BTW, did you see how many farms SUDDENLY SHUT COMPLETELY DOWN TODAY for LACK OF LABOR??

Expand full comment
Wes Ruff's avatar

I work with a farm, so I'm more than aware. And people still need to come to this country legally. Period.

Expand full comment
KDC's avatar

tRump couldn't broker an exchange between his butt and the toilet seat. The man can't get 3 sentences out of his mouth that are coherent without something to read from. He has Advanced Dementia and if you don't know it, and ADMIT IT, then you are in Advanced denial. He's NOT running the country! He's a Figurehead ONLY. So who IS?? I'll leave you to figure that out, if you care to use your brain for more than PARROTING the ReTHUGlican lines.

Expand full comment
Wes Ruff's avatar

It's interesting that you claim that I don't see, when what you're stating is clearly not true. Believe what you want. I don't really care. But you and those like you are doing nothing more than gaslighting Trump because Biden was exactly what you claim Trump is. Adios.

Expand full comment
QuaranTina's avatar

The guy should first try to work on restoring rights in Marxist Australia before he airs his dirty, Leftist laundry here. Why would Americ even want him here?

Expand full comment
Thys's avatar

Socialism is what paves your streets, takes care of the elderly, health insurance without going broke. Marxism is the same, but they also tell you what to think and where to work. There is no I in Marxism. Trumpism is telling you what to think and give more money and power to the rich

Expand full comment
Don Lowrance's avatar

So says you. Like a spoiled child demanding their way.

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

So presenting the facts is a spoiled child?

What a bunch of bullshit

Expand full comment
Don Lowrance's avatar

Representing anything without knowing its history and ideology is thin ice for building a life on. Most all liberal ideologies are thin ice and ‘feelings’ oriented. IMHO

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

Im not defending my position. You are the one that branded me a spoiled child for presenting the facts. That’s not a position. It’s name calling.

Im sure you don’t correct DJT for using way worse language than BS in public.

If you did, he would probably deport you, citizen or not.

LOL

Expand full comment
Don Lowrance's avatar

Truth hurts. Do some soul searching.

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

Im clearly not the one hurt here. And your “truth” is nothing more than that. “Your truth”. It is not reality. You believe what you want. But don’t pin me as a marxist or even a leftist for my beliefs that disagree with yours or DJT’s. I’m simply saying that the belief in free speech doesn’t mean you only have to regurgitate a bunch of right-wing propaganda.

Expand full comment
Jason's Pontifications's avatar

Try presenting a fact. Even one.

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

I did present a fact. I guess since you are incapable of thinking for yourself, you have to use the rubber stamp that i see when MAGAs disagree with a post. Even after facts are presented. It is used constantly.

Just because you don’t agree with the facts doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

I guess when Trump speaks one of his many, many lies, they are easier to believe than the video of Alex Padilla being thrown on the floor.

Expand full comment
Jason's Pontifications's avatar

Padilla is lucky I wasn’t the cop. He’d be missing an ear for charging a state official.

Expand full comment
Don Lowrance's avatar

Having to use vulgar language to defend your position is a sad state to be in.

Expand full comment
Butch Heilig's avatar

That's because the US *is* a dictatorship.

Expand full comment
Science is Political 2.0's avatar

So what else is new?

Expand full comment
Jacques Dupuis's avatar

Some journalist/writer have intend to spread chaos, not reporting factually about the entire issue. There are plenty of serious issues that needs to be addressed in Australia, a lot more than in the US. Have a happy return trip.

Expand full comment
Eli Sanchez's avatar

Anything that does not comport with your disinformation echo chamber is perceived as “fake news”. Broaden your horizons or just live in your Own Private Idaho.

Expand full comment
Prometheus's avatar

Arguing that the protests weren’t pro-Hamas (as he did) isn’t free speech—it is purposefully promoting a lie to undermine the security of the country that is hosting you. Buh-Bye!

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
2d
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Prometheus's avatar

Bless your heart.

Expand full comment
Butch Heilig's avatar

So you have no argument, eh ass wipe? Thanks for proving my point for me, tw*t.

Expand full comment
Prometheus's avatar

“Go fuck yourself, you Nazi c*nt.”

I didn’t see where you were making an argument to counter here. Read it again to be sure—but still don’t see it. My apologies for missing the thoughtful reply that you must have intended.

In any case, let’s be friends.

Expand full comment
Wes Ruff's avatar

Perfect response to his commentary. And I use that word very lightly.

Expand full comment
Wes Ruff's avatar

I don't buy the claim that he was deported for what he wrote. I think we need some proof of that before we launch into a lecture.

Expand full comment
mat whit's avatar

First of all there are no "Border agents" @ LAX. They CBP Officers. (Former immigration and Custom Officers) Secondly, no person has a RIGHT to enter the United States unless they are a US citizen. Third, this person was not DEPORTED, they were DENIED ENTRY and this can been done for any reason, since as a foreigner you must REQUEST permission to enter the US.

Expand full comment
James Dickinson's avatar

I am a retired 20 year Navy veteran. I fought for the rights of our citizens to express their ideas openly without fear of reprisals. I did not serve to protect non residents rights.

Expand full comment
Steven Budden's avatar

Australia was a severe dictatorship during covid. Why don't you protest there?

Expand full comment
Ed Vaisbort's avatar

Foreign agitators can stay in their own country and hate us from afar.

Expand full comment
MG's avatar

"...according to his account of the incident..."

Come on. This is your source?

Expand full comment
Deborah Guinn's avatar

Exactly!!! 🎯🎯🎯

Expand full comment
Carol Jones's avatar

We have let enough people in that came to participate in the protests. Enough is enough!

Expand full comment
Adam Spicar's avatar

What an article full of lies and fake news. Shame.

Expand full comment