So much has been said about the media, the mainstream media, the legacy media. There’s not really much to add because we all know that it’s not really a disinterested media but it’s kind of a Pravda-like propaganda organ. I’ll give you a few examples.

More recently, when Cyril Ramaphosa came to the White House, the president of South Africa, did you see the word “ambush”? It was in every mainstream paper, every left-wing website, every radio—NPR, PBS, CBS, MSNBC. It’s like the Democratic operatives issue a Pravda-like order and then these mindless people just say, “Okay, today’s talking points are…”

He met President Donald Trump. He wasn’t really surprised that Trump was going to confront him because he bragged that he was gonna confront Trump. There was no secret place. It wasn’t a sudden, unexpected attack from a secret place—the definition of an ambush. Yet, it was ”ambush,” “ambush,” “ambush,” “ambush.”

And when some questions arose about the visit, it was just typical. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, fielded a question from an NBC journalist. She was very angry because Donald Trump mentioned to President Ramaphosa, “See this picture of a thousand graves.” She said, “Well, he was lying. There weren’t graves.” And the press secretary replied back, “They were commemorations.” Each one of those crosses represents a dead South African who was murdered by virtue of his race. And she said, “Yes, but it’s not…”

So what they were arguing about—NBC—was semantics that Trump had improperly—and he had improperly—confused “grave” with “cenotaph,” a cenotaph. That’s “kenos” in Greek, meaning “empty.”

So, these crosses were not on top of a dead person but they represented a dead person. But NBC was so fixated on embarrassing the president that they didn’t even want to discuss the fact that there were a thousand crosses and they did represent individual lives destroyed because of their race. But she just wanted to make the point that you could nullify all of that and excuse it by saying they were not graves but cenotaphs. And there you have it.

So lately, we see it everywhere. And we had the tragic killing of Yaron Lischinsky and his fiancee, Sarah Milgrim, the two Jewish diplomatic workers in Washington. And what was interesting about it—I’ve been reading the mainstream media accounts. So, Elias Rodriguez goes in there, shoots—empties a gun—21 times, murders this wonderful couple, and then he yells, “Free Palestine.”

And they just can’t resist. They have the description of the shooting. They mention who he was. They don’t mention the left-wing groups that he worked with or the funding that came from places like the MacArthur Foundation that funded groups that he used to work for. Or they don’t mention the fact that his father attended Congress as a guest of a Democratic congressman.

But they do do this: About eight, usually about eight paragraphs down, they say, “And tensions rose because of the Israeli assault on Gaza and the thousands of deaths.” In other words, they’re trying to contextualize the murder by saying that this person was driven to it in the manner, perhaps, like Luigi Mangione, who shot the UnitedHealthcare executive. In other words, there’s always a contextualization.

And when you start to add all of this stuff up, it all is in an atmosphere of Jake Tapper co-authoring this “Original Sin” book when he was one of the principle people who promulgated the idea that former President Joe Biden was completely fit and anybody who questioned it—Lara Trump was a good example—he demonized and tried to destroy on national TV. Now he’s gonna make millions saying, “I didn’t do it. They did.”

And it’s an indictment of the Biden circle, who knew that he was cognitively challenged. We knew it. I shouldn’t even say they knew. Everybody knew it. But they were prevented from commenting or they were demonized if they did comment by the media and by the Biden team.

And this is on top of the fact that the media never even looked at the released records. They never even asked a question—as they did of Donald Trump’s cognitive abilities. They never said, “Did he have a PSA test?” Trump, it’s on his medical records. Former President Barack Obama did. They didn’t ask any of these things.

And now they’re trying to say, “We were hoodwinked.” No, you weren’t hoodwinked. You were operating in the same fashion you did to promulgate the Russian collusion lie that you never apologized for, the laptop disinformation lie that you’ve never apologized for, the 51 intelligence authorities that you never apologized for, the partnering of the FBI with social media to censor the news before the 2020 election that you never talked about.

This is a pattern. And it won’t stop with this. And the result is you wonder why, whether when you look at liberal polls or liberal media, nobody has any confidence anymore, nobody trusts you.

Don’t you understand that when you say, “Ambush,” “ambush,” “ambush,” “ambush,” or you ask questions that don’t even get to the point, just a matter of semantics, we know what you’re doing? You’re trying to gin up momentum, enthusiasm for a cause, a left-wing cause that 50% of the population just doesn’t support.

How the ‘Pravda-Like’ Press Distorts the News

How the ‘Pravda-Like’ Press Distorts the News

Trump’s Message to Putin: You Blew It

 

here’s been a new development, a new phase in the Ukraine war.

I know we’ve talked about it before, but more recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin has escalated his attacks. Not so much on the battlefront per se, but on civilian targets that he is hitting with missiles and drones as far west as Kyiv. And this has solicited an angry response from President Donald Trump.

I think the subtext of Donald Trump is:

Well, wait a minute, Vladimir. I have sort of told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy not to ask for so much and be willing to have a ceasefire. And we have a deal in the works. And now you’re kind of fouling it all up.

And the deal was, pretty much, you’re gonna get the Donbas and Crimea and institutionalize it. And we’re gonna get some kind of arrangement to arm Ukraine, but it will not be officially in NATO. And somewhere where the battle line is today we’ll have a ceasefire. And then there will be an economic zone of rare minerals. It’ll be kind of a tripwire. And out of that general framework we can have a peace conference and hammer out the details.

But now you’re doing this escalation that’s kind of fouling up my dreams of solving the problem that I inherited from former President Joe Biden.

And Trump is kind of exasperated. He said, you know, Vladimir’s acting “crazy.” The Left went kind of ecstatic. And they said, “See, see, see, see. Trump finally came around to our point of view. He now agrees with us. It was all Putin’s fault. And he stopped appeasing Putin. And now he’s gonna follow our lead.”

I don’t think that’s quite what’s actually happened. What Trump is really doing is saying to the world:

If we had followed your lead and put pressure only on Vladimir Putin, we would’ve never got a deal because the Russians would be seen as sort of sympathetic to parts of the world. And they would’ve said the United States was too pro-Ukrainian. But I came in and was willing to give him a chance. And now the world sees that he doesn’t want that chance. And the world sees that he’s blowing a deal.

The next question is: Why would he do that? Why would Vladimir Putin pass up a deal?

And I think the answer is that he has to account for a war that he preempted and started that was designed to take all of Ukraine by decapitating Kyiv in February of 2022. Fast forward, there’s probably 1.5 million dead, wounded, and lost—on both sides—and climbing. But the majority of those losses are Russian. There’s probably 1 million dead Russians, wounded Russians, or missing Russians.

And Vladimir Putin—although he is a dictator with absolute power, no dictator is quite with absolute power—he has to account, informally, to a complex of oligarchs, wealthy oligarchs, bureaucrats, high-level bureaucrats, and the military. And there is a point in which he has to show that what he has done in Ukraine is worth 1 million dead, wounded, and missing. And he thinks he’s not there yet.

In other words, he’s going back to them and saying, “Only Vladimir institutionalized the acquisition of the Donbas and Crimea. Which, by the way, I got for you in 2014. And now there’s no question that they’re part of Russia. Only Vladimir got Ukraine out of NATO. Only Vladimir advanced 40 to 60 miles westward from the Donbas and Crimea.”

And I think he thinks that complex that I just mentioned as saying, “You mean you basically didn’t give us anything you. We had the Donbas. We had Crimea. We were already pushing a little bit westward. We knew they were Ukraine. Europe didn’t want them in NATO. United States didn’t want a NATO. So, what did you really give us, Vladimir? You’re not far west enough. Now, you go back over there and you’ve got to justify a million casualties. And there’s not much on the battlefield.”

So, I think what Vladimir Putin thinks is that he’s going to continue the war; continue the terror campaign; get greater concessions from the Europeans, the Americans, and the Ukrainians; and move the battle lines a little bit to the West.

And I think he’s sorely mistaken. He’s misreading Donald Trump. Because the reason he did not invade in 2017 and 2021—of those four recent administrations, that was the only one he did not. He did not invade during Donald Trump’s administration. But he did invade a neighbor during former Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden’s tenure.

In other words, he saw—in a way that he does not see now—that Donald Trump is very unpredictable and very erratic, in some ways, that it’s beneficial in the making of foreign policy.

And if he continues to go westward or continues to have this terror campaign, I think he will see that Donald Trump will be able to hold his MAGA coalition together and continue to arm Ukraine. And the Europeans will continue, probably, to arm them as well. And this, the quagmire, will only escalate. And he will not be able to knock Ukraine out of the war and it will be increasingly difficult for him to justify any continuation to his constituents.

If I was Vladimir Putin, I would cut a deal today. And then I would resume natural gas and oil shipments to Europe, I would open the economy back up, and I would tell the Russian people what you did.

I don’t think it would be quite accurate, but you could tell them: “Only because of me, Crimea forever is where it belongs, in Russia. The same as Donbas. And I stood up to the West and said, ‘No NATO.’ And I won this war.”

And that’s a lot better—it’s not a good scenario, but it’s a lot better than another Stalingrad or Verdun or Somme for the next two years for Russia.

The Lasting Damage of the George Floyd Riots

 

This week was the fifth anniversary, May 25, of the tragic death of George Floyd.

It seems that it just happened but it was actually five years ago. And almost everything that has transpired after that in terms of racial relations has been disastrous. And now, maybe at the end of five years, we can look back with a little bit more circumspection and see what actually happened.

George Floyd was a career felon. He was in the process of trying to pass off counterfeit bills. He was reportedly under the influence of severe, powerful drugs, perhaps fentanyl, in addition. He may have been suffering from post-COVID-19 syndromes. He had a heart condition. One of his prior felonies was putting a gun to a woman’s belly in a home invasion.

Nevertheless, when he tried to pass this counterfeit bill, the store owner called the Minneapolis police. They tried to arrest him. He resisted arrest. He was a very big man. And then Officer Derek Chauvin, who was supposedly an expert in techniques that were institutionalized by the Minneapolis Police Department, unfortunately, put his knee on George Floyd’s neck. And there were varying autopsies. One said that killed him. Another one, perhaps, said it didn’t.

But nevertheless, the expression on Officer Chauvin’s face was frozen into eternity. And that sparked the idea that he was a white policeman conducting a typical murder of an unarmed black suspect. And what followed was near mayhem.

Officer Chauvin, remember, was convicted of second- or third-degree murder. He was sentenced to 20 years. His appeals have run out with the Supreme Court. He’ll be in prison probably for much of his life. George Floyd, of course, died at the hospital or on the way to the hospital.

And what happened immediately was this huge riot, five years ago. Unlike the Jan. 6 riot, this thing went on for the end of May, June, July, August, September. Remember, former Vice President Kamala Harris said it wasn’t going to stop, nor should it stop. It’s going to keep going to Election Day. She said that, of course. Then later, when called on it, she said she didn’t mean the violent aspect.

But violent aspects there were. There was $2 billion in damage. There was a police precinct burned to the ground in Minneapolis. There was a federal courthouse that was burned. There was a historic St. John’s Church—across from the White House—that was torched. A mob tried to go into the White House grounds and reach the president.

But even more serious than all of that, we were coming off COVID-19. People had been in a lockdown. There had been a national quarantine. And their news was from the television in an isolated situation in their own home with no human interaction.

So, these riots were kind of an expression of breaking out. And more importantly, they were subject to rumor, suspicion, lies. And one of the great lies was that George Floyd was iconic or emblematic of young black men, middle-aged black men that were systematically being killed while unarmed by the police. That was not true. The Washington Post even said it wasn’t.

That year there were only 18 black males who were stopped by the police in the entire population of 340 million people. This year there were only 10. It was proportionate to the number of people by race who were stopped by the police, 11 million or 12 million each year.

Professor Ibram X. Kendi and professor Robin DiAngelo, or journalist DiAngelo, they created this idea of systemic racism. And you had to be racist in an anti-racist fashion. In other words, the only way to deal with this systemic racism was to be pro-black.

And what followed then was a defunding of the police. It caused a huge spike in crime. I think 20,000 murders in 2020. The Black Lives Matter group was energized. And now as we look back at it, the architects of that movement have ensconced with the money. It has collapsed. The women that were in charge have, apparently, embezzled the money or taken it. They have nice homes. But it’s an inert group.

It had a lot of other deleterious effects. Universities trying to get in on the virtue signaling and performance-art caring dropped the SAT. They dropped the comparative ranking of high school GPA. They dropped meritocracy. They started really enforcing DEI, in the sense of loyalty owes—you have to show us that you’re loyal to the concept of DEI, that you’ve done something for it, or we’re not going to hire you. And the universities then went into something that we could call repertory admissions.

Fast forward five years, looking back, and looking at all the damage of the downtowns in America—many of them that were destroyed. Today they have not recovered, in many cases. Look at the intense dissension and acrimony and racial relations that related to it. Look at the universities who were chastised by the Supreme Court for using race in a racist fashion in admissions. They’ve been discredited. And the people who capitalize on the death of George Floyd are, for the most part, discredited.

And the country now is learning its lessons. It’s trying to find a sober solution, a reaction. I think they’re trying—we’re trying to come to a conclusion. Why in the world did we go completely collectively insane? And the result of that is we don’t think the quarantines were a good idea. They were more injurious to the country than was COVID-19 itself.

We don’t think and we know that the police should be defunded. Much less are they attacking black unarmed males. Just the opposite is happening.

We look at the career of professor Kendi, he went through $45 million at Boston University for an anti-racism center. And apparently, the money was squandered. I mentioned the BLM squandering.

So, we’re getting back to the idea that, when you use race in any fashion, for bias or preference, it’s racist. It doesn’t matter what professor Kendi says or it doesn’t matter about the reactions to the death of George Floyd, it’s racist.

As far as George Floyd is concerned, had Officer Chauvin not had that expression on his face and had he lifted his knee up when George Floyd said he couldn’t breathe, this entire catastrophe probably could have been avoided—or maybe not because there were people who were looking for an occasion like this to spread mayhem and to recalibrate race relations in the United States into what they would call anti-racism. Which means it’s permissible for someone who considers themself a victim to be a victimizer. If you think you’re a victim of racism, then you can use racial preferences yourself with impunity.

In any case, it was a sad chapter in American history.

If You Think the GOP Is Screwed Up, Check Out the Democrats

 

You may feel terrible about being a member of the Republican Party because it’s the stupidest party in American politics until you remember that the Democrat Party exists – and no, the Libertarian Party is not actually a party; it’s the motley crew of pot-addled sophomores holding forth in the dorm suite common area at 2 a.m. of American politics. For all the failures, foibles, and follies of the inept GOP, the current Democrat Party is much, much worse off. I mean, just look at them. They’re treading water in a swamp of narcissistic mediocrity, abandoned by former allies like the working class, controlled by over-credentialed echo-chamber neurotics, and in thrall to a coalition of sexually confused neo-Marxist weirdos, losers, and mutations.

You really gotta hand it to them – we couldn’t imagine a party more inept than the Republicans, but the Democrats have managed to prove us wrong. They’re coming off a disastrous last few years where they installed a human eggplant as their party leader, a president whose growing senility was built on a solid foundation of a half-century of being an idiot. This guy wrecked the economy, threw open the borders, and managed to get a bunch of Americans killed by some of the few remaining Third World savages that he hadn’t already invited into our country. Then, after four years of nonstop babbling about “Our Democracy,” the donkey politburo pulled his card following a disastrous debate where the best thing you could say about his performance was that he didn’t soil himself, at least as far as we know.

They replaced him with Kamala Harris, a woman of towering unaccomplishment who was so dumb that they wouldn’t even let her talk to the fawning media until they basically had to, at which point she demonstrated why they wouldn’t let her speak to the media in the first place. She blew her most important decision, selecting her running mate, by channeling Harvey Korman and not picking Josh Shapiro. Instead, she invited Tim Walz to prance out onto the national stage, purportedly because he could attract men, proving once again that context is everything.

The Democrat Party has become utterly feminized, its leadership a collection of Chardonnay-swilling, SSRI-gobbling, urbanized pinko crones – and that’s just the ones who identify as male. The allegedly female ones – let’s not even get started with the party’s bizarre trans obsession – are mostly middle-aged, naggy Karens with sour apple doll faces and the conviction that Gaia has instilled in them the duty to ensure that the manager hears about how America is misbehaving. The exception is the phony likes of Jasmine Crockett, whose transformation from articulate, educated young lady to finger-wagging, ghetto-fabulous stereotype is just plain embarrassing. It says a lot – and nothing good – that harpies like these run the Democrat Party.

Democratic Party's lenin statue in seattle

 

Naturally, that repels anyone with descended testicles. The Democrats have now realized that they have a man problem, starting with the fact that they hate men – real men, the kind who like beer and guns and God and America. Like Hollywood is always trying to push glum, hefty shrews like Lena Dunham and Amy Schumer upon disgusted and appalled moviegoers, the Democrat Party seems obsessed with the idea of forcing flaccid phonies like Walz and Pete Buttigieg down our throats, thereby redefining manhood into something that has nothing to do with manhood. Just look at fey X influencer Harry Sisson; despite his fumbling online catfishing, he’s less a masculine role model than a sassy sidekick. They put David Hogg in as a DNC vice chair, at least for a little while, presumably to capture the loyalty of the key “males who yearn to be disarmed and neutered” demographic. As many men appeared at the polls to vote for “Shotgun Tim” Walz as Tim Walzes appeared for deployment. 

Stunningly, their femboy ploy has failed, and the Democrats remain utterly baffled by how to appeal to people with penises. Naturally, their bright idea is to throw money at the problem. They’re dunning the usual billionaires to pony up some cash to find themselves a comparable podcast voice to Joe Rogan and similar new media influencers, except you can’t buy authenticity. Cue visions of Steve Buscemi showing up to greet his fellow kids: “Young male-identifying persons, like you, I enjoy a hearty brew, video games, and sportsball.”

But it gets even better. According to the New York Times, the ace anthropologists of the Democrat Party have decided they need to perform an in-depth study of what makes men male and how to communicate with these backward primitives:

"The prospectus for one new $20 million effort, obtained by The Times, aims to reverse the erosion of Democrat support among young men, especially online. It is code-named SAM - short for 'Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan' - and promises investment to 'study the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces.' It recommends buying advertisements in video games, among other things."

They have tried this stuff before, with hilarious results. Say what you will about the Republican Party, but at least it’s not squandering its sweet, sweet cash on syntax studying – which is too bad because I totally would’ve taken its money and built that wine cellar I’ve been wanting. Oh well, I’ll give you the 411 for free, GOP: Don’t be sissies. 

Shhhh, do not share this valuable advice with the Democrats! 

Oh, go ahead. They won’t listen. In fact, their proposed solutions indicate that they don’t even understand the problem. They seek to find a lefty podcast superstar and “gain attention and virality” not to learn about what men actually want but to find better ways to tell men what to want. Here’s the challenge for the Democrats – they want to appeal to the people who their ideology has driven away without changing their ideology. They’re offering normals the same reeking dung as always, just polished up.

Have you ever heard a single Democrat explain which of their prized political positions they’re willing to compromise, much less abandon, in order to reach out to the people they’ve alienated? The voters they’ve lost didn’t wander away and head towards Trump because he’s shiny. They left because they don’t like the things the Democrats stand for. So, what do the Democrats propose to change to get them back? Are they going to moderate their jihad against babies? Are they going to keep naked dudes out of girls’ locker rooms? Are they going to start putting criminals in jail instead of back on the street? Will they quit trying to take our guns? Will they stop trying to steal our money to pay off the debts of blue-haired gender studies graduates? Will they cease their efforts to make us stop barbecuing and driving trucks in order to appease their angry weather goddess? Are they going to quit talking about how America sucks and how Americans are white nationalist racists of racism?

Of course not. Their offer is nothing. They’re not going to do any of these things because these are all sacred tenets in their secular pagan religion. To them, holding these stupid positions makes them good people. It’s what distinguishes them from the masses. To ask them to change is to ask them to give up their identity as well as the moral high ground, so their plan is to hector and pester more intensely so that normal people will submit. 

This brings us to the key difference between the current Republican Party and the current Democrat Party. It’s the difference between bottom-up and top-down evolution. The current Republican Party changed over the last 20 years in the direction that normal people wanted. The GOP base got sick of useless hacks like the Bushes and Mitt Romney, guys mostly concerned with gentlemanly managing decline and went with the guy who got the things they wanted done while owning the libs. But the Democrats did the exact opposite. The Democrat Party doesn’t want to be led by the voters; like all good communists, its leadership considers themselves the cadre who will lead the masses. The Democrats are finding out what happens when you give a revolution and nobody comes.

Fortunately for us, they can’t change direction anytime soon. They have dug themselves into a hole, and they’re still digging. We’ve seen it before. After their 1968 loss, the Democrats decided that the voters were wrong, and they should tack super-hard to the left. They were destroyed in 1972. After their 1980 loss, they decided the voters were wrong, and they should tack super-hard to the left. They were destroyed in 1984. After their 2024 loss, they will decide the voters are wrong and that they should tack super-hard to the left once again. They will convince themselves that it’s a great idea to nominate AOC or Buttigieg or some other spazzy clown who is extremely popular in Manhattan’s Upper West Side, Scat Francisco, and the Harvard faculty lounge (if there’s anything left of it when Trump gets finished with it) but who repels and disgusts normal people. They will get destroyed in 2028.

Advertisement

And you know what? Good. Because the only way a party as stupid as the current establishment Republican Party can win is if it’s competing against a party as stupid as the current Democrat Party.

DEI Enthusiasts Allowed the Free Palestine Movement to Get This Far

 

Recently, two Israeli diplomatic employees in Washington, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, were shot. Apparently, the killer, Elias Rodriguez, emptied his handgun and fired off 21 rounds, killed them almost instantly, and then ran into the museum where they were working and started to act as if he was a victim until he shouted out “Free Palestine.”

And what are we to make of this? I think what we’re seeing throughout the United States right now is a lowering of the bar of what’s acceptable in terms of violence.

We saw that Luigi Mangione became a cult hero to the Left because he, in a premeditated fashion, killed a UnitedHealthcare executive, shot him down in cold blood on the specious excuse that they were overcharging people. But he became a hero.

And we saw that Kilmar Abrego Garcia—who beat his spouse, threatened to kill her, apparently, she thought he was gonna kill her; and was an illegal alien and had, at one time, deportation orders; and was a member, pretty clearly, of an MS-13 gang; and was engaged in human trafficking; and was deported—became a cult hero to the Left.

We had an incident in Texas where a young teenager stabbed another one and then he became a victim. No need to go into the details.

We had the two assassination attempts. And I think, if you collated the social media content of those two killers, it was pretty much, to the Left, kind of reminiscent of the shooter of Rep. Steve Scalise and the wounding of others who was a Sen. Bernie Sanders—what am I getting at?

There has been a general lowering of the bar, as I said, of what’s acceptable violence. And we saw that with the Tesla excuses and contextualization when somebody ran somebody off the road or destroyed a charging station or firebombed a station—even the media reports of the tragic deaths.

I was reading today an NPR account. And after about six paragraphs, they get uneasy describing the murder. And they just have to, they just have to put something in. And they do. And they say, “And this was during a period of tensions,” because of the people getting killed in Gaza. In other words—just a little bit—how can we get in there to justify this in some ways or contextualize it?

So, that is one thing that’s happening. And that makes violence more permissible. The other is this endemic antisemitism.

Let’s be honest. It’s not some cowboy in Wyoming in 1950 that doesn’t like Jews. We’re talking about two nexuses that come together and promulgate antisemitism. The one is wealthy people in the universities—many of them DEI, but not all—who feel that it’s either en vogue or, as DEI people, they cannot be criticized as victims for victimizing others, meaning foreign students from the Middle East.

And in that cauldron, it becomes permissible to say, “Globalize the intifada,” “River to the sea,” the eliminationist rhetoric about Israel, storm a library, chase Jews into a library, damage the president’s office, rough up a Jewish kid on campus. It was all acceptable. There were no consequences. That’s why those three college presidents either were fired or had to resign.

So, what we’re seeing is that the unhinged come out of the woodwork because the general climate rewards that type of behavior.

So, Rodriguez thought, A) If I use violence, in this case, bring a gun into Washington, D.C., from my home in Chicago, and I have good, firm left-wing credentials—his father was asked to be a guest at the Trump speech by a left-wing congressman, [Jesus] Garcia from Illinois. So, he comes in and he knows that if he shoots and murders someone, there’s going to be a lot of people who will praise him or at least excuse what he did, No. 1.

And No. 2, he’s killing Jews. So, he knows on campus that one of the Harvard Review people roughed up a Jew and was given a $65,000 honorarium scholarship from one of the groups that sponsors Harvard Law School.

Bottom line: This is gonna continue until somebody says, “We’re not gonna put up with it anymore. You’re not gonna be a foreign student and come over to the United States on a student visa and spout hateful rhetoric and torment Jews and make it uncomfortable. And you’re not gonna be one of these elite students who crashes into the president’s office at Stanford or crashes into a building at Columbia and thinks there’s no consequences.”

And that’s why President Donald Trump is trying to shock treatment to the universities to say: You don’t know what you’re doing. You’re a global embarrassment, that you permitted and you have fueled antisemitism. And the Left’s atmosphere, anyway, is to condone violence when it’s used for revolutionary purposes.

Add it all up and we get two wonderful people murdered in D.C.