Israel and Iran

From the Daily Mail:


"...On Saturday, the leader of Columbia protests was unmasked as a 40-year-old son of millionaire ad execs who lives in a four story Brooklyn townhouse. James Carlson, who also goes by Cody Carlson and Cody Tarlow, was arrested by the NYPD and charged with burglary and illegal entry after he stormed Columbia's Hamilton Hall and renamed it 'Hind' Hall.

James is the son of Richard Tarlow and Sandy Carlson Tarlow, millionaire advertising duo who started Carlson & Partners together and were known for their cosmetic and fashion clients including Revlon, Victoria’s Secret, Ralph Lauren and Neutrogena. He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Brooklyn Law School and later became an animal rights lawyer who clerked at the US District Court in 2013.

He also had a short stint as an undercover investigator on factory farms and slaughterhouses recording animal abuse, according to the publication. James is believed to be married to model Kim Heyrman and has two children while living in a $3.4 million Brooklyn brownstone townhouse in New York.

James is suspected of burning an Israeli flag during a demonstration three days ago and is believed to be 'previously involved in recent bridge and tunnel blocking', according to NBC News..."
 
From the Daily Mail:


"...On Saturday, the leader of Columbia protests was unmasked as a 40-year-old son of millionaire ad execs who lives in a four story Brooklyn townhouse. James Carlson, who also goes by Cody Carlson and Cody Tarlow, was arrested by the NYPD and charged with burglary and illegal entry after he stormed Columbia's Hamilton Hall and renamed it 'Hind' Hall.

James is the son of Richard Tarlow and Sandy Carlson Tarlow, millionaire advertising duo who started Carlson & Partners together and were known for their cosmetic and fashion clients including Revlon, Victoria’s Secret, Ralph Lauren and Neutrogena. He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Brooklyn Law School and later became an animal rights lawyer who clerked at the US District Court in 2013.

He also had a short stint as an undercover investigator on factory farms and slaughterhouses recording animal abuse, according to the publication. James is believed to be married to model Kim Heyrman and has two children while living in a $3.4 million Brooklyn brownstone townhouse in New York.

James is suspected of burning an Israeli flag during a demonstration three days ago and is believed to be 'previously involved in recent bridge and tunnel blocking', according to NBC News..."
He's lower management. Given his lifestyle I doubt his parents money is enough to payroll all the useful idiots. Last rumored figure was 200-300 bucks a day, what they were paying the peons. So, whoever is paying him is paying enough to keep him within a certain level of comfort.

If LE can pick apart who his higher contacts are and the funding organization that's better. That said, "non-profits" like these organizations are usually shells within shells of higher funding sources. The trick is killing or capturing the people pulling the string. Problem is many of these string pullers belong to foreign governmental agencies under the guise of being US citizens. Dual loyalties and whatnot.
 
So...where was this energy when BLM was burning our cities?


I think the motivation to get involved in potentially violent conflict with black individuals was at its lowest ebb after the George Floyd incident. Why risk your job and maybe your life interfering? Let it burn.

With college campuses big money’s involved. Money talks. Wealthy alumni. Parents threatening to pull their kids out. Endowments at risk. Do not let it burn.
 
I think the motivation to get involved in potentially violent conflict with black individuals was at its lowest ebb after the George Floyd incident. Why risk your job and maybe your life interfering? Let it burn.

With college campuses big money’s involved. Money talks. Wealthy alumni. Parents threatening to pull their kids out. Endowments at risk. Do not let it burn.

In the end I suppose, the rich progressives weren't affected by the BLM riots so they had no reason to release their hounds to enforce the law. Maybe these people will start being affected by our border crisis soon.
 
Alright, Long Post. TLDR at the bottom.

Lawyers vs. Everybody else
Check my carry piece, make sure the car isn't turning around, then go grab them?
Good answer. I'm assuming to check and see how they are doing, possibly provide medical assistance, etc. Texting the plate number to yourself is also great.

When I have asked this question to attorneys, I have almost universally received some answer to the effect of "check to see if the pedestrian was in a cross walk when hit."

Law school has the sole purpose of churning out attorneys, in a similar fashion to how boot-camp/OCS/the Academies churn out sailors/soldiers/marines/airmen. They break down who you used to be, so they can turn you into what they want.

One of the first assignments I was given when I first arrived at the law firm I work at was to write a legal blog on some international stuff we were engaged in. So I wrote it, turned it in, and received it back with "a few minor editorial revisions"...the whole thing was covered in red ink...anyway, this continued for a few drafts until, finally, the attorney sat me down and said,

"Alright, I want you to remember everything you learned about writing in college. Got it? Ok. Now remember everything you learned about writing in high school. Got it? Good. Forget all of that and just give me the facts." I did so and we published it the same day.

My issue was, I was trained to use fluff and enticing language to draw the reader in. Legal writing is boring and fact based. Yet, it's also an art. Make your point in as few words as possible so your argument is difficult to dissect and attack. There's a method to their boring madness.

My goal in asking the question was to prove a point. That point, that Attorney's just see the world differently and they are the individuals who know how the law works. We can sit here all day and give our opinions about what should or shouldn't be the case...but they actually engage with it and get results and not all of them are created equal. #OJ

Counter Points

You cited two key things:
1) 1st amendment (specifically free speech)
2) Discrimination Laws

1) Free Speech has limits in the US. In fact, the famous "Can't yell fire in a theater" example was used to justify the US government convicting a couple of Commies back in 1919 for spreading anti-war communist propaganda based on the "clear and present danger" concept. That said, I agree that it is first for a reason.

"Why should the Jewish people and one of their organizations control speech?" They shouldn't. However, I'm also not gonna ask a white person what it's like to experience or define racism against the black community. I think it's fair that a Jewish org gives their definition and then our elected reps should decide what to do with it, which is what's happening.

2) It's also not creating a new law. It's just specificying a term for usage on the Civil Rights Act, which has been expanded in the past to strengthen enforcement. So the precident for this kind of move has already been laid. Specificity and ambiguity can benefit an attorney's case depending on what he is trying to accomplish. If you are trying to nail somebody for anti-semitism, defining the term more clearly seems like the way to go tho.

Current Thoughts

I am currently leaning toward it being a bad idea to sign into law, and here are my current thoughts at to why.

1) I think Anti-Semitism is a very real problem and should be dealt with. However, I don't think anti-semitism is the primary issue that is causing the idiocy on college campuses atm. I think the primary problem is the Neo-Marxist ideology that has indoctrinated far more of our youth than we should be comfortable with. As a result, implementing anti-Marxist policies, like Ron Desantis in Florida, seems like a better solution to the problem, even with the 1st amendment concerns relating to some of those laws.

2) I can't forget history. Title IX, the Patriot Act, FISA, the Civil Rights Act, etc. are all laws that I agree with the premise of, but that have also been misused by the government for nefarious purposes.

A law professor once told me that whenever you think about creating a new law, ask if it's worth somebody dying over. Because, at the end of the day, somebody is going to come to enforce that law and they will, 1) be armed themself, or 2) they will be backed by somebody that is.

TLDR: I am currently unconvinced that signing this into law is worth somebody that I disagree with dying over. I am currently unconvinced that the passing of this law would make the lives of Jewish individuals safer. I am currently unconvinced that the government wouldn't be able to weaponize this against other groups that it deems problematic. That's just where I'm at atm.
 
Last edited:
Alright, Long Post. TLDR at the bottom.

Lawyers vs. Everybody else

Good answer. I'm assuming to check and see how they are doing, possibly provide medical assistance, etc. Texting the plate number to yourself is also great.

When I have asked this question to attorneys, I have almost universally received some answer to the effect of "check to see if the pedestrian was in a cross walk when hit."

Law school has the sole purpose of churning out attorneys, in a similar fashion to how boot-camp/OCS/the Academies churn out sailors/soldiers/marines/airmen. They break down who you used to be, so they can turn you into what they want.

One of the first assignments I was given when I first arrived at the law firm I work at was to write a legal blog on some international stuff we were engaged in. So I wrote it, turned it in, and received it back with "a few minor editorial revisions"...the whole thing was covered in red ink...anyway, this continued for a few drafts until, finally, the attorney sat me down and said,

"Alright, I want you to remember everything you learned about writing in college. Got it? Ok. Now remember everything you learned about writing in high school. Got it? Good. Forget all of that and just give me the facts." I did so and we published it the same day.

My issue was, I was trained to use fluff and enticing language to draw the reader in. Legal writing is boring and fact based. Yet, it's also an art. Make your point in as few words as possible so your argument is difficult to dissect and attack. There's a method to their boring madness.

My goal in asking the question was to prove a point. That point, that Attorney's just see the world differently and they are the individuals who know how the law works. We can sit here all day and give our opinions about what should or shouldn't be the case...but they actually engage with it and get results and not all of them are created equal. #OJ

Counter Points

You cited two key things:
1) 1st amendment (specifically free speech)
2) Discrimination Laws

1) Free Speech has limits in the US. In fact, the famous "Can't yell fire in a theater" example was used to justify the US government convicting a couple of Commies back in 1919 for spreading anti-war communist propaganda based on the "clear and present danger" concept. That said, I agree that it is first for a reason.

"Why should the Jewish people and one of their organizations control speech?" They shouldn't. However, I'm also not gonna ask a white person what it's like to experience or define racism against the black community. I think it's fair that a Jewish org gives their definition and then our elected reps should decide what to do with it, which is what's happening.

2) It's also not creating a new law. It's just specificying a term for usage on the Civil Rights Act, which has been expanded in the past to strengthen enforcement. So the precident for this kind of move has already been laid. Specificity and ambiguity can benefit an attorney's case depending on what he is trying to accomplish. If you are trying to nail somebody for anti-semitism, defining the term more clearly seems like the way to go tho.

Current Thoughts

I am currently leaning toward it being a bad idea to sign into law, and here are my current thoughts at to why.

1) I think Anti-Semitism is a very real problem and should be dealt with. However, I don't think anti-semitism is the primary issue that is causing the idiocy on college campuses atm. I think the primary problem is the Neo-Marxist ideology that has indoctrinated far more of our youth than we should be comfortable with. As a result, implementing anti-Marxist policies, like Ron Desantis in Florida, seems like a better solution to the problem, even with the 1st amendment concerns relating to some of those laws.

2) I can't forget history. Title IX, the Patriot Act, FISA, the Civil Rights Act, etc. are all laws that I agree with the premise of, but that have also been misused by the government for nefarious purposes.

A law professor once told me that whenever you think about creating a new law, ask if it's worth somebody dying over. Because, at the end of the day, somebody is going to come to enforce that law and they will, 1) be armed themself, or 2) they will be backed by somebody that is.

TLDR: I am currently unconvinced that signing this into law is worth somebody that I disagree with dying over. I am currently unconvinced that the passing of this law would make the lives of Jewish individuals safer. I am currently unconvinced that the government wouldn't be able to weaponize this against other groups that it deems problematic. That's just where I'm at atm.
That's the thing. Under the guise of anti-Semitism, the law they're trying to pass is all about subverting American values and protecting assets with foreign loyalties. Like you said, laws have the force of arms behind them. This law will make wrong think about Israel, a foreign government and it's proxies, punishable up to imprisonment or death.

The cherry on top is that this tiny group of people are attempting to criminalize Christianity, the basis of Western society, via subversion. They should've been laughed out of Congress, but given their propensity for pimping out little kids it's apparent why they weren't.

Given the historic record and the Jewish people's continued behavior, I'm starting to see why they keep getting kicked out wherever they settle. It's not everyone, but holy fuck bro. They need to get a handle on their people.
 
Cutting off the bomb supply. In my opinion, risky for the "peace" process as well as Israel could get desperate and just go in with armor and infantry or who knows.

Maybe the U.S. is not the only place they can get JDAMs etc., Russia is ramping up bomb production right now, there's got to be other countries willing to supply them. Maybe they have stockpiles? Or maybe they will be more precise and careful about what they hit as the Golden Goose runs out of eggs.

Biden vows US will not supply weapons for Israel’s offensive attack on Hamas-controlled Rafah
 
Cutting off the bomb supply. In my opinion, risky for the "peace" process as well as Israel could get desperate and just go in with armor and infantry or who knows.

Maybe the U.S. is not the only place they can get JDAMs etc., Russia is ramping up bomb production right now, there's got to be other countries willing to supply them. Maybe they have stockpiles? Or maybe they will be more precise and careful about what they hit as the Golden Goose runs out of eggs.

Biden vows US will not supply weapons for Israel’s offensive attack on Hamas-controlled Rafah
We're obsessed with civilian casualties so we are... taking away the things that help mitigate civilian casualties?? Dumb bombs go boom just like smart bombs. But with a far greater margin of error.
 
We're obsessed with civilian casualties so we are... taking away the things that help mitigate civilian casualties?? Dumb bombs go boom just like smart bombs. But with a far greater margin of error.
Margin of ooopsies...
 
Cutting off the bomb supply. In my opinion, risky for the "peace" process as well as Israel could get desperate and just go in with armor and infantry or who knows.

Maybe the U.S. is not the only place they can get JDAMs etc., Russia is ramping up bomb production right now, there's got to be other countries willing to supply them. Maybe they have stockpiles? Or maybe they will be more precise and careful about what they hit as the Golden Goose runs out of eggs.

Biden vows US will not supply weapons for Israel’s offensive attack on Hamas-controlled Rafah

This idiot and his advisors need to go swim in the Potomac.
 
So...where was this energy when BLM was burning our cities?


If someone needed convincing this is funded and planned by outside entities and not spontaneous student protests, look at the tents. The same brand or two with one type differing only in the color of its rain cover. A bunch of rando students all had the same tent just sitting around their dorms or off-campus apartments? A bunch of randoms decided to protest and went to a sporting goods store which miraculously had that many of the same type of tent in stock? An email went out with an Amazon link for this "organic" protest?

Yeah, nah.
 
If someone needed convincing this is funded and planned by outside entities and not spontaneous student protests, look at the tents. The same brand or two with one type differing only in the color of its rain cover. A bunch of rando students all had the same tent just sitting around their dorms or off-campus apartments? A bunch of randoms decided to protest and went to a sporting goods store which miraculously had that many of the same type of tent in stock? An email went out with an Amazon link for this "organic" protest?

Yeah, nah.
Same tents on Canada’s campuses... super spontaneous.
 
Same tents, same people, same funding sources, same goals: destabilize, demoralize, defeat, and ultimately destroy, America.

'Like' is not appropriate, but I wholeheartedly agree with you here. We don't teach our population enough about how there are people out there who want to see the nation fail and are working hard to divide us. And what concerns me most is both sides of the house here are being heavily manipulated and neither recognizes it.
 
Back
Top