In February of 2009, fresh off of the inauguration of the Chosen One, Il Duce Obama, Newsweek magazine published an article entitled, We Are All Socialists Now.  The liberal Newsweek hacks therein proclaimed that Obama’s election, and his immediate support of a nearly $1 trillion “stimulus” bill, was proof that the limited government policies of Ronald Reagan had failed, and that henceforth, the government would assume more and more control over the economy, which the kooks at Newsweek considered a positive development.  They even took a shot at Bill Clinton, declaring that Slick Willie’s, “The era of big government is over” statement no longer applied.

Of course, the Reagan policies, which included reduction of the top tax rate from 70% to 28%, resulted in a doubling of federal revenue, and an unprecedented period of economic growth, but no matter, they claimed our 2009 woes were all the Gipper’s fault.  Since “the government” (i.e., Obama, Trump, and Biden) became more involved in managing the economy, the national debt has nearly tripled, from $12 trillion to $34 trillion.  Some might be tempted to conclude that the “Socialist” system is a failure.  But, we shouldn’t trouble Leftists with the facts, they’re already confused enough.  Anyhow, I digress.

The reason why the 2009 Newsweek article was, what that dolt Karine Jean-Pierre would call, “top of mind,” is because I saw an article by attorney Richard Dooling in The Wall Street Journal entitled, In America, Anyone Can Be a Felon.  The article lampooned the current mantra of the Left following the bogus New York conviction of Donald Trump of, “No one is above the law.”

That mantra, says Mr. Dooling, which is both inspirational and meaningless, says nothing useful about people or the law.  Amen brother.  Dooling warns that people who mouth, “No one is above the law,” should be careful what they wish for, because there are so many obscure crimes on the books that, with a little effort, the government can turn just about anyone into a felon.

There are more than 5,000 federal crimes alone.  Since law enforcement is supposed to be a State responsibility, that’s proof that federalism has failed.  Some of the crimes still on the books risk turning even the most careful of citizens into Public Enemy Number One.  If you drink a beer while riding a bike in a national park, you’re a criminal.   Running a restaurant, and you failed to serve triangular margarine pats that aren’t clearly labeled as margarine?  You’re a criminal.   And if your restaurant serves watery ketchup, that’s another felony count.  A federal inspector (I’m not making this up) may show up with his Bostwick consistometer.  If your “ketchup” runs downhill further than 14 centimeters in 30 seconds, it ain’t ketchup, and your guilty.

Another federal law regulates how many birds you may keep.  Oh, and by the way, if you’re not a certified falconer and someone has you birdsit his falcon for more than 45 days, you’re a felon.

A federal regulation prohibits exporting pennies or nickels from the United States without a special license from the U.S. Mint.  So, if you knowingly send 11 rolls of pennies overseas, you’re a felon, and you face up to five years in prison.

It’s a federal crime to skydive while drunk.  Too bad.  That’s the only way I’d do it.  It’s even a federal crime to attempt to change the weather without notifying the Secretary of Commerce.  Il Duce Obama and AOC could be charged with this one.  Obama and AOC claim they’ll reduce global temperatures, and reduce the level of the oceans, and all that Green shit.  J’Accuse! (As Emil Zola once wrote).  If no one is above the law, then those two should be convicted felons.

And don’t even get me started on the tax code.  As we know from the travails of First Son Hunter Biden, the Feds can make alleged tax violations felonies or misdemeanors, depending on the criminal target.

Keep in mind that these are only federal crimes. The vast majority of criminal prosecutions take place at the State level.  Mr. Dooling found 575 New York State crimes.  Even that wasn’t enough when it came to Trump, as Alvin Bragg was required to improperly import federal crimes, and undergo a Frankenstein-like reconstruction project to create the shit he brought against Trump.

Here in New Jersey, we have a like number of criminal offenses.  There are acts that reasonable people may or may not know are serious crimes that can turn them into instant felons.  Some of them are very serious.  Let’s say you have the misfortune to come upon a dead body.  Not a homicide victim, mind you, it could be a natural death.  If you agree to help someone move the remains from one spot to another, that’s a second degree crime that could get you 10 years.

Some State crimes involve less serious acts, but are equally felonious.  Did your grandmother ever push her shopping cart off the grounds of the supermarket?  Everybody does it right?  That’s considered shoplifting, and can get you 5 years.  Grandma is a felon.  Have you ever given a friend in need a single valium tablet?  You’re a felon.  Think marijuana is legal now in NJ and you can’t get into trouble with it?  Think again.  Passing around joints is still considered distribution.  Do it once, you get a warning.  Do it again – felon!

The point of all this is that the power to criminalize and label otherwise well-meaning citizens as felons permits an unscrupulous government (the Biden Administration comes readily to mind) to silence, remove, and stifle the political opposition.  When someone the likes of CNN’s Fareed Zakaria is forced to admit that no one other than Donald Trump would be charged with the crap they threw at him in Manhattan, that proves I’m right.

If you’re a criminal, you’re under the control of the government, and maybe in its custody.  They then can tell you what you can and cannot do or say, take away your right to vote, and I don’t know, maybe even lock up a presidential candidate in the months before an election, or force him to make weekly (televised on CNN) visits to his probation officer.  Turning citizens into felons also prevents them from owning a gun, permitting the Left to once more get around the Second Amendment.  Once we’re all felons, we’re all wards of the State, and personal freedom is a thing of the past.  Hillary Clinton was wrong.  It doesn’t take a village, it takes a cell block.

Wednesday May 29, 2024 –

We’re now six weeks into the travesty and mockery of justice which is the Manhattan trial of Donald Trump.  The indictment charges 34 counts of making fraudulent business record entries.  Not that the evidence means anything to prosecutor Alvin Bragg, Judge of the Kangaroo Court Merchan, and a jury of Manhattan Trump haters, but the evidence that was presented at trial proved no crime whatsoever.

In any honest court, the judge would have entered judgments of acquittal on all counts at the end of the State’s case.  But Judge Merchan isn’t running an honest court.  He and the prosecutors are hard at work railroading the former president to prevent his reelection.  The judge, the prosecutors and the lap dog media have been work’in on this railroad all the live long day.  The 34 counts all relate to payments to former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, now a disbarred, convicted perjurer.  The payments were made in 2017, more than 5 years before the indictment was returned, so the case should have been barred by the statute of limitations.

There were monthly payments.  They charged one count for each invoice from Cohen, each payment voucher generated by the Trump company, and each check sent to Cohen.  However, Cohen created the invoices himself, Trump had no involvement in generating payment vouchers, and when the payments were made, Trump was president, and witnesses testified that he simply signed whatever checks were put before him.  In order to be guilty, Bragg must prove that Trump specifically intended to create false entries to commit another crime.

There are two tracks on the Bragg-Merchan Railroad.  First, the business record entries must be proven to be false or fraudulent.  The entries at issue are listed as “legal expenses.”  To be false, the money would have to have been paid for some other purpose.  Explain this to me.  If you use your lawyer to draft legal documents (non-disclosure agreements), and to finance the payments therefor, and then compensate him for his legal services and for the financing, in what perverted world are the payments not for legal expenses?  In order to be fraudulent, the payments must have damaged, or prejudiced someone else.  There was no evidence of any fraud.  But so much for the first track.

If the jury buys the false entry bullshit, then it switches to the second track.  The State must prove that the false entries were made in order to commit or cover up some other crime.  Chief Engineer Bragg neglected to disclose that second offense in the indictment or in the opening statement.  Sometime last week, he seems to have decided that the second crime is a federal campaign finance violation (over which neither the Manhattan D.A. nor the New York courts have jurisdiction), or a nebulous tax offense of some kind, or if not a campaign law violation, a fictional fraud on 2016 voters.  Exactly how someone could defraud 2016 voters by paying money to a lawyer in 2017 is unclear to me.

To properly instruct the jury, Railroad Conductor Merchan should have instructed that the State must prove each and every element of both tracks of the alleged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, which would require all jurors to be unanimous as to which of the State theories as to the second offense they found to be proven.  In other words, a specific verdict of guilt both as to: 1) the entries were false; and 2) they were done for the purpose of committing the crime of either a) campaign finance violation; or b) tax offense; or c) defrauding voters.  However, Merchan instructed them that, although a unanimous verdict is required by the Constitution, they need not agree on which of the bogus theories they have found.  According to the law, when the crime may be proven by one of several theories, the jury is required to unanimously agree as to which one they found.   Merchan’s instructions permit what is known as a fragmented verdict.  Trump may be convicted if 4 jurors decide the second crime was a campaign violation, 4 say tax, and 4 say defrauding voters.  That is totally unconstitutional, and is just one more reason to reverse any conviction.

No matter how much the prosecutors tried to deny it, the State’s case depends on the credibility of Michael Cohen.  Hope Hicks testified that the motivation for the NDA’s was to prevent harm to Trump’s family, not for purposes of the election.  It really doesn’t matter anyway, because the Federal Election Commission says, if a payment for a non-disclosure agreement would have been made regardless of a pending election, you can’t use campaign funds to pay for it.  Of course, the jury never heard this, because Choo Choo Charlie Merchan prevented Trump’s witness from testifying as to how the campaign laws work, and the court’s instructions failed to explain what a federal campaign violation is and is not.

Then there’s the little problem of Cohen’s chronic and habitual lying to anyone he’s ever spoken to.  He admitted that he’s biased against Trump, he lied to prosecutors, courts, Congress and even to the jury in this trial; and that he stole $60,000 from Trump.  He now claims Trump orchestrated the entries and payments.  Cohen’s word is the only evidence that supports such a claim, and other witnesses, including Cohen’s own former lawyer testified that he swore he alone was responsible for the entries and payments, at a time when turning on Trump might have kept him out of prison.

The consensus among legal commentators was that the best Trump could hope for was that at least one of the jurors would see the State’s case as the steaming turd that it is and hang up the jury, causing a mistrial.  We’ll see.  Hope springs eternal.

The prosecutors know they have a weak case, because Tuesday they trotted out their secret weapon.  Under educated, over-paid, foul mouthed cafone, Robert DeNiro, to stand in front of the courthouse and defame Trump – again.  DeNiro, surrounded by a bunch of muscle-bound Goombah bodyguards, was greeted with jeers, to which he responded in true low-life fashion, “Fuck you.”  That’s telling them Bobby.

Thursday May 30, 2024 –

As this is written, the woefully misled and misinstructed jury has convicted Trump on all counts.  The fact that this bogus conviction ultimately will be reversed is no comfort.  That won’t happen till 2025 or 2026, long after the presidential election.  I guess I had more faith in the attorneys on the jury than they had in themselves.  After 44 years, I’m embarrassed for my profession, and I’m afraid for the future of my country.

For weeks, I’ve been getting 20 texts and emails a day from Trump and his associates soliciting political contributions.  Until now I had dismissed every one of them.  After the verdict came in I sat down and wrote  a check to Trump.  I’m not alone.  Once the verdict was announced, the Trump contribution website got so much traffic that it crashed.  It’s a sad day.  If they get away with this then the Democrats will prove themselves right.  America isn’t exceptional.  It’s run by the same nest of vipers that control every other Third World shithole on the face of the Earth.

The sentencing is scheduled for July 11.  You don’t have to wait for that.  Having seen this partisan, crooked prick, poor excuse for a judge, or a human being, in action, I can predict the sentence now.  Four months of house arrest, taking Trump off the election campaign till after the election on November 5.

Toot!  Toot!  The Merchan Express is coming into the station.  Justice has been derailed.  We’ve departed America, and have come to the end of the line – and the end of our Republic.  God help us.

Last week I attended the New Jersey Bar Association’s Annual Meeting, which provides required continuing education training for lawyers.  The main theme of this year’s meeting was all about Artificial Intelligence, A.I.  And it was a thoroughly frightening experience.  Now I don’t pretend to be any sort of a computer expert, much less an authority on A.I., but as a lawyer, I’m concerned.  Most of the stories we’ve been hearing about A.I. involve the manipulation of images and the creation of what appear to be real events which never happened.

Then there was the advent of ChatGPT, which apparently can be asked to create works that ought to be the fruits of human labor, such as poems and term papers.  That was bad enough, but the seminars I attended were about the use of A.I. technology in the field of legal services.  The more I learned about this new technology’s intrusion into the practice of law, the less I liked it.  From what I learned, A.I. has some relatively innocuous uses for legal practitioners.  For instance, it’s apparently quite good at cataloging, organizing, and keeping track of documents.  That’s useful in multi-defendant, or class action lawsuits where millions of documents may be relevant to the case.  But even in those case, I foresee difficulties.

Once a computer search program decides which documents are relevant and which are not, that becomes the universe of evidence in the case.  Whether human effort may uncover relevant documents that have evaded the search terms, or have been disguised in some way to prevent their discovery will never be known, to the detriment to the plaintiffs.

I suppose that it’s the inevitable extension of our computer run society.  I’ve been worried about this for years.  When no one bothers to read a book or to find out the truth for himself, then reality is whatever your phone or computer tells you it is.  The facts no longer matter, and if history is altered, they’re none the wiser.  It’s scary, and now it’s coming to my profession too.

We had an ethics lecture that featured a story  about a personal injury lawsuit that bounced from State to federal court.  The plaintiff’s attorneys filed a legal brief on behalf of their client.  The lawyers used an A.I. program to write the brief.  Only problem was that neither the opposing lawyers nor the judge could locate any of the cases cited by the plaintiff in his computer-generated brief.  The court then directed the lawyers to certify that the cases they cited were genuine legal opinions.  That’s the equivalent of a judge telling a lawyer, “Please prove to me that you’re not a lying shit.”  So what the dumb bastard lawyers did was ask the A.I. company, “Are the cases you gave us real cases?”  Of course, the A.I. company told them, “Sure they’re real.”  So the stupid asses signed an affidavit swearing the cases were real.  When it became apparent that they were fake, the shit hit the fan, and the lawyers wound up being sanctioned.

That’s an extreme example of A.I. generated idiocy, but there are less startling implications.  The legal profession is unfortunately populated with a goodly number of, shall we say, fly by night, corner cutting, practitioners.  Apart from a few true shysters and thieves, these are mostly well-meaning, but not too smart,  practitioners who are flitting from court to court trying to make a living.  The temptation to save time and money by having A.I. do your work may be one they are unable to resist.  That will get them in trouble with clients and courts, and cheapen the quality of court filings.

As I understand the A.I. process, a lawyer can scan a brief into the system, and A.I. will “improve” it for him.  The “improvement” process consists of comparing what was put in to thousands, or perhaps millions, of similar filings, and then changing it so that it looks more like what the computer has determined is “the norm.”  In other words, it will make the brief look like thousands of other briefs.  If you’re a layperson trying to engage in the unlicensed practice of law, maybe that’s a good thing.  If you’re an authentic legal practitioner, it’s tantamount to malpractice, and it tells me the lawyer doesn’t know how to write.

I write appellate briefs on behalf of defendants who have been convicted of crimes.  96% of all appeals are rejected.  If I want to among the 4% of appellants who are successful, then I don’t want the brief I file with the court to look like the thousands of others the court has seen before.  I need my case to stand out.  Filing some standardized, homogenized product sells my client short, and can serve only to move lawyers as a class closer to disrepute.

However, we were assured by the lecturers, A.I. is coming to the law and there’s no stopping it.  The entire profession may change.  A partner in a big law firm told us that the A.I. programs can be used to review legal documents, just about as well as the reviews are done by junior associate lawyers.  The implication then becomes, why should we hire junior associates to do what the machine does just as well?  The big firms pay these fledgling lawyers upwards of $200,000 a year.  The clients may refuse to pay hundreds of dollars an hour for the work of the associates, and insist on A.I.  That may save money in the short term, but fewer associates hired means fewer lawyers who learn their trade by working their way up the ladder.

Here’s the bottom line as I see it.  A.I. can cover up for poorly educated new lawyers.  But as more and more legal product becomes A.I. generated, the standard of legal practice diminishes.  With less human effort, we’ll go from the unlicensed practice of law to the uninspired practice of law.  Simply put, if you’re looking for standardized mediocrity, use A.I.  If you prefer legal representation inspired by the professional judgment of a real lawyer, then avoid A.I. and retain an attorney who still knows how to think.

What’s on my mind this week is the same basic issue from last week’s edition, the Soviet-like show trial of Donald Trump going on in Manhattan.  To recap, DA Alvin Bragg has charged Trump with 34 felony counts for what he alleges are false business records, under a law that makes such violations unindictable misdemeanors, unless they are done to commit another crime.  But there are several minor problems.

The indictment was returned in 2023.  The statute of limitations on the misdemeanors expired in 2019, and the period of limitations on the felonies expired in 2022.  And, oh yes, just what the second crime that was supposed to be the purpose of the false entries might be remains unclear.  Bragg didn’t mention it in the indictment, and three weeks into the trial, he has, so far, failed to supply this detail.  This is an important, dare I say crucial, part of the case, and its absence proves this trial to be a clown show designed to affect the upcoming election, rather than a real trial, for without that evidence, there’s no way the judge can tell the jury what must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Were this a real case, Bragg would have spelled out the second crime in the indictment, and on day one of the trial, the prosecutor would have told the jury in his opening statement exactly what he planned to prove.  That didn’t happen, which has left media commentators to speculate.

It’s so bad that even commentators from far-Left lap dog media outlets are criticizing this farce.  CNN’s Fareed Zakaria has said there would be no indictment or trial in New York City if the defendant’s name weren’t Donald Trump.  Zakaria laid out the facts, noting the increasing number of Americans now see through the charade, and know the former president won’t be able to get a fair trial.   Zakaria’s lucid interval even lasted long enough for him to admit that Trump’s immigration policies must be revisited and reauthorized to get the southern border under control.  Liberal Democrat Eli Honig, a former assistant U.S. Attorney, said that there wouldn’t be a conviction if the trial venue were held in a region of the country that liberals didn’t dominate.  Things have become so bad for Corrupt Demented Imbecile Joe Biden that even ardent liberals aren’t buying the bullshit anymore.

Professor Jonathan Turley, always an evenhanded legal analyst, was more blunt.  He said that the calculus of Alvin Bragg is now obvious.  He is counting on the jury convicting Trump regardless of the evidence.  “Bragg has vaguely referred to the labeling of payments to Stormy Daniels as ‘legal expenses’ as a fraud committed to steal the election.  However, the election was over when those denotations were made.  Moreover, many believe that such a characterization for payments related to a nondisclosure agreement is accurate.”  (Hillary Clinton’s campaign claimed in the same election that hiding the funding for the Steele dossier as legal expenses was perfectly accurate).

Professor Turley went on to note that Judge Juan Merchan has failed repeatedly to protect the rights of the accused in this case, but he held out hope.  “If he wants to show he is truly neutral, Merchan should grant the [defendant’s] motion for a directed verdict.”  That’s what any truly neutral jurist should do.”  Indeed, any fair and impartial judge would have tossed this crap out as barred by the statute of limitations.

I’m afraid Professor Turley is expecting too much.  He’s expecting justice to be done.  That’s a vain hope.  First, the judge isn’t fair and neutral.  He’s a partisan.   And secondly,  too many Americans have become all too willing to accept the concept of “Lawfare” as a legitimate political tactic; or if not legitimate, at least a tactic that too many people are willing to tolerate.  Lawfare is the concept that an acceptable method of attacking one’s political opponents is to use the courts to convict them, to bankrupt them, or to destroy their reputations.

Some friends of mine might say, “that’s just politics,” but it hasn’t been and must not be part of our political process.  Lawfare is the hallmark of totalitarian dictatorships and banana republics.  It’s unacceptable because it perverts justice and can lead to a breakdown of the rule of law.  Prosecuting the former leader when he’s out of office is nothing new.  It was a practice in ancient Rome.  The Roman Senate’s threat to prosecute Julius Caesar when he ended his campaign in Gaul was one reason he crossed the Rubicon River with his army, returned to Rome as a Dictator, and turned the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire.

I can understand why the purposely ill-educated general public puts up with this perversion of justice.  They are the victims of educational malpractice and don’t know any better. What’s incomprehensible to me is that highly educated commentators and public officials, many of whom are lawyers, and who understand all too well the perils of tolerating Lawfare, willingly accept the fact that criminal cases may be brought and jury verdicts may be based, not on the evidence presented, but on the political persuasion of the defendant, the prosecutor, the judge and the jurors.

Any American who values our system of justice, and who really cares about the “threats to our democracy” that Democrats are always crowing about, should be appalled by the travesties of justice ongoing in Manhattan, and elsewhere in this country.  If a defendant can’t get a fair trial in New York City or in Washington, D.C. simply because of political affiliation, that’s the threat to our democracy we should be worried about.  The sad fact is too many of us are willing to accept that truth, facts, and justice itself cease to matter when one Party controls the system.

It put me in mind of the British concept of Rotten Boroughs.  In 19th century Great Britain, there were largely unpopulated constituencies maintained by the crown or by aristocratic patrons to control seats in the House of Commons.  The King or the local Lord could control the small number of voters, and keep control of the legislature.  Hardly the same process at work today, but largely the same result.  Once deep Blue States have chased many of their conservative constituents to more friendly  jurisdictions, the tyranny of one Party rule is able to taint the concept of justice itself.  Manhattan and Washington, D.C. have become Rotten Boroughs where real justice has ceased to exist.  And officers of the court who understand how dangerous and anti-American this is report it as just another political fact of life.  Set your political persuasion aside.  If you demand justice for yourself, then you must demand it for your worst enemy.

I’m old enough to have experienced the anti-war protests,       a/k/a riots, of the 1960’s and 1970’s.  As I’ve written on these pages, as disruptive as those protests were, at least the protesters were protesting real and perceived injustices that fundamentally affected every American.  Those protests were about the Vietnam war, and U.S. intervention which steadily escalated from a few hundred advisors to more than 500,000 troops on the ground.  The Vietnam protesters had some legitimate gripes.  Some opposed what they considered the U.S. getting involved in a civil war.  A few were dedicated Marxists, who were doing the bidding of the Communists, but only a few.

Most protesters had much more personal concerns.  The protesters themselves, or their sons, brothers, or fathers, were being shipped to Vietnam, and more than 500 of them per month were being killed, and thousands more wounded.  They protested a U.S. Draft system that tended to send the poor, minority men to Vietnam, while the more affluent remained home in colleges, and thus available to protest the system from which they had profited.  Many college campuses were the sites of encampments and takeovers of school buildings.  And the level of violence of the protests of old dwarfed that of the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel protests going on today.

The Vietnam protests got ugly.  People were injured and killed.  Colleges were occupied and disrupted.  But the protests were put down because we had college administrators and elected officials who were willing to uphold the law.  In today’s screwed up world, such people no longer exist, and even the concept of law enforcement is rejected by denizens of the Left.

The clear difference between the Vietnam protests and the current versions is that, in the 60’s and 70’s, the goal of the protesters was peace, while today’s headscarf wearing malcontents are in pursuit of a goal, which if achieved, would result in a 21st Century genocide of Jews.  Now, they may not admit that, and in truth, many of them are so ignorant that they haven’t thought that far ahead.  But whatever they have convinced themselves to believe, that’s what the result would be.

The sad fact is that today’s protesters simply don’t understand what they’re fighting for, or even who they’re supporting.  When the NYPD finally was permitted to go onto the Columbia University campus, about two weeks too late, to break up the encampments, and expel the protesters who had occupied Hamilton Hall, several hundred arrests were made.  I guess it was fitting that they took over Hamilton Hall, because it was Alexander Hamilton who famously said, “The people is a beast.”  Anyhow, the police found that about 40% of the arrestees had no business even being on the campus.

Simply put, the protest sprung not  from some grassroots uprising of young people in support of Palestinians, but instead from the indoctrination of shamefully ignorant Ivy Leaguers by professional agitators, some of whom are of advanced middle age, with records of scores of arrests.  They led the ovine students in chants of “Genocide Joe Biden,” “Hey, hey, ho, ho, the occupation has to go,” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”  They failed to grasp that none of these chants made any sense, and the chanters, by and large, had no idea what they were chanting for.

Much as I hate Joe Biden, and must admit that he’s killing Americans in pursuit of Il Duce Obama’s “fundamentally transformed United States,” Joe’s not killing anybody in Gaza.  “The occupation has to go?”  Israel’s not “occupying” Gaza.  The IDF is going through it like shit through a goose in pursuit of Hamas leaders, which is totally justified by the October 7th Hamas attacks.  Worse yet, the pampered, highly entitled, delicate snowflakes of the Ivy League might be singing “from the river to the sea” in tune, but many of them can’t tell you what river and what sea they’re singing about, for if they could, then they would understand that they’re lending aid and comfort to Islamic terrorists and to domestic Jew haters whose goal is to exterminate every Jew found between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

The point is that these protests really aren’t in favor of Palestinians, but instead are the work of rabid anti-Semites.  The Ivy League losers are chanting for freedom and peace for Palestinians, who happen to be the least tolerant people on Earth, who happen to enjoy more freedom than the residents of nearly all other Arab nations, and who have leaders who have repeatedly rejected Israeli offers of a peaceful homeland.  In point of fact, the Palestinians are outcasts who are unwelcome is the Mideast Muslim world, because everywhere they go they cause trouble.

When Israel counter-attacked, the nearest place of refuge for Gazans was Egypt, but Egypt wants nothing to do with them.  Jordan is nearby, and the home to many Palestinians, but Jordan won’t let them in.  The last time they tried that, the Palestinians tried to overthrow the Jordanian government.  Yet the ignorant college students have, wittingly or unwittingly joined cause of Hamas, just as they mindlessly joined the BLM riots.  And the same professional anarchists who brought you BLM, and Antifa, are now bringing us the Palestinian Pogrom.

And in another departure from the Vietnam era protesters, the delicate snowflakes expect to disrupt the school during final exam week, occupy buildings, damage property, and even criminally restrain university employees, and yet escape without any consequences.  Columbia has threatened to expel protesters.  I doubt they will follow through, but we’re told that’s too harsh.

Clearly, the law means nothing, because Columbia Law School students don’t even want to have to take exams, claiming, “the violence we witnessed last night (they mean by the police) has irrevocably shaken many of us on the [Law] Review.”  I sincerely hope that none of these delicate beings go into the criminal law, cause brother, they ain’t seen violence yet.

As this is written, Columbia has cancelled it’s commencement ceremony, preferring to placate the mob rather than to ensure the security of its students, parents and benefactors whose money keeps its putrid system in operation.  A number of prominent Jewish benefactors have withheld contributions, and a number of employers have announced that they won’t be hiring Columbia grads.  Hopefully sanity will reign, and college administrations will begin to reverse the alarming trend of putting the inmates in charge of these asylums of higher education.