CUNY Adjunct Professor Shown Tearing Down Hamas Hostage Flyers

Yesterday, I posted the account of one of my children who followed another student at George Washington University as she tore down flyers of the Hamas hostages from poles around campus. The vandalism near our law school is occurring across the country as activists seek to prevent others from expressing their views on the war. When I posted the GWU incident yesterday, I noted that this is behavior that has been reinforced by faculty members who have engaged in violent and destructive conduct for years targeting pro-life and other causes. One such incident involved an adjunct professor at City University of New York. Callen Zimmerman is also accused of shoving a person confronting her on her actions.

The videotape below shows Zimmerman ripping up flyers of the Hamas hostages. When a couple of people object, she tells them to “go colonize somewhere else.” The incident follows videotapes of students ripping down such flyers across the country, including one such incident at George Mason University.

Zimmerman was listed as teaching a course on the Stony Brook University website, where she is studying for a PhD in “Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies.” The bio stated that “Callen Zimmerman explores intricacies of material culture and queer experience, as fashion freak, educator and maker.”

As I have previously written, these recent incidents are little surprise for many of us who have been critical of the growing intolerance for opposing viewpoints on campuses for years. Many of these faculty members are part of a radical chic that has been the norm in hiring.

Universities are increasingly awarding degrees in activism, often taught by faculty who blur any distinction between academics and advocacy. Other faculty members have taught by example in destroying displays of opposing views. Universities have often done little to counter such faculty vandalism.

This year, Hunter College Professor Shellyne Rodríguez was shown trashing a pro-life display of students.

She was captured on a videotape telling the students that “you’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.”

Unlike the professor, the students remained calm and respectful.

One even said “sorry” to the accusation that being pro-life was triggering for her students.

Rodríguez continued to rave, stating, “No you’re not — because you can’t even have a f–king baby. So you don’t even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.” In an Instagram post, she is then shown trashing the table.

Hunter College, however, did not consider this unhinged attack to be sufficient to terminate Rodríguez.

It was only after she later chased reporters with a machete that the college fired Rodríguez. She was then hired by another college.

Another recent example comes from the State University of New York at Albany, where sociology professor Renee Overdyke shut down a pro-life display and then resisted arrest. One student is heard screaming, “She’s a [expletive] professor.”

That of course is the point. She is a professor and was teaching these students that they do not have to allow others to speak if they oppose their viewpoints.

This has been going on for years.

Fresno State University public health professor Dr. Gregory Thatcher, recruited students to destroy pro-life messages.

At the University of California Santa Barbara, professors actually rallied around feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller-Young, who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. 

Despite pleading guilty to criminal assault, she was not fired and received overwhelming support from the students and faculty.

She was later honored as a model for women advocates.

Rather than put up their own flyers with their own views, the faculty and students destroying the flyers of Hamas hostages reflect a view that they are entitled to silence others. They view free speech as preventing others from reading or hearing opposing views. That is also a lesson that has been taught by faculty members for years. Academics like former CUNY law dean Mary Lu Bilek even insisted that disrupting a speech on free speech was free speech.

Notably, some of the faculty who are objecting to the intolerance and threats on campuses in these recent incidents have been silent for years as their colleagues have been targeted in such campaigns over conservative, libertarians or dissenting views. These incidents show how such silence has only emboldened and expanded the anti-free speech movement in higher education.

Warning: Foul language

252 thoughts on “CUNY Adjunct Professor Shown Tearing Down Hamas Hostage Flyers”

  1. DM, why do you persist in typing the talking points of the mindless Leftists? If I want to hear mindless Leftists drivel, all I need do is turn on CNN or MSNBC, from which you derive your mindless talking points.

    And I do turn on CNN and MSNBC from time to time, just to confirm that they are spouting and repeating their usual mindless Leftist garbage. They are.

    1. He is not a human but a bot, programmed to say “Jonathan:” and then to spew mindless left-wing talking points with no logical analysis. I have not read anything he’s vomited onto the page for months. It’s a total waste of time.

  2. Jonathan: Boy, it was another week of fireworks in Judge Engoron’s court room. Both Don Jr. and Eric completed their testimony. It didn’t go any better for Eric than it did for his brother. Eric testified he was not involved in preparing statements of financial conditions of the company. Until he was shown emails that proved otherwise.

    The fireworks came when Cris Kise, one of DJT’s attorneys, started attacking Judge Engoron’s principal clerk, Allison Greenfield. Kise told Engoron: “Yes, as a judge you’re entitled to receive [assistance], but from someone who has potentially demonstratable bias…and the manner in which that has taken place, we at least have to make a record”. Kise was alluding to notes the clerk was passing to her judge.

    Judge Engoron was justifiable irate–especially after he imposed a $10,000 fine on DJT for doxing his clerk. Engoron told Kise: “Some times I think there may be a bit of misogyny in the fact, that you keep referring to my female principal law clerk. If there is any further reference to anyone on my staff…I will consider expanding the gag order to include the attorneys and including yourself”. Engoron later did just that. Why would Kise continue to attack the judge’s clerk? Probably on orders from his client? Or to make a record on appeal? In any case Appeals Court judges also have law clerks and they don’t look kindly on attorneys and defendants who disparage them.

    Next week DJT and Ivanka are scheduled to testify. The big Q is whether DJT will actually show up to testify? Besides being a coward he probably realizes he has lost. So what incentive does he have to testify? If he doesn’t Judge Engoron is entitled to draw adverse inferences from DJT’s absence. Either way DJT loses.

    Ivanka tried to avoid testifying. She filed an appeal with the classic “Princess” defense: “Ms. Trump, who resides in Florida with her three minor children, will suffer undue hardship if a stay is denied and she is required to testify at trial in New York in the middle of a school week”. The Court of Appeals denied her appeal. Sorry, “Princess”, you have lots of money. Hire a babysitter and someone to drive the kids to school. That’s not an “undue hardship” for someone of your means.

    The other big Q is what Ivanka will say when she testifies? Will she try to make lame excuses like her brothers–or will she throw daddy under the bus? Stay tuned because next week will be the next episode of the made for TV daytime series entitled “As The World Turns–Saga of a Disgraced Family”.

    1. You do understand that the NY State “case” against Trump is just pure garbage concocted out of nothing to feed the mindless Leftist base? (I use the redundant term mindless Leftist only because those, such as yourself, don’t believe they are mindless. The mindless seldom do.)

      Mindless Leftist Engoron, meanwhile, is having fun now, getting his 15 minutes of fame. But, when the case is over and appealed, and both Engoron and the case are exposed to be a fraud, you will move on to your next POC, arguing that Trump was elected President in 2024 from “Russian Collusion,” recylcing the previous POC.

    2. DM – you say: “Eric testified he was not involved in preparing statements of financial conditions of the company. Until he was shown emails that proved otherwise.” No, the email established only that he was asked for information by another person for a financial statement. That does not mean that he “prepared” a financial statement. The person who prepares a financial statement is usually identified in the statement.

  3. Jonathan: Where have you been all these years? During the Vietnam War a well known graphic artist in our town created large posters with unflattering depictions of Presidents Nixon and Johnson and other politicians who supported the war. After midnight he and his crew (in the interest of full disclosure I was a member of his crew) would go around town plastering the posters on light posts, mail boxes and the sides of buildings. The next day we would go around and found many of the posters defaced or torn down. Didn’t stop us from our frequent midnight runs. You were just a toddler back then so you conveniently don’t recall that part of our “radical chic” history. On my university campus students would hang NLF (Viet Cong) flags from their dormitory windows. The next day they were removed and destroyed by university police. Back then there were all forms of “radical chic”.

    Frankly, I don’t see the connection between Callen Zimmerman’s “radical chic” and your frequent complaint about “conservatives and libertarians”. Zimmerman apparently practices what she preaches but that doesn’t mean she is a threat to conservatives or libertarians. But you want to make Zimmerman the poster child for everything that is wrong on university campuses these days. I don’t buy it!

    Now, the real attacks on political expression are not coming from Zimmerman but right-wing Republicans in Congress. It’s coming from Rep. Ryan Zinke. Remember him? He was DJT’s Secy. of the Interior and backed DJT’s “Muslim ban”. Now Zinke has introduced a bill to revoke the visas of 2,000 Palestinians–mostly of people who do not support Hamas but simply wanted to get away from the oppressive conditions under Israeli rule. Zinke has offered no evidence that Palestinians here have violated US immigration laws or are a Hamas “underground” in our midst. Expectedly, Marjorie Taylor Greene is a co-sponsor of Zinke’s bill. MTG tried unsuccessfully to get Rep. Rashida Tlaib censored because “She’s literally a terrorist in the House of Representatives”.

    No, the real threat to free expression is not coming from, in your words, the “activists [who] seek to prevent others from expressing their views on the war” but the likes of Ryan Zinke and MTG!

    1. September 1950 — Truman (DEM) sends the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) Indochina to Vietnam to assist the French…in their effort to fight the Viet Minh forces.

      Kennedy (DEM) believed that yet another failure to gain control and stop communist expansion would irreparably damage U.S. credibility. He was determined to “draw a line in the sand” and prevent a communist victory in Vietnam. He told James Reston of The New York Times immediately after his Vienna summit meeting with Khrushchev, “Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place.”[113][114]

      – Wiki

        1. Wait. Can you read?

          Truman, a Comrade-General-Secretary-Roosevelt dumbocrap, sent the first units to Vietnam, then Kennedy, the first mob-assisted, idiotic, incompetent, “playboy”, daddie-will-take-care-of-all-the-problems-I-cause President In Name Only (PINO) and self-destructive, super-egoist, and consummate fool, escalated absurdly entirely bereft of rationale, coherence, commanding tactics and insuperable strategy.

    2. Dennis,

      Tell us your story again how you are a heterosexual, married, Republican Jew. That story always causes a knee slapper.

      Regards to the Mrs 🙈

      1. CommitToHonestDiscussion must have really gotten under your skin that you steal her name, especially after such a long time.

        1. Stop masturbating flattering yourself. You never got under anyones skin, though we thoroughly enjoy manipulating you like the garbage moron you are

      2. HDHT: You got the first two right. I am heterosexual and married. But I’m not a “Republican Jew”. I wish I was so I could give you a clean sweep. Why is it that when people (and I use the word loosely) like you can’t offer something constructive to the conversation, you invariably resort to ani-Semitism? Crawl back under your rock!

    3. Viet Cong flags? What did you find attractive about Communism? Slaughter of millions of people? Elimination of freedom of thought? No wonder you hate Trump.

    4. Hezbollah arrests reveal threat in the U.S., FBI’s Wray says this “is a time for vigilance”
      “Case details of Hezbollah operatives previously arrested in the United States show the reach of the terrorist organization and reveal threats lurking within our own borders during heightened security threats surrounding the Israel-Hamas war. FBI Director Wray told the Senate Homeland Security Committee: “This is not a time for panic, but it is a time for vigilance.”

    1. It looks like the fully “fundamentally transformed” Unitary Islamic Kingdom and Banana Republic of Harvard, amid the Reign of the Gay Queen, under the absolute dominion of the Grand Mufti, Barack Hussein “Barry-I-Have-A-Statue-In-Jakarta-Where-My-HS-Application-Says-I’m-Indonesian-Soetoro” Obama.

          1. I think it’s a decent statement, but limited. She has to come to grips with how the moral and educational rot presently killing Harvard happened in the first place, and how it can be undone. A nice message like this won’t exacerbate the situation, but won’t improve it much either.

            1. Queen Gay sure fooled you as he/it/she looked the other way.

              The first question one must ask is: How did a candidate from an enormously smaller pool outscore all others?

              Answer:  Affirmative action based on bias and favoritism rather than capacity and acumen.

              Along with bias and favoritism come adverse foreign and ideological allegiances.

              1. I was commenting on the content of her message, not her personal characteristics, which don’t interest me.

                1. Her personal characteristics are communist affirmative action; there is no rationale for her presence at Harvard.

                  Her appointment is designed to brainwash, influence, propagandize, and indoctrinate.

                  The playing field is tilted toward incompetence by communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) based on bias and favoritism.

                  The communists guarantee everyone’s success, real or imagined.

                  To wit, 

                  “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

  4. This European writer’s observations are still on point 19 years later:

    By Sebastian Vivar Rodriguez – Spanish Writer, November 21, 2004.

    I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth – Europe died in Auschwitz.
    We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims.
    In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.
    The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.
    And under the pretence of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.
    They have turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.
    Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.
    And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.
    We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.
    What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.

  5. Earn as much as possible (Salary depends on the amount of work done. Easy to apply. In this remote work from home position, qv you will be responsible for managing social media platforms, handling requests, providing Feedback and messages to customers responsible),
    For use. ….

  6. I was out for a walk last Thursday when Elon Musk tweeted a political cartoon that I created in August 2021. It received hundreds of thousands of retweets and more than 1.5 million likes. The stick figure in the middle depicts me, a center-left liberal in 2008, and how the ground had shifted under my feet by 2012 and 2021. okay

  7. It reminds me of something that Ronald Reagan once said, that democracy is like two black guys and a white woman voting on who to rape, or words to that effect, if my memory serves me well.

    1. The saying is attributed to Ben Franklin, and it’s that democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

    2. Neither Franklin nor Reagan ever said this. Franklin couldn’t have said it; the word “lunch” is not attested until long after his time, and the rest of the language sounds modern too. But in fact the earliest citation for this proverb is from a Usenet posting in 1990.

  8. Trolls are stuck in pure silliness while China, North Korea, Russia, Syria and Iran are preparing to destroy Israel.

    “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.” “Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country stay out of the city.”

    Time has run out. This is the ancient predicted Day of Destruction. All over the world, scholars are worried that WW 3 is here. Tis

    1. @EmeraldRobinson

      Obama/Biden gave Afghanistan back to the Taliban after 22 years.

      Obama/Biden flooded the West with Muslim “refugees” who are now attacking Jews.

      Obama/Biden paid Iran to have Hamas attack Israel.

      These are deliberate policy goals to spread terrorism.

    2. When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near

      Jerusalem was indeed conquered by Muslims in the 7th century AD, seizing it from Christians and Jews by blood thirst. The history of Muslims beginning with Mohammad, the founder of Islam, is spilling the blood of Christians and Jews in lands where the latter were already established. Istanbul, Turkey, was Constantinople before Muslims invaded and slaughtered inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire. The Hagia Sophia was a Christian (Eastern Orthodox) Basilica until Muslims destroyed it and named it a mosque.

      Jerusalem belongs to the Jews. The entire region belongs to them predating both Christianity and Islam. The historical facts are with the Jews.

      After the bitter battles they had endured with the Persians, in which hundreds of lives were lost, the Christians of Jerusalem felt that they had earned possession of the Holy City with their life’s blood. But less than ten years after the battles between Byzantium and Persia at last came to an end, Caliph Umar’s armies arrived at the gates of Jerusalem. They had already subjugated much of the country, and victory over the Holy City therefore seemed assured. Patriarch Heraklios fled the country, taking the True Cross from Jerusalem with him.

      When at last the Greek Orthodox Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem was forced to surrender in 638 A.D., Umar is believed to have traveled to Jerusalem personally in order to receive the surrender. Umar had become the second caliph following the death of Abu Bakr, making him one of the earliest successors of Mohammed himself.

    1. In the wild, animals have bright plumage and colors to warn predators that they are harmful and possibly poisonous. Beware of the bright pink, red, purple, and blue headed members of the human species. They are poisonous and are harmful to your well-being.

  9. pakistan-air-force-base-in-punjab-province-attacked-3-aircraft-damaged-

    US Intelligence has learned that Russia’s Wagner Group is preparing to deliver an advanced air defence missile system to Hezbollah-
    SA-22 system is also known as Pantsir-S1, which is a truck-mounted surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapons system made in Russia.

    Americans have sacrificed their lives to preserve the very rights Jonathan fears we’re throwing away.

    Bye bye American Pie
    and everyone else. We are teetering on the very brink of complete and utter annihilation and few recognize it. “We’ve been here many times before.” they grunt. No we haven’t. This is it!

  10. Today’s Leftist Indoctrination Entities, aka LIES (formerly called “colleges” and “universities”) are run and staffed by IslamoCommuNazis to enable the subhuman cretinesque student body to study in such majors as transdeviate perversion, climatechangeology, Maoist-Nazi Ethics, and Compassionate Brutality in the Leftist Economy.

  11. Excerpt from Kunstler’s latest blog post:

    But the worst byproduct of all this tragically misguided tikkun olam is that the main political vehicle for it, the Democratic Party, has gone so insane that it now devotes itself fanatically to the utter destruction of what remains of our country. This is most particularly true in the law, which might be considered the backbone of America. Lawfare attorneys such as Marc Elias, work tirelessly to turn American election law upside down and inside out so it becomes increasing impossible to know who is voting and if the ballots are legitimate.

    The Democratic Party has decided it’s okay to use the law in bad faith to persecute and jail its political opponents. The Democratic Party has destroyed Americans’ faith in the federal courts, the Department of Justice, and the FBI. The Democratic Party allows an invasion of millions of unvetted aliens across the border, quite a few of them possibly bent on making mayhem here as global tensions careen into hot war. The Democratic Party is still pushing Covid vaccinations that are well-understood at this point to be ineffective and unsafe. And the Democratic Party is doing everything possible (with help from RINO Republicans) to destroy our financial system. You could easily make the case that the Democratic Party is the anti-American Party.

    1. “Democratic Party has destroyed Americans’ faith in the federal courts…”

      Corrupt lawyers donning black nightgowns have destroyed our judiciary and cracked the foundation of our democracy.

    2. Recent;y a court in Connecticut ordered a new democratic primary in december – if democrat turned independent does not with the election in november – which would moot the case).

      Why because operatives were captured on video putting ballots into unattended ballot boxes.

      In connecticut like 48 states ballot harvesting is illegal. Further Connecticut like 38 states has a constitutional requirement for a secret ballot.

      The judge ruled that people handling an absentee ballot other than the the voter violated the ballot harvesting law and the state constitutions requirements for secret ballots.

      We have had MANY successful challenges to recent election – but ONLY those by Democrats manage to get into court.

      in 2018 a ballot harvesting case by democrats against a republican resulted in a new election for a federal house seat.
      Because thete was evidence that people other than the voter handled absentee ballots – violating ballot harvesting and state constitution secret ballot requirements.

      In june 2020 a judge in Newark NJ threw out 250,000 mailin ballots as suspected fraudulent in the democratic primary. Later several p[eople were convicted of election fraud in that primary.

      Yet, Trump and later TTV made similar claims – with video and geofencing evidence that atleast 800,000 ballots in 6 states and possibly as many as 2M ballots in 6 states were fraudulently ballot harvested and violated those state laws against ballot harvesting and their state constitutional requirements for secret ballots.
      Despite hundreds of hours of video of people dropping dozens of ballots in unattended ballot boxes in GA, PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV often making as many as 10 stops a night, and testimony from a few that they were being paid $10/ballot – what do we get ? Bupbkus.

      Yes, some democratic mayoral candidate in CT provides a small amount of video of ballots being harvested – and the 2023 democratic mayoral primary is tossed.

      I would note that democrats post 2020 in their own Time Magazine article ADMITTED to massive 2020 ballot harvesting – again illegal everywhere but California.

      Massive double standard on the left.

      1. “Yet, Trump and later TTV made similar claims – with video and geofencing evidence that atleast 800,000 ballots in 6 states and possibly as many as 2M ballots in 6 states were fraudulently ballot harvested …”

        You made the point quite clear. The cases brought by democrats had clear evidence. Trump’s did not. Geofencing is not accurate enough to prove what was claimed. You say “possibly” which means it’s not clear or certain. The Democrats provided evidence that shows no doubt.

    1. Because it is unconstitutional.

      The only surprise is that it has taken this long.

      There is a VERY long list of supreme court cases on this – going all the way back to 1831.

      This is not even a close call.

      There are so many problems.

      In 1831 SCOTUS decided that a federal judges contempt power was limited to conduct in or very near the court room – i.e. in the courthouse.

      In 1874 that was re-afirmed.
      In the 1940’s the judges power to restirct speech was limited to that posing a clear and present danger.
      And subseuently through the 14th amendment the restrictions on a judges contempt power was extended to the state courts.

      These orders = and many others we have seen – such as those targeting Manafort, Stone, Trump and many others are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

      The supreme court takes a dim view of restrictiojns on speech, a very dim view of PRIOR RESTRAINT, and an especially dim view of restrictions on political speech.

      Ultimately you can expect that not only are these gag orders going in the toilet – but much of the January 5th convictions.

      The courts can not sanction people for speech outside the courthouse PERIOD.
      They can not sanction people for remarks about anyone in government – that includes judges, and court clerks.
      They can not restrict free speech.

      The court can not deal with conduct that is not before it – i.e. the instant case, or that did not occur in the courtroom.

      Conduct outside the courtroom that is actually illegal can be prosecuted as a new crime. But it MUST meet the constraints of the constitution.

      There is no end run arround the constitution that can be accomplished by dragging someone into court.

      1. “The court can not deal with conduct that is not before it – i.e. the instant case, or that did not occur in the courtroom.”

        Trump was posting during court proceedings. That’s why the prosecution mentioned it. It did occur in the court room.

        Gag orders haven’t been declared unconstitutional or constitutional according to SCOTUS. They have been permissible in order to ensure a fair trial.

        The cases you cited did not rule that gag orders are unconstitutional.

        You’re referring to the Act of 1831. You left out the rest.

        “The power to punish for contempts is inherent in all courts; its existence is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of the judgments, orders, and writs of the courts, and consequently to the due administration of justice. The moment the courts of the United States were called into existence and invested with jurisdiction over any subject, they became possessed of this power.11”

        The ruling supports Chutkan’s position. The preservation of order in judicial proceedings. Trump’s public threats and intimidation tactics and influencing his supporters to harassing court staff is meant to disrupt the judicial proceedings and administration of Justice.

        Your cited cases don’t prove that gag orders are unconstitutional.

      2. You don’t cite the specific cases that supposedly support your position. All you offer are vague references to a year. Which cases specifically are you referring to?

        I figured out you were referring to the Act of 1831 but that that doesn’t support your position that gag orders are unconstitutional. They undermine it.

        It’s very likely the appeals courts will uphold judge Chutkan’s gag orders. Because your interpretation of the 1831 citation is obviously cherry picked.

      3. The categories of unprotected speech include obscenity, child pornography, defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words. Deciding what is and is not protected speech is reserved to courts of law. The First Amendment only prevents government restrictions on speech.

        The Jan 6 convictions can be upheld.

        “The First Amendment does not give citizens the right to exercise free speech rights on any government property at any time. “The State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated.” Adderley v. State of Florida, 385 US 39, 47 (1967). “[T]he First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government.” United States Postal Service v. Greenburgh Civic Association, 453 US 114, 129 (1981).”

        Trump made his comments INSIDE a courthouse. Just outside the courtroom. Not out on the sidewalk. An important distinction you seem to not understand.

        A courthouse is not a public forum.

        Courts can restrict speech outside the courtroom.

        In cox vs Louisiana,

        1. The statute is narrowly drawn, furthers the State’s legitimate interest of protecting its judicial system from pressures which picketing near a courthouse might create, is a valid regulation of conduct, as distinguished from pure speech, and does not infringe rights of free speech and assembly. Pp. 383 U. S. 562-564.
        2. Even assuming the applicability of a “clear and present danger” test, there is no constitutional objection to applying the statute to conduct of the sort engaged in by the demonstrators. Pp. 383 U. S. 565-566.
        3. The evidence of intent to obstruct justice or influence any judicial official required by the statute was constitutionally sufficient. Pp. 383 U. S. 566-567.”

        1. I don’t think we can definitively say the gag order “is constitution” or “is unconstitutional” at this point. That’s the very question the DC Circuit is mulling over right now. Most likely its final decision on the interlocutory appeal will be accompanied by its own legal analysis.

          Nor do I think one can easily predict Trump will lose. The DC circuit has already stayed the gag order, and that would not have happened if the court felt the challenge was frivolous.

          1. Staying the gag order was only a procedural motion. Not a doubt on the validity of the order. There’s ample precedent showing gag orders are permissible. Especially in Trump’s case.

            As shown in Cox vs Louisiana courts CAN limit speech outside a court. John B. Say ignores the protests outside Supreme Court Justice’s homes. Conservatives complained it was illegal. But clearly they were protesting from what is considered public forums ( streets and sidewalks). Trump made his comments within the courthouse and during court proceedings which fall under the judge’s authority.

            1. Staying the gag order was only a procedural motion.

              I’m well aware of that. But you missed the point. Stays are not automatic. The appellate court will only issue a stay if it believes the appellant has a decent chance of winning the interlocutory appeal. And a statement like “gag orders are permissible” is meaningless. Some are, some aren’t. Each has to be evaluated individually to see if it is permissible. The permissibility is highly fact-specific.

              1. “The appellate court will only issue a stay if it believes the appellant has a decent chance of winning the interlocutory appeal.”

                No, it was procedural. It’s not a hint at what the appellate court believes.

                “And a statement like “gag orders are permissible” is meaningless. Some are, some aren’t.”

                You essentially supported my point. This one is. This one is very likely to survive the appeals court’s scrutiny. Because trump’s own actions which triggered it are self explanatory.

                1. You keep using the word “procedural“ as if that means the stay is automatic based solely on Trump having filed an appeal. Where do you get that notion?

      4. Courts are not part of the constitutional amendment process.

        The Constitution mandates that speech not be abridged.

        After a defendant is convicted, courts may abridge not only speech but every other aspect of life, including, in some cases, life itself.

        Real President Donald J. Trump has not been convicted of anything in the current political cases, which must have been struck down by SCOTUS under its power of Judicial Review, which allows it to review all completed acts, including those of charging and placing a case on a docket.

        1. “Courts are not part of the constitutional amendment process.

          The Constitution mandates that speech not be abridged.”

          Courts are bound by the constitution as well as the rules set by congress.

          Trump is a criminal defendant under the purview of the court. He’s subject to the judge’s restrictions deemed appropriate by the judge. If trump is jeopardizing the court proceedings he can be restrained or restricted.

          1. You answered your own question when you said “courts are bound.” That means even their authority to issue gag orders is constrained. Their gag orders cannot exceed the limits placed on them by law, including the Constitution, which of course is the supreme law of the land.

      5. Secession is not prohibited and is fully constitutional – overlay secession on the 10th Amendment.

        Lincoln’s initial act of denying secession was unconstitutional.

        Every act of Lincoln, subsequent to his unconstitutional denial of seclusion, is similarly unconstitutional, including, but not limited to, the 13th Amendment.

        Lincoln must have been impeached and convicted for his high-criminal act of denying fully constitutional secession.

  12. George Will Highlights Hypocrisy Of Republicans

    Russia’s war crimes — targeting civilians, kidnapping children, mass executions, torture, rape — are not incidental to, they are premeditated tactics in, the war that some congressional Republicans seem eager to help Putin win. He knows the help he needs. “If Western defense supplies are terminated tomorrow,” Putin said on Oct. 5, “Ukraine will have a week left to live as it runs out of ammunition.”

    This blithe acknowledgment that killing Ukraine is his intention came as some congressional Republicans were intensifying their opposition to aiding Ukraine. Their canine obedience to Donald Trump is congruent with his vow that if reelected he will end the war “in 24 hours.” These Republicans, and the constituents to whom they pander, are not less odious than the congressional and campus progressives “contextualizing” (a progressive synonym for “justifying”) Hamas’s sadism.

    For almost a month now, Republicans have been self-righteously condemning liberal ‘supporters of Hamas’ while turning a blind eye to Russian atrocities in Ukraine. This hypocrisy has created a backlash effect amongst Palestinian sympathizers in the United States.

    Note Will’s reference to the “canine obedience (of Republicans) to Donald Trump”.

    1. “some congressional Republicans seem eager to help Putin win.” I would like Will or you identify any Republican in Congress who wants Putin to win. This is the old tactic that if you don’t want to involve your country in a distant foreign war, it must be because you want one of the parties to win. That is how we ended up intervening in WWI, with disastrous consequences to Europe and the world.

      1. Edwardmahl,
        It is the neocons, both Republican and Democrat, that want the war with Russia.
        Unfortunately for us, and them, rather than take a moment to reconsider their position, they double or triple down on it.
        As you point out, we, the US, has a tendency to get involved in distant foreign wars. The world might be better off if we stopped trying to police the world and telling everyone else what to do.
        The Palestine/Israel conflict is the latest in a war that has been ongoing for tens of thousands of years, with both sides committing atrocities. It is not going to get solved overnight, if ever.
        I read one person say something to the effect of, “The US is insulated from distant wars with two oceans separating us.”
        Looking at the pro-Palestine rallies occurring here in the US, a larger conflict in the Mid-East and we could see fighting on our streets in the US.

        Invest in chickens, PMs and ammo.

    2. “. . . while turning a blind eye to Russian atrocities in Ukraine.”

      Some $114 billion sent to Ukraine (not including military equipment) does not strike me as a “blind eye.” It strikes me as robbing Americans to support a corrupt, authoritarian government.

      However, the Biden administration is turning a blind eye to Ukraine’s corruption and to the theft of American taxpayers:

      “’People are stealing like there’s no tomorrow,’ a top aide to Zelensky told Time Magazine about bribery and the ‘pocketing’ of ‘state funds.’”

      “This hypocrisy has created a backlash effect amongst Palestinian sympathizers in the United States.”

      No. That “backlash” is caused by the “Palestinians” sympathizing with Hamas’ desire to eradicate Israel. Their desire for genocide is being thwarted. And like spoiled children, they’re throwing a fit.

      1. There is a huge difference between condemning Putin’s invasion of Ukraine – which Biden provoked, just as Obama provoked the invasion of Crimea in 2014 and Busk provoked the invasion of Georgia.

        That does not alter the FACT that Putin’s actions were wrong.

        But even that does not answer the question what should the US do ?

        We now find ourselves funding and arming two nations in large existential wars.
        While at the same time seeing threats arround the globe explode.

        Biden has created oportunities now for Iran and China – because we can not fight everywhere all at once.

        Biden has F#$Ked up from day one. and is increasingly paying the price.

        If as is claimed Ukraine will fall in a week if the US ceases providing ammunition – what happens as things escalate with Iran, and if China decides this is their oportuntity to go after Taiwan

        Biden Bet Afghanistan would not collapse when he left without planning.
        He Bet that Russia would not invade Ukraine when he started lose talk of Ukraine joing NATO which has in the past repeatedly resulted in Putin invading somebody and which we Promised Russia would not occur as we negotiated the collapse of the USSR.

        Now he has a mess with Israel that is threatening to suck the US into broad illdefined conflict throughout the mideast.
        And open up dangerous oportunities for other despots.

        Each unnecescary conflict stretches US resources and makes more conflict more likely.

    3. Russia is a great power which has long articulated its traditional security interest in Ukraine being neutral. In addition, as reflected in Minsk, it accepted that the Donbas could be in Ukraine but must be allowed autonomy. France and Germany agreed. Ukraine refused to implement the agreement.

      Russia’s objective was not and still is not the destruction of Ukraine as a state. That Ukraine is now in the process of being demolished is the consequence of the US and NATO not recognising Russia’s clearly articulated red lines. The longer the war goes on, the greater will be the destruction of Ukraine, and the cost to the powers that finance it.

      Hamas is a terrorist gang that seized power in Gaza in 2007 through violence and is ideologically committed to the destruction of the state of Israel. They have shown themselves willing intentionally to kill civilians on a massive scale to accomplish that objective. They have said they will do that over and over until Israel is annihilated.

      Israel has now concluded that they can no longer live safely with Hamas in control of Gaza and are destroying Hamas. Because Hamas deliberately embeds itself with civilians, many civilians are being killed in this war, despite the warnings sent by Israel. This is the consequence of Hamas’s massacre and Israel’s strategic decision to eliminate Hamas in Gaza as a response.

      It seems to me the right solutions are a negotiated settlement in Ukraine to end the destruction and preserve as much of it as possible, and the removal of Hamas in Gaza through its unconditional surrender or total defeat. What will come after that will be the result of diplomacy. Over time, whether it is a two state or one state solution, or something else altogether, remains to be seen.

      1. While SOME of your remarks vis-a-vis Russia are error. That is unimportant.

        Right or Wrong Putin has telegraphed what he would do if NATO encroached further on Russia.
        Why are we suprised that he did as he said he would.

        That Russia is not the good guy does not change the fact that our conduct triggered this.

        If the US is going to confront Putin over something Putin has made his stance clear – the US had better be prepared to deal with what follows.

        Biden’s mishandling of foreign affors since taking office increases the volatitility in the world by the day and increases the likelyhood that other countries will behave badly – because the US is overstretched.

        It is stioll my hope and expectation that China will not invade Taiwan.

        Should that happen – the already strained resources of the US are likely to fail.

        1. NATO wasn’t encroaching in Russia. Putin was already focused on retaking Ukraine before Biden or Obama were involved. Russia’s incompetent attack on Ukraine created the incentive to expand. It was Russia’s fault

    4. Republicans are often hypocritical. What is new. ? Though they are rank amateurs compared to democrats.

      Regardless, Will who is normally better than this is WRONG regarding ukraine.

      While he is correct that nations will often be defeated absent supplies/ He is also correct that Putin is a bad guy.

      There is nothing in the UIS constitution, US law or US treaties that requires the US to defend and supply whoever we deem is the good guy (ot the least bad) in each and every conflict.

      It is increasingly evident that the Biden administration F#$Ked in thwarting efforts to reach a peace deal early in this conflict.

      That the war in Ukraine is does NOT involve US interests. That the Biden administration goal of using every last ukrainian to destroy Russia was never workable.

      while it is my view that the US should continue to provide Ukraine with the material needed to defend their country. That is an oppinion and a choice we should make through our elected represenatives after debate in congress.

      It is not a unilateral power of the president. It is NOT as I said an obligation.

      Further the US goals in the region should be PEACE – not the defeat of Russia. Russia is ultimately doomed to collapse regardless, it is NOT our legitimate role to speed up the process at great expense in blood and treasure.

      The US is getting drawn into the conflict in the Mideast – because Biden has left US troops scattered throughout the mideast – in large enough numbers to serve as a target, but not sufficient to protect themselves.

      We have no mnational interest to protect in Ukraine. We have no national interest to protect in Syria and Iraq, and ….

      1. John Say, I agree with much of what you say. Trump wanted to pull all troops out of Syria and Iraq but was stymied.

        It seems to me that the US has a strategic interest in maintaining Israel as a power in the ME to help counterbalance Iran. I believe that Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf Sates and Saudi Arabia think the same but can’t say so publicly.

        Israel has now concluded that Hamas can no longer be permitted to control Gaza and is in the process of eliminating it. The question is whether the US should support them in doing so. I think so. I also think the Arab states mentioned above would be happy to see Hamas gone from the scene.

        1. There is a huge difference between the US seeking to contain Iran and the US keeping troops that mostly serve as cannaries in the coal mine all over the mideast.

          Israel is a counter to Iran and is in the US strategic interests. So is Saudi Arabia – though less so than israel.

          Urkaine is NOT Iraq is NOT, Syria is NOT.

          That does not mean we ignore agression there. But it also means we must think about what matters most.

          Containing Iran certainly does not mean giving them ever more money.

          The Stupidity of Obama/Biden efforts to normalize with Iran are gargantuan.

          All our alies are not good guys. Sometimes they are not even useful.

          Trump found a delicate ballance with Ukraine, Russia, Iran, the Saudies, the Turks, …. that worked – it brought peace and it allowed the US to focus where it mattered – Asia and China.

          Biden has restored US foreign policy to where it was in the 70’s. Dependent on hostile foreign oil cartels, and with the US fixated on the mideast and Europe.

          It should be self evident right now that Russia has no ability to stand up to any two significant european nations.

          And all we had to do to see Russia fade was to “not poke the bear”.
          Which Biden of course did.

          Energy independence makes Bother Russia and the Mideast EUROPES problem – not the US’s.

          While I am not advocating total disengagement from europe and the mideast – Trump’s presidency should make clear that with competent leadership-, good energy policies and the absence of stupidity such as provoking Puting and coddling Iran, that we can have world peace and wait patiently for despots to fail.

          If China becomes beligerant – the US will be FORCED to act.

          Ukraine is not in the US interests.
          Europe is barely in the US interests.
          The mideast is no longer in the us interests.

          Relations with China are – Taiwan is.
          Asia is.

          1. John Say: Largely agree. But China has always said Taiwan is part of China and the US has agreed. The right answer there is for the more pro-China candidate to win Taiwan’s presidential election and begin to negotiate an accommodation. China has never been an expansionist power beyond what it considers to be its borders, and I doubt it is now.

            1. “But China has always said Taiwan is part of China and the US has agreed.”

              Daniel, I think you are wrong. The agreement we do have is vague so both parties could claim what they wanted. More recently Trump had to deal with it and did so in cagey manner that I can’t remember. China missed the meaning. Maybe I will find out what Trump said.

  13. A proposal:

    Start posting photos of Muslims hurling homosexuals off buildings.

    Maybe include a link to internet video of the murders.

    Too many people on campus these days seem to think only in pictures. This might help them understand.

    Put them everywhere.

    1. Young, are you saying that White Christian Nationalists are cool because they aren’t hurling gays off high buildings?

        1. He would be thrilled if a Muslim grabbed him so as to be thrown off of a building. It would be his only chance to be manhandled by another man, given his repulsive and toxic disposition


          1. Estovir, who’s your main puppet now? Is it still Thinkthrough? Old Man From Kansas? Or has Edward Mahl captured your imagination?

            I remember a few weeks back you were very high on Tom. Has Tom been discarded?

            And by the way, are you in a wheelchair? Paralysis might be the only explanation for your presence here 16 hours per day.

            1. ButAnoon – Here you again implying that all the commentators you don’t like are all the same person. Are you pretending to be paranoid?

      1. Nice deflection. You want some moral equivalence to make your point? Could you be more desperate? Its always your narrative , isnt it?

      2. Were the American Founders white Christian nationalists?

        You communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) just hate actual Americans, old and new, don’t you.

      3. “Young, are you saying that . . .”

        You’re not very good at discerning subliminal messages.

        What he’s really, really saying is:

        Round up all Chihuahuas and use them as taco meat.

    2. “Start posting photos . . .”

      You could flood the internet with such photos. Their irrational ideology (and evasion) would hold fast, even in the seconds before meeting the pavement.

  14. For many months the left has been complaining about pornography that has not been allowed in schools. Now the left is up to burning books. There are some who are telling us that there are moderate Democrats such as Alan Dershowitz. Try as I might to see it there is no moderate Democrat to be found. At every turn they have supported “The Squad.” If I were buying it that they are moderates I would be a fool. Their actions speak for themselves.

      1. And those on the left love to deny the truth and gaslight conservatives by claiming they don’t understand something which they understand very well.

        1. No, they don’t like being pointed out how ridiculous they sound when they start calling out everything pornography whenever it’s something they don’t like. It’s similar to their use of language such as “Marxists”, “ socialists”, “groomers”, “woke”, etc. They like to say these words as if they know what they mean when they really don’t.

          1. Says the woke, Marxist, groomer who knows less about possessing a proper vocabulary, persuasive writing and English grammar than most immigrants

          2. They Who ?
            Your post is not clear.

            Most of us do know that the sexualization of children is pornography.
            That those who seek to maximize the power of the state are marxists and socialists.

            That sexualizing children is “grooming.

            And that “woke” has been a destructive failure.

            1. John Say,
              Well said.
              The sexualizing and grooming of children has to be fought against. It is pure evil.
              We can only hope wokeism is a failure. Without a doubt, wokeism is destructive.

            2. “Most of us do know that the sexualization of children is pornography.”

              No, it’s not. They are not sexualizing children. That’s entirely a conservative construct meant to demonize something they don’t understand.

      2. If it’s not porn then why can’t it be read at city council meetings, school committee meetings or on the news?

        1. “If it’s not porn then why can’t . . .”

          And why can’t those *children* buy exactly the same material at a store? Why are there age restrictions at those internet sites?

          Peddling propaganda to *children* (disguised as “education”) is morally bankrupt. Peddling perversion (disguised as ‘diversity”) is truly wicked.

      3. I understand that when a species that engages in sexual reproduction fails to reproduce at a rate sufficient for the survival of the species – very very bad things happen.
        I undertand that reproduction does not come from finger nail clippings or same sex matings.

        I understand that most civilized countries do not tolerate the sexualization of children.

        I understand that the rights of the LGBTQ+ community and EVERY OTHER GROUP end the moment they impose a duty on others,

        Those who DO NOT UNDERSTAND are on the left.

    1. TiT,
      The leftists, whom are illiberal, have high jacked the Democrat party to the point what us normal people would call a moderate sane Democrat like Bill Maher, Elon Musk, James Carville and of course the good professor, the illiberal leftists now call them right wing extremists.
      Elon Musk once posted two drawings. A line with left on the left side and right on the right side with a simple stick figure labeled as himself just to the left of center.
      The next drawing, he was standing in the same position, but the center had moved to the left of him, making him on the right. He did not change. The party did.
      Bill Maher has said the same. He did not leave the party. The party left him.
      My sister recently visited. She is a long time registered Democrat. She says of a hundred friends who are Democrats, only five say her thinking is “wrong.” So, I think there is a quiet majority of Democrats, and some not so quiet, that are shocked at what their party has become. To the point my sister said she would vote Republican if they put up someone other than Trump.
      Our leftist friends here on the good professor’s blog have demonstrated time and time again how far they have gone to the extreme left with their complaining about pornography in schools. Any sane moderate Democrat also opposes pornography in schools. I know my sister does.

      1. “The next drawing, he was standing in the same position, but the center had moved to the left of him, making him on the right. “

        Upstate, the media draws the line and sets in the markers. From what I read, if you draw the line and place the marker in the center, most Americans fit to the right of the marker. The center is a construct by the left-wing media. Several years ago, some people estimated the deviation from the true center to be about 8% too far to the left. Today, my guess is that number would increase.

      2. The drawing to which you are referring was done by evolutionary biologist, Dr Colin Wright. It resonated with me, as a former Democrat, as well as with many of my ex-Democrat friends. We all registered as Independent since then.

        Elon Musk Tweeted My Cartoon
        by Colin Wright

        I was out for a walk last Thursday when Elon Musk tweeted a political cartoon that I created in August 2021. It received hundreds of thousands of retweets and more than 1.5 million likes. The stick figure in the middle depicts me, a center-left liberal in 2008, and how the ground had shifted under my feet by 2012 and 2021.

Leave a Reply