Monday, July 01, 2019

Law professor brags about her weirdo mothering

It is amazing what Jews promote as maternal values.

The NY Times published an op-ed by a divorced Jewish law professor who brags that in 2013 she abandoned her children in favor of freeing a black man from prison.

The kids weren't really abandoned, as they have a father, but he is another Jewish lawyer who is probably also pretending that dismantling the White society is a virtue.
I’ve Picked My Job Over My Kids
I love them beyond all reason. But sometimes my clients need me more. ...

My son was one of the last children to speak. He stood up and, in a clear voice, said: “I appreciate my parents for being lawyers because they get people out of jail. ...”
This is sick. At the same time, the author's sister, Emily Bazelon, another Jewish lawyer writer, was on PBS TV News supporting wild and unsubstantiated against Donald Trump and others. She had no mention of the possibility that he might be innocent, and seemed only concerned about the accusers feeling bad because their stories are questioned.

It is obvious that these feminist women have no actual concern for innocence or justice. They are just working to promote their political agendas.

RT reports:
Whether one agrees with Trump’s idea to build a wall on the US-Mexico border or not, “he is at least looking for a solution,” Putin said, while the proponents of the so-called liberal values are “not doing anything,” insisting that everything is just fine even as unprecedented numbers of migrants come across their borders.

"So, the liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population."

The same thing is happening in Europe, the Russian president said, noting that other leaders he spoke with saying nothing can be done because there are laws.

“Well, change the laws!” he said.
Putin is right. The liberal idea has had a gone run, but now it is in conflict with the interests of the people.

The regular NY Times opinion columnists are not supposed to reveal their voting preferences, but usually it is obvious anyway. David Brooks has somehow made a second career pretending to represent Republicans on PBS TV and NPR Radio. They frequently have two guests giving political commentary, implying that one is the Democrat and one is the Republican. When asked about whether he is a Republican, he would coyly say that the NY Times does not allow him to say.

Today Brooks writes:
I could never in a million years vote for Donald Trump. So my question to Democrats is: Will there be a candidate I can vote for?
Apparently he is much more in agreement with Trump than the Democrat candidates.

So why does he hate Trump? I have read dozens of his columns on the subject, and here is the best explanation I can see. Trump is Jewish, and the tribe has made a collective decision to do everything to undermine Trump. Brooks is far too much of a dishonest creep to say this explicitly, but he fails to give any coherent arguments against Trump either.

It is not even that Trump ever does anything contrary to the Jews. But Jews like Brooks and the NY Times management firmly believe that the Jews should control politicians, and they don't control Trump. So they hate him.

No comments: