Dartmouth, history Professor Annelise Orleck this week became the latest academic arrested in the pro-Palestinian protests unfolding on campuses across the country. Orleck’s case presents an interesting twice. Her criminal charge came with an order not to return to campus. She is teaching 60 students this term.Ninety protesters were arrested at Dartmouth College, including Orleck who accused police of being “brutal.” Orleck teaches Jewish studies classes and supports the protest. She has objected to the charge of antisemitism raised by the governor and others:
“As a Jewish woman of an age that I grew up in a neighborhood full of Holocaust survivors and knew Holocaust survivors, I have to say that I think this is disingenuous,. It’s a weaponizing of antisemitism for their own political purposes, which is to suppress dissent. And if, in fact, as the governor and the college president said, the point is to make the campus safer for the Jewish community members, I have to say that what happened next made it decidedly less safe for all of us.”
She accused the police of brutality and insisted that she and other professors were merely trying to protect their students from harm. On X, she wrote “Those cops were brutal to me. I promise I did absolutely nothing wrong. I was standing with a line of women faculty in the their 60s to 80s trying to protect our students. I have now been banned from the campus where I have taught for 34 years.”
A video shows Orleck approached police while pointing her finger at them and then struggling with officers.
However, College President Sian Beilock issued a statement in response to the arrests Thursday, saying that faculty and students must accept the consequences of their actions:
“[P]eople felt so strongly about their beliefs that they were willing to face disciplinary action and arrest. While there is bravery in that, part of choosing to engage in this way is not just acknowledging – but accepting – that actions have consequences.”
Beilock rejected the protesters’ demands that the college divest from Israel, saying, “Dartmouth’s endowment is not a political tool, and using it to take sides on such a contested issue is an extraordinarily dangerous precedent to set. It runs the risk of silencing academic debate, which is inconsistent with our mission.”
The position of the college is conflicted on the question of faculty arrests. The week before, Provost David Kotz sent a campus-wide email stating that college policies “specifically prohibit the use of tents and encampments on the Green and other areas of campus.” He added that students and employees would be disciplined if they violate the policies.
The Dartmouth student newspaper reported that the university is seeking to change the conditions of her release to allow her to return to campus to teach her students.The College stated that it “will promptly request that any errors be corrected.”
It did so and the conditions were changed to bar her from the Green, Parkhurst Hall and the President’s residence. However, Orleck has decided not to accept the accommodation. She is reported as saying that the College wanted her to “come back and teach in person,” but she chose not to after consulting with an attorney: “The attorney said, ‘I don’t care what they tell you. If you step on campus with a legal document saying you can be arrested and jailed for stepping on campus, you do not walk back on that campus.’”
It does not seem likely when the “victim” says that she is allowed back on campus.
We have seen other faculty recently arrested for a variety of protests. Recently a Cornell professor was arrested after disrupting an event with conservative commentator Ann Coulter.
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.
At Hunter College in New York, 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.
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.
The Orleck case is different in a number of respects. The protest clearly violated college rules. However, this was not an effort to prevent classes from being held or disrupting the free speech of others. She was not charged with resisting arrest, property damage, or an act of violence. She clearly cares for these students and has the best motivations in taking the actions that she did with her colleagues. The issue for the college is how to address professors who assist students in the continued violation of campus rules and policies.
Faculty across the country have formed the same line of linked arms to prevent the removal of protesting students. The Orleck case may offer a moderate approach in the imposition of conditions which, if violated again, could result in more serious sanctions.
As an academic community, we need to seek resolutions short of arrests or criminal charges. However, that does not mean that schools should cave to demands as with the controversial settlement at Northwestern. In the end, universities have a right to control their campuses and their buildings.
Moreover, Jewish students and faculty at schools like Columbia and UCLA were prevented from gaining access to areas on the campuses. There have also been reported assaults and threatening conduct at some schools.
Free speech generally ends where the criminal code begins.
For faculty, the situation will become more acute as universities seek to regain control of their campuses against repeated violations. With professors engaged in the ongoing protests, there will be added pressure to hold them accountable. Schools are now raising suspensions and even expulsions for students, the question is how to address faculty engaged in the same or similar conduct.
Again, the Orleck case shows that there is greater leeway when faculty are not accused of supporting property damage or violence. The political speech elements must also be considered. However, as the protests continue, faculty encouragement of continued violations or the occupation of university buildings is likely to result in escalating penalties.
“Actions have consequences” for students and faculty alike.
“The greatest threat to the First Amendment in this country at this point in time is Israel’s supporters. It is the Israel Lobby… The only way they can shut down criticism is to throw the First Amendment out the window.” Prof. Prof. John Mearsheimer… Does Jonathan Turley has anything to say about the First Amendment being thrown out the window… His silence speaks itself: Res ipsa loquitur…
“. . . a peaceful *encampment* of protesters . . .” (emphasis added)
There is no such thing as a “peaceful encampment.” An encampment (or an occupation of an office, road, city) is the use of physical force to take and possess property that is not yours.
Such encampments are a violation of school policies, are trespassing, and violate the rights of students to facilities and activities they have paid for.
Of course the Left’s view is: They’re our protestors. So policies, rules, laws, rights be damned.
Getting back on topic…
The woman was a tool.
Gay and Jewish?
Libtarded to the end.
-G
Obviously a staged event.
Jonathan: Here’s another “actions have consequences” episode that requires some attention. It is no secret that Judge Eileen Cannon, a DJT appointee who presides over Jack Smith’s Mar-a-Lago case, has made a mess of her court docket. She has failed to make any substantive ruling even though her case is still set for trial on May 15. She has slow walked the case so DJT won’t go to trial before the election–a gift for her benefactor. Now her problem involves her failure to report some lavish trips as a federal judge. What’s this about?
The latest mess for Cannon involves two lavish trips she took to the Sage Lodge in Montana–courtesy of the George Mason Justice Scalia School of Law and the right-wing Federalist Society. In a long NPR investigation they showed Cannon failed to report these all expense paid trips on her federal judge disclosure form. Like Justice Thomas, Cannon’s clerk, Angela Noble, responded to the NPR investigation with this lame excuse: “Any omissions to the website are completely inadvertent”. These “omissions” were not just an oversight. Cannon tried to hide the fact that wealthy far-right donors and allies of DJT were treating her to stays at the luxury Sage Lodge–a pay back for slow walking the Mar-a-Lago docs case. That’s the only kind of “corruption” you complain about when it comes to the Biden family!
Now it appears we know why you want to defund NPR. It’s intense investigative reporting has disclosed corruption right inside the court of Judge Aileen Cannon!
Is it working, Comradette Dennis?
I have watched the radicalization of academia for six decades. Those of us who paid attention knew where it was headed. What we didn’t know was how vitriolic it would become and how acceptable it would become to mainstream America. The behavior we observe today, as described in this article, is beyond comprehension. It’s irrational, incomprehensible and utterly disgusting. It’s absurd. The level of hypocrisy is staggering. Equally ridiculous is the obvious degradation of education quality. Now dominated by pseudo intellectual nonsense, education no longer serves a meaningful purpose except in select areas. Unfortunately, it’s obvious that things are too far gone. We will never recover.
There something truly demented about American leftist Jews Just like their predecessors 90 years ago who supported Stalin they will die swearing allegiance to the those who will happily kill them
Jonathan: Yes, “actions have consequences”. Or do they? On Tuesday night there was a peaceful encampment of protesters on the UCLA campus. About 11:00 pm a group of so-called “counter-protesters” arrived and attacked the encampment. People wearing black outfits and wearing face masks started trying to tear down the barricades surrounding the encampment perimeter. About 11:45 pm fireworks were thrown into the encampment. Protesters inside were beaten and injured.
While this violence was going on campus police stood around but did nothing. About 1:40 am police in riot gear finally arrived but did nothing to stop the violence against the encampment and its occupants. Finally, at about 3:00 am a line of police officers pushed the “counter-protesters out of the quad area. It is unknown how many protesters were injured or whether any of the “counter-protesters” were arrested. On Thursday morning police arrested about 200 protesters and the encampment was dismantled.
The Q is whether there will be “consequences” for the counter-protesters who attacked the peaceful encampment? And will there be “consequences” and accountability for the police who failed to act to protect the peaceful encampment?
As the LA times editorial board noted: “Protesters in encampments on college campuses know they could face arrest over trespassing or failure to disperse…That’s part of the deal when undertaking acts of civil disobedience. But protesters should not be subject to physical attacks from people who disagree with them. Free speech and protest are foundations of the United States…It’s unacceptable for anyone to try to silence an opinion they don’t agree with through intimidation and violence”.
The last part of the LA Times editorial I think you would endorse–at least when it comes to protecting the free speech rights of “conservatives” who want to speak on university campuses. So when will you speak out about the use of intimidation and violence against the peaceful encampment at UCLA?
Antifa? Some, Select [Black] Lives Matter (SS BLM)? Covid lunatics? Illegal aliens? Hamas et al?
Deninis – your own words destroy your argument.
“On Tuesday night there was a peaceful encampment of protesters on the UCLA campus. About 11:00 pm a group of so-called “counter-protesters” arrived and attacked the encampment. People wearing black outfits and wearing face masks started trying to tear down the barricades surrounding the encampment perimeter.”
You are not describing a peaceful protest being violently attacked.
You are describing the removal of a fortress constructed for the purposes of illegally occupying part of campus and disrupting the college.
So your Peaceful protesters being violently attacked meme dies from your own words.
I do not know what REALLY happened – nor Am I trying to defend one side of something I know nothing about.
Except where YOU label the people dismantling the encampment as “counter protestors” – what you appear to be describing is efforts by police to dismantle the “peaceful protestors” encampment.
Again I do not know what really happened – and it is pretty aparent that neither do you.
But let me ask YOU some questions ?
Is it legitimate/legal for students as well as non-students from off campus to come on to campus and take over private property – building encampments and fortifying those encampments with barriers like a fortress ?
After such an illegal encampment has been established – is it legitimate/legal for others – students or non-students with a different viewpoint to attempt to dismantle an illegal encampment/fortress ?
You have a serious logical problem that is common to ALL your mangled free speech arguments – that is that they are NOT ever viewpoint neutral.
At Charlottesville – people you did not like, got a permit, held a protest, and had to run a guantlet of violent counter protestors armed with rocks, frozen water bottles, and flame throwers made from inset spray without police protection – to get to the park were the permitted event was to take place only to be ordered to run the same guantlet again backwards because the governor – ignoring a court order revoked their permit.
Here you have unpermitted protestors illegally occupying part of campus and according to you black clad counter protestors, removing the illegal encampment.
In BOTH cases – you side with those whose viepoint you support – not with any content neutral legal standards.
The FACT is that in Charlottesville – the “alt-right” protestors – were engaged in legitimate protest – they got a permit, The police were required to provide protection – but were ordered not to. and violent left wing counter protestors saw no consequences for disrupting a legal event. The only person who faced consequences was an alt-right person – who had mental health issues who lost it after counter protestors attacked his cars with baseball bats and drove through a crowd. He was charged with and convicted of murder of a counter protestor who was morbidly obese and who was never touched by his car – merely in the vacinity when he drove through the crowd.
Here at UCLA – you decide that those tearing down an unpermitted and illegal encampment – YOUR words, are somehow the bad guys ?
You call these people counter protestors – but what you describe sounds like police. Does it matter who the black clad people enforcing the law are – so long as they are enforcing the actual law ?
What occurred at J6 was much LESS significant than what you describe at UCLA. J6 Protestors did NOT illegally occupy the capitol – camping there for days. First they had a permit. They did NOT set up baricades. They did NOT set up Tents. They merely passed through the pre-eminent forum for free speech and political expression in the world. Some did engage in conflict – after they were accidentally (we hope) tear gassed by incompetent capitol police violating their rules for engagement.
Regardless, by YOUR narative on the UCLA event – that would make the capitol police the illegal actors at J6 – it would make the Capitol Police WORSE than your black clad counter protestors – the J6 protestors actually had a permit.
Regardless – even free speech and protest must have viewpoint neutral rules – otherwise the result is just anarchy – and the viewpoint based judgement that YOU constantly engage in.
We require permits for public protests. Those permits are MUST ISSUE, and can only have deminimus cost. They are issued on a first come first served basis. The purpose of the permits is NOT to prevent protests, but to preclude conflict between different protesting groups and to assure that governments position is viewpoint neutral.
We allow orderly public protests – even without permits on government public property – especially deliberately created public forums.
We do not allow tresspassing on private property.
We do not allow “occupying” private property – or public property.
You conduct your protest and you leave.
We do not allow violence (except in self defence, and in the enforcement of ones rights against those who are acting outside the law) – the entire purpose of government is to prevent people from initiating violence as the means to get what they want.
YOUR UCLA protestors, were unlawfully occupying private property. The use of force to end that unlawful occupation is justified.
Were those you called “counter protestors” allowed to use violence to end the unlawful encampment ?
I do not know – you do not provide enough facts to determine that. In a perfect world the illegal encampment would be removed by campus police or by LA police. But UCLA students, staff, teachers, or administration whose rights were being violated would have some limited right to use force to dismember an illegal encampment.
Finally, all those involved in illegal acts should be arrested and prosecuted.
But we have almost ALWAYS significantly mitigated prosecution and punishment where protest – free speech was involved – EXCEPT for J6 where left wing nuts have AGGREVATED punishments despite the first amendment conflicts.
John Say: Really, Jon? You start with the admission “I do not know what REALLY happened” at UCLA. If you don’t know what happened why go on and make a number of erroneous claims? Like the following:
–“Does it matter who the black clad people enforcing the law are–so long as they are enforcing the actual law?” Well, it does matter. The counter-protesters are not the police. They had no power to enforce the law. They violated the law by attacking the protesters!
–Then you go on to bizarrely compare the incident at UCLA with J6: “J6 was much LESS significant than what you describe at UCLA”. No. J6 was a lot worse. A lot of Capitol police were severely injured. Three people died in an attempt to overturn an election. The Capitol building was damaged. None of that happened at UCLA!
–Finally, you claim the J6 insurrectionists had a “permit” to trash the Capitol and commit mayhem. What “permit”? Show us a copy of that “permit”.
Every day you demonstrate your complete disconnect from reality. You need some mental health therapy.
Right away! As part of your therapy look at the LA Times report (5/1/24) of what happened at UCLA.
Isn’t the LA Times behind a pay wall?
@John Say, weirdly enough it’s your own response to Dennis that undermines your own argument. I can break that down to prove it.
“ You are not describing a peaceful protest being violently attacked.
You are describing the removal of a fortress constructed for the purposes of illegally occupying part of campus and disrupting the college.”
It was not a “fortress” it was just a barricade, a perimeter setup so that protesters and students still attending classes can do so. In your zeal to prove Dennis wrong you failed to notice that the protest was only held on one part of the campus not its entirety. Students can still attend classes and go about their business as always. The encampment is meant to be an act of civil disobedience it’s what a protest is.
They were not “illegally occupying” part of the campus since it’s an exercise of their first amendment right to protest. They are not engaging in violence or seeking to harass students. The only violence that occurs is when police step in and violently arrest students as it is what you want.
“ I do not know what REALLY happened – nor Am I trying to defend one side of something I know nothing about.”
But you proceed to describe exactly what happened and portray the incident as if you knew what happened and you ARE trying to defend one side. That admission alone undermines YOUR response to Dennis. Which then makes the rest of your responses quite silly.
“ We do not allow violence (except in self defence, and in the enforcement of ones rights against those who are acting outside the law) – the entire purpose of government is to prevent people from initiating violence as the means to get what they want.”
Here again the violence was not from the students. It was from the government and those counter protesters. Jan 6 protesters were violent and were illegally trespassing on government property. You say protests require permits. You are correct. The Jan 6 protesters had a permit to protest at grounds of trump’s speech. They did not have a permit to march to the capitol. Based on your own argument the Jan 6 protesters were already breaking the rules when they marched to the caption and proceeded to force their way into a government building. The students at Columbia Set up an encampment outside university buildings as professor Turley always says is acceptable.
“ You call these people counter protestors – but what you describe sounds like police. Does it matter who the black clad people enforcing the law are – so long as they are enforcing the actual law ?”
But you admit you know nothing about the incident. Yes, it does matter who the black clad people are. If they were just other counter protesters they cannot enforce the law. They are not law enforcement and vigilantism is illegal. But you seem to be ok with it as long as they are “enforcing the law”.
“ We do not allow tresspassing on private property.
We do not allow “occupying” private property – or public property.
You conduct your protest and you leave.”
Not according to your own defense of the Jan 6 protesters/rioters. You seem to dictate how or how long a protest should be conducted because YOU think, not how the law says it is. Public protests have no real time limit. Even those on private property.
“ What occurred at J6 was much LESS significant than what you describe at UCLA. J6 Protestors did NOT illegally occupy the capitol – camping there for days. First they had a permit.”
They did NOT have a permit to break into the capitol, or to march. That’s where you’re wrong. They had a permit to assemble on the location of Trump’s speech. Not to march or break into the Capitol.
“ But UCLA students, staff, teachers, or administration whose rights were being violated would have some limited right to use force to dismember an illegal encampment.”
No there is no “limited right to use force to dismantle an illegal encampment”. That would involve assault and battery to anyone who tried. It’s NOT their job. That’s why we have law enforcement. Because that IS their job. They can condiment and criticize the protest as much as they want, but they cannot legally force protesters or dismantle their encampment. To suggest it is irresponsible and it shows the level of contempt one has about the protests. They have a free speech right to protest, it IS mean to be disruptive, it IS meant to be annoying, because it brings attention to their cause just as the Jan 6 protesters. With the exception that they were violent and destructive.
“ We require permits for public protests. Those permits are MUST ISSUE, and can only have deminimus cost. They are issued on a first come first served basis. The purpose of the permits is NOT to prevent protests, but to preclude conflict between different protesting groups and to assure that governments position is viewpoint neutral.
We allow orderly public protests – even without permits on government public property – especially deliberately created public forums.”
Here you contradict yourself and attempt to make an excuse at the same time. You don’t need a permit to protest at a street corner or at a public park. Protests are not required to be orderly or quiet. They can be loud and obnoxious, offensive, disruptive, and yes, even disrespectful as the Westboro Baptist Church demonstrated years ago.
Jan 6 protesters were illegally trespassing at the capitol and were arrested and prosecuted accordingly. They were not “orderly” they involved violence, theft, and desaturation and destruction. You argue that Jan 6 protesters had a right to be there because it is the greatest forum of free speech. Wrong. That is why we have REPRESENTATIVES. That is why that forum was created for, for OUR representatives. They are the ones chose to speak for all of us. It does not mean it’s an excuse to assault and force your way in because it’s your “right”. It is not. You can peaceable assemble OUTSIDE just as it is during SCOTUS hearings. If protesters are loud enough it can be heard inside which is what affects OUR representatives. If we don’t like how they are representing us we can vote them out when the next election comes. Not by storming congress and assaulting law enforcement and destroying and stealing property.
Dennis, the LA Times editorial is in error.
Though it is not possible to know ALL the facts from its or your exegesis – and neither you nor the LA times are trustworthy.
The FACT is that the use of force IS justified when dealing with illegal acts.
This is something that you get WRONG constantly. There is no BLANKET prohibition against the use of force.
If there was the military and police would be illegal, and violence would be the norm. If you can not use force to thwart lawlessness,
then you have no actual law at all.
The editorial states that those in the encampments knew they could fact consequences.
Those consequences are the use of force to end their illegal actions.
We PREFER that law enforcement – who is trained for these situations is that use of force.
But that is NOT a requirement.
Campus security, students, professors, administration, board members, trustees – anyone whose legitimate rights to the use of the UCLA campus were being thwarted by protestors OR anyone authorized to do so by those whose rights were being violated was free to use
FORCE to end the illegal occupation.
There are rules regarding the legitimate use of force to end illegal activity – which is why we prefer to have law enforcement do the job – they are trained and know the rules. But the US constitution does not anywhere provide for a police force.. The right to protect ones rights belongs to the people, not exclusively to government.
To the extent that your “counter protestors” acted outside the law – i.e. that use DISPROPORTIONATE force to end lawlessness – they should be held accountable.
Removing an illegal encampment is not disproportionate force.
Removing trespasser is not disproportionate force.
Using violence proportionate to those acting illegally – is not disproportionate force.
Those seeking to thwart lawless activity are required to comply with the same standards that law enforcement must follow.
As an example you can not murder a protestor as Alishi and Rose were murdered at the Capitol, absent an IMMINENT threat to life of serious bodily injury ( a life threatening injury). Are you/LA times saying that those removing the barricades murdered protestors ?
You and LA Times seem to be saying that if you break the law, that Only the police may use FORCE to end your lawlessness.
Sorry, that is NOT part of the social contract or the constitution.
“The Q is whether there will be “consequences” for the counter-protesters who attacked the peaceful encampment?”
Any who sought to end the illegal encampment who used disproportionate force to do so should be prosecuted – whether they are counterprotestors, campust security or law enforcement.
The NORM is that law enforcement is used to end ongoing lawless conduct.
But that is NOT a requirement of the law.
You ARE free to “take the law into your own hands”, but when you do so, you are required to only use proportionate force and you are responsible if your judgement is in error.
“And will there be “consequences” and accountability for the police who failed to act to protect the peaceful encampment?”
There is no requirement to protect the lawless from enforcement of the law.
Nowhere in the law does it say that if you break the law – “peacefully” that FORCE can not be used to end your lawlessness.
When you break the law you assume liability for the consequences of the use of FORCE necessary to restore law an order.
When you tresspass, and refuse directions to leave, FORCE can be used to remove you.
This is true whether it is students tresspassing on a professors home, or an illegal encampment at a college.
Where feasible we prefer that use of FORCE is conducted by police who are trained to do so – even within police forces – special units are trained to deal with riots and illegal protests and occupations. To avoid a free for all – we prefer those specifically trained in dealing with situations such as the illegal encampments at UCLA do so.
But that is NOT a requirement.
If you see someone raping a women in an alley, you are not obligated to standby and do nothing.
A George Soros relative perhaps, just not as rich nor sleazy, yet!
Orleck would have served on the Yevsektsia, the Jewish section of the NKVD, which brutally oppressed religious Jews in the USSR.
Little known fact….The head of the NKVD, Lavrentiy Beria, was Jewish.
Beria was not Jewish, he was Georgian Orthodox.
“I was standing with a line of women faculty in the their 60s to 80s…” There’s your problem.
Women are proving themselves to be completely unfit for ANY participation in academia and political discourse.
Based on what we’re seeing in Congress, some governors’ mansions, and presidents’ offices of universities, I’d say we need to bring back mediocracy.
I would use the term “scholar” to describe someone who has a special interest in a limited subject matter, e.g., Roman history, and wants to spend their life studying that subject and communicating their opinions about that subject matter, attempting to spread their enthusiasm regarding that subject matter. I would use the term “intellectual” to describe a person skilled in the understanding and use of abstract concepts about reality, and who enjoys the play if not contest of those ideas.
Colleges should be good places for scholars and intellectuals, who can both earn a living while learning, teaching, and exploring facts, opinions and theories.
How many of the people described by Prof. Turley in his recent posts about violence, actual or threatened, on college campuses fit the description of scholars or intellectuals? My guess: zero. If so, why are they employed by colleges?
Hamas is supporting the protests. A Jewish woman would not be supporting Hamas if she knew anything at all about Oct 7. Just facts.
So is iran
JG Gordon–a substantial number of Israeli citizens do not support Netanyahu’s genocidial attacks on Palestine–there are calls to at least stop the bombing and negotiate for release of hostages–Netanyahu will NOT agree to stop bombing. Hamas and Palestine are not synonymous.
Henry David Thoreau wrote. “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is in prison.” These protestors who side with Hamas, with the intent to murder all Jews, resist with all their might their placement behind prison bars. MLK was willing to go to jail for the freedom of black people. This is why he was successful in his efforts. His cause was without question a just cause. The murdering of all Jews is not a just cause except in the minds of Adolph Hitler and Hamas. The protesters unlike MLK are not willing to be incarcerated for the cause but instead hide behind their robes of education. Many freedom fighters have been willing to go to jail and die on the battlefield of war so that others may remain free. These protesters just like the protesters in Germany protest for the right of men to enslave and murder those who they deem to be inferior. To hide behind the philosophy of civil disobedience without being willing to be jailed makes a mockery of the morality of civil disobedience. On the other hand if they were to willingly come forward with their arms outstretched saying place the cuffs here they might be taken more seriously. Instead they are masked cowards who call for an intifada proclaiming that the murder of every Jew on the planet is their goal. Only two things can explain it. They are either woefully without a knowledge of history or their souls are so darkened with the sin of envy that their return to reality will never come to occur. Never the less we must have a total understanding of who they are to know that they must be resisted even to the point of death if necessary.
TiT,
That was a dang good comment.
So true.
But in a society of laws, laws must be adhered to.
In 1860, secession was not prohibited by the Constitution and was fully constitutional.
What was illegal in 1860 was denying Americans their constitutional rights and freedoms, including secession, imposing martial law, seizing power, suspending habeas corpus, smashing presses, jailing political opponents, starting a war of aggression (not common defense) unconstitutionally, confiscating legal and deeded property, ignoring and violating immigration law, failing to deport illegal aliens, etc.
Speaking of the sin of envy, seems that many from other countries have existed on sinful covetousness and stealing from America and Americans since January 1, 1863 when Lincoln proposed “colonization” or compassionate repatriation of the long-suffering African abductees (having been abducted by their own tribal chiefs) to Monrovia, Liberia, named after President James Monroe.
On January 1, 1863, immigration law was the Naturalization Act of 1802.
The Israelite slaves were happily out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers – but then, they had the capacity and acumen sufficient to the task.
Why does the Jew professor just condemn and renounce Judaism instead of putting on this phony insincere display of jew bullshtery? Because it is all an act that is why.
Well I grew up with Holocaust Survivors too, who simply wanted to live their lives in peace, and I am not Jewish. This professor is not the onky Jewish professor to turn their back on Israel. Take the President of Brown University, a Christian who married a Jewish legal professor at Brown, and converted to Judaism. Brown caved to thr Palestinian protestors this morning.
https://college.brown.edu/people/ari-gabinet
You dont have to be Jewish to recognize anti-semites. I spent a lot of time in the Jewish Community. I was surprised the amount of division in oractice and belief, and an overall hate for Christians, which was mostly perpetuated by self-hating Jews who did not observe a lot of Jewish law.
A prominent Israeli Rabbis once told me not to trust American Jews. In fact, I witnessed a big fight between Holocaust survivors and American Jews who blamed them for the Holocaust, for abandoning them. I also knew a few Israeli military. Israel will handle their own affairs their way.
typing with my thumbs, sorry for the typos
No sale kyke, the only people who defend Jews and their misconduct are other Jews and those who are paid to defend jew misconduct, like Turley and US House of Representatives. You are alone and the walls are closing in on you. Moshiach will save you, get on your hands and knees and beg.
Actions have consequences. A lesson many liberal students need to learn.
“Judge denies request to lift ban on ASU students suspended for anti-Israel protests: report”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-denies-request-lift-ban-151006306.html
Prof. Orleck stated “. . . (she) was standing with a line of women faculty from their 60s to 80s trying to protect our students”. As has been astutely observed elsewhere, just like the good human shields employed at Columbia Hamilton Hall where the NYPD had to first go through a shield of woman before they could get to the men inside. Unbelievable.
Or, even better, Big Jon, you could throw your hat in the ring and announce your candicacy for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Dennis McIntyre is a man beset by a mental malady. The common name for this malady is the I’m never wrong syndrome. After supporting the leftist position on Covid, RussiaGate, porn proven to be in schools and CRT being taught he still will not admit that he was wrong on any of these matters. His very psychological nature is dependent on a continued life of living outside of reality. He is just a fearful man who must defend his unfounded positions lest he fall into an abyss from which he will not return. He lives a life in which he is constantly trying to save himself from supposed demons. Pity is the proper response.
Yes, you are right. DeMac suffers from cognitive dissonance and his refusal to reject his erroneous beliefs in favor of REALITY, means he can’t be wrong. If he admitted he was wrong, poooof! There goes his life – so he bravely soldiers on, promulgating more and more stupid positions while pretending not to notice his ever-increasing idiocy.
Back in the 1850s, he would have sold all his stuff based on a prophecy that Jesus was coming and the world ending. When the world didn’t end, some just kept on believing and becoming more and more weird and divorced from Reality.
Douchebagitis, a common disease amongst the left also known as Rachel Maddcow wasting disease.