Urso’s Misconceptions: Free Speech, Foreign Influence, and the Errors of Moral Absolutism

You Can Get With This Or You Can Get With That

In an era where public discourse is increasingly shaped by ideological reflex and rhetorical absolutism, it is essential—now more than ever—that those who champion free speech and dissent do so responsibly, with intellectual consistency and factual grounding.

Lindy Urso’s recent letter, written in defense of Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil and in condemnation of Israel and President Donald Trump, attempts to raise urgent concerns about civil liberties and foreign influence. These concerns are not unwarranted—America has indeed overextended itself in conflicts and causes far afield. But Urso's letter strays into exaggeration, selective outrage, and multiple logical fallacies that ultimately dilute its impact and obscure the very issues he seeks to highlight.

Even the Founding Fathers—those often ignored by modern ideologues—warned of the dangers of foreign entanglements. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, cautioned that the United States “must steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” Thomas Jefferson echoed this when he argued for “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none.” That counsel rings louder today as America finds itself enmeshed in geopolitical crises like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, having abandoned the original doctrine of neutrality in favor of partisanship that has real consequences both at home and abroad.

Urso is correct to assert that Zionism and Judaism are not synonymous—a distinction that is routinely misunderstood or weaponized. Zionism emerged in the late 19th century, principally as a nationalist movement advocating for a Jewish homeland in response to European antisemitism. It culminated in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, a political event in which the United States played a pivotal role—initially motivated by humanitarian sympathy, but increasingly entangled in strategic and ideological commitments.

But Urso veers off the road of credibility when he claims that Khalil's case represents the “first of its kind” in U.S. history. It’s simply untrue. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1227, numerous lawful permanent residents have been deported without criminal charges—particularly in the post-9/11 era—on grounds of national security, immigration fraud, or alleged support for foreign terrorist organizations. These are administrative proceedings, not criminal trials. To present this as unprecedented is to ignore decades of immigration enforcement history.

Urso further argues that Khalil’s protest was unjustly labeled as “pro-Hamas,” insisting instead that it was “pro-humanity.” And he know this how? This is rhetorically attractive but legally disingenuous.Today NBC News just published an article where the DOJ suggests that Khalil was not forthright on his Green Card application with respect to tourists link.  If Khalil’s statements or associations demonstrated material support for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, the immigration system treats that very differently than abstract protest. Urso's substitution of motive for fact creates a strawman fallacy, wherein he misrepresents critics’ arguments in order to more easily refute them.

Most troubling, however, is Urso’s assertion that Trump is “owned” by Israeli donors, pointing to a "$100 million" figure from Miriam Adelson. In reality, Adelson donated approximately $75 million to Preserve America PAC, which is legally barred from coordinating directly with Trump’s campaign. Suggesting that this equates to control or servitude constitutes a non sequitur, and skirts dangerously close to the dual-loyalty fallacy, a trope that has historically fomented prejudice. This some dovetails with what we’ve also heard - ad nauseum - from other cross sections of the political spectrum that Trump is “owned” by Putin. I cannot say with any certainty that any of these allegations hold water. From my perceptive these allegations are based on conjecture, inference and rumor.

Ironically, Urso overlooks that Muslim nations and lobbying interests have also poured money into American political influence. According to various reports, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have spent hundreds of millions on lobbying and donations in the U.S., including sponsoring think tanks, political action committees, and even university programs. The Center for Responsive Politics has documented foreign donations or influence campaigns from Muslim-majority countries far outpacing those of Israeli-linked sources in some cycles. Yet Urso’s indignation is pointed in only one direction.

If he were genuinely objective, he would echo the warnings of Rep. Ron Paul, who repeatedly cautioned that American support for foreign regimes—be it Israel or others—could and has resulted in “blowback” in the form of terrorism and domestic radicalization here in the United States. Former Ohio Democrat Rep. and now deceased James Traficant - as nutty as he was thought to be - likewise criticized the unaccountable sway foreign lobbies had on U.S. policy, appearing on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show in the early 2000s to sound the alarm. These men didn’t take sides—they simply urged America to stay out. Period.

There is also a historical component that should not be ignored. The Founders were not merely wary of foreign entanglements; they also feared the ideological incompatibility of certain religious systems with the U.S. Constitution. John Adams, while defending religious liberty, wrote to Thomas Jefferson expressing concern over Islamic governance, stating it was “founded on the laws of Mahomet” and “incompatible with the rights of man.” Similarly, Samuel Adams and Charles Carroll were skeptical of Catholic absolutism and papal authority, which they viewed as potentially corrosive to constitutional self-rule.

These fears were not unfounded. Today, the Vatican, under Pope Francis, promotes a vision of a borderless world steeped in economic collectivism, echoing Marxist rhetoric more than spiritual leadership. Meanwhile, ideologies rooted in political Islam have learned to weaponize the First Amendment—establishing Sharia courts in private arbitration and preaching seditious ideologies under the protection of religious freedom. Contrast this with Jewish communities: while not free from political lobbying, they do not preach theocratic conquest or condition nonviolence on religious conversion.

Urso ignores these nuances. He seems to engage in moral relativism while omitting the disproportionate threats posed by jihadist ideology, global caliphate aspirations, and terror networks who openly name U.S. support for Israel as justification for their violence. One need only recall Osama bin Laden’s 2002 letter, in which he directly cited American backing of Israel as a motive for the 9/11 attacks.

Ultimately, it is not Israel, or Hamas, or any single actor that endangers free speech or U.S. sovereignty—it is our own refusal to heed the warnings of our Founders. As the republic unravels under partisan division, selective outrage, and ideological manipulation, we would do well to remember that truth, not narrative or selective outrage, is the best defense of liberty.