The Devil's Own Day

How We Got Here

May 24, 2025

This may or may not have happened. It was never reported in either man’s memoirs. It’s from secondary sources. But I like to think it happened.

During the Battle of Shiloh on April 6, 1862, Union Brigadier General William T. Sherman approached Major General Ulysses S. Grant after a brutal day of fighting and remarked:

“Well, Grant, we’ve had the devil’s own day, haven’t we?”

Grant, standing under a tree in the rain, simply replied:

“Yes. Lick ’em tomorrow, though.”

The next day, Union forces launched a counterattack and ultimately won the battle.

We really have had a few hellish days. And more to come.

I want to talk about how we got here.

Free speech is a cornerstone of the American republic, but the phrase is so misused. “I’m a First Amendment absolutist” is the left-wing version of “I am a godly man.” The next thing you know, someone has either picked your pocket or is in your pants. Be on guard.

We need to understand its parameters. The Constitution gives a guideline and the people go at in real life. So far there have been 200+ cases argued in front of the Supreme Court about free speech; in other words: free speech is not absolute. There are many gradations and limits. There are situations in which the government is not only allowed but constrained to intervene, regulate, and possibly sanction speech.

Foreigners are often amazed at the latitude we afford people. It is amazing. It works—but we have limits.

I can’t go into all 200 cases here, so let’s focus on the granddaddy of them all defining the limits of incitement and free speech: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

It’s the case that Glenn “Hack” Greenwald loves to cite, so I suggest y’all stop being lazy and go read it yourself.

The majority held that speech is only unprotected if it incites imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action.

Brandenburg, a Klansman in full regalia, addressed a secluded rally attended by fewer than 15 people, where he said:

This is an organizers' meeting. We have had quite a few members here today which are -- we have hundreds, hundreds of members throughout the State of Ohio. I can quote from a newspaper clipping from the Columbus, Ohio, Dispatch, five weeks ago Sunday morning. The Klan has more members in the State of Ohio than does any other organization. We're not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken. [I added the bold for emphasis]

The recent TikTok video by Guy Christensen, in which he explicitly praised and encouraged the murder of Israeli diplomats, went far beyond the conditional and far beyond political rhetoric.

He endorsed specific killings and encouraged further violence specifically. This is not abstract advocacy—it is direct glorification and encouragement of real-world harm.

In his TikTok video, he stated that "all Israeli embassy staff should be hunted down and murdered.” To repeat, because this has been lost in the noise: he didn’t just support the murders — bad enough, but arguably permissible — he encouraged more.

The video has been taken down. If anyone has a link to an archived version, I’d appreciate it if you would put the link in a comment.1 This is a direct incitement to further violence, not abstract advocacy.

I’m not saying that the Brandenburg standard should be revised, I’m saying that it should be strictly applied. It protected speech that was abhorrent (to me, anyway) but was conditional and vague.

Christensen’s statements are specific, immediate, and tied to real-world action. I think they constitute an imminent threat. I don’t make the rules but I say this is not permissible under the Brandenburg threshold. If we had any guts whatsoever, the DoJ would open a case against this guy.

If you choose to engage with Hack Greenwald, feel free to use my reasoning. But first read the case. Familiarize yourself with the standards and the nomenclature, otherwise Greenwald will destroy you. Don’t talk about your feelings. Don’t say “I’m offended.” He eats people like you for lunch, even though he’s a vegetarian. Stick to the facts about Brandenburg and directly challenge him for an SC decision that would allow people to issue direct threats on platforms that reach millions.

How did we get here?

This is where I’m supposed to gnash my teeth and wail about Qatar and Darryl Cooper and the seamy, crawling Jew-hating underbelly of America.

I won’t, because I don’t think that any of that is relevant, even tangentially. I don’t even think it’s true — at least the part about the seamy, crawling Jew-hating underbelly of America. Qatar and Cooper are irritants, not causes.

The hard core left doesn’t swim in the ocean of Red America. It swims in Blue America and Jewish power is crucial in Blue America.

The Floyd riots set the stage. Jewish pols and organizations were all in on that scam. The ADL, Chuck Schumer, every prominent Jewish pol and organization, took a knee, prominently and vociferously.

Then came October 7, and they didn’t know what hit them. The first thing the ADL did was post a picture on their X account of a few alt-right losers holding signs. This is from memory. Don’t ask for a URL.

I cringed because of the total mechanical, brain-dead idiocy of the response and because I knew what was going to happen: an onslaught of Jew-hatred from the left. Yes, the ADL denounced this, but not with the same fervor that they denounce right-wing antisemitism. It’s as if they have a chip in their brains that prevents them from seeing clearly.

Their entire world was shattered, and they were unable to respond except robotically. It was excruciating.

Schumer? Lost in inaction.

Then came the pro-Intifada encampments. They caved on that.

The Democrats coddled these monsters. They all did it, top to bottom, including top Jewish elected officials.

The vast majority of the Jewish community followed suit by voting overwhelmingly for the Democrats in the 2024 election. Everyone knew that whatever Kamala and Walz said about Israel (“Let me be clear, Israel has the right to defend itself” — as if that was some sort of debating point….) they were surrounded by lots of people who hate Israel.

I’ll focus on NY State because that’s where I’m from and because it’s really Ground Zero of both Jewish political power and the pro-Hamas movement.

When Trump was elected, and started to do something about the campus intifada, what did Schumer do?

He defended Khalil, using emotional, manipulative tropes (“8-months pregnant”) and lies.

What a fucking liar. He never encouraged Columbia to enforce anything. He rejected overtures from Columbia’s Jewish students. The administration does NOT have to prove Khalil committed a crime. He knows this. He said this because he’s a slimeball.

And yet…. if Schumer ran today for re-election, against a Republican candidate who promised to uphold the law, he’d win. He’d win because of downstate NY Jewish votes.

Lee Zeldin, who although Jewish, is not part of this clique. He lost by a hair to Kathy Hochul because of the downstate, heavily Jewish vote. If the election had been up to white non-Jews, Zeldin would have won by a landslide.

Schumer is not alone. Jewish political leaders and influencers have mostly responded to the Khalil deportation by defending him and attacking Trump’s reasoning and his very right to deport him.

Here are only some NY based Jewish officials who opposed the deportation:

Senator Liz Krueger: A New York State Senator who issued a statement on March 13, 2025, opposing Khalil’s detention and planned deportation, emphasizing concerns about free speech and due process.
Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal: A New York State Senator who joined Krueger in the March 13, 2025, statement opposing Khalil’s deportation.
Assembly Member Harvey Epstein: A New York State Assembly Member who co-signed the March 13, 2025, statement opposing Khalil’s detention.
Assembly Member Dana Levenberg: A New York State Assembly Member who joined the March 13, 2025, statement against Khalil’s deportation.
Assembly Member Linda Rosenthal: A New York State Assembly Member who also signed the March 13, 2025, statement opposing the detention and planned deportation of Khalil.

It’s all bullshit. Khalil’s deportation was entirely legal and procedurally correct — but they could do this without fear because most NYC Jews agree with them.

All during the months-long siege Columbia University, while a furious battle went on in social media platforms and pro-Hamas demonstrators shut down parts of NYC, life went on in liberal Jewish enclaves as if nothing were amiss. I know, because I live in one.

So, while this murder was unquestionably an act of rank, textbook antisemitism, it was enabled by a movement that has been enabled by Jews themselves.

This environment signals to individuals who are emboldened and energized by internal Jew-hatred, to act.

If this were up to Red State non-Jews, I have zero doubt that the little bastards of Hamilton Hall would have been arrested, charged, tried, and convicted.

To sum up, if Jews want to accuse anyone of creating a hostile environment in which shit like this is bound to happen, we should look within.

Optics and Substance

I hear a lot of sneering about optics - by the same people who criticize Zelenskyy for coming to the White House in military togs.

With people, symbols have substance.

“It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.“

Lord Hewart

I’ve seen this quotation interpreted in various ways. Mine is simple: we need to know not only that justice was done but how it was done: by whom, and how it was done.

When it comes to Mahmoud Khalil, I don’t think justice was “seen to be done.”

The deportation case of Mahmoud Khalil hinges on Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), also known as the McCarran-Walter Act. It’s a Cold War-era statute that allows the Secretary of State to deport a noncitizen if their presence or activities in the United States are deemed to have "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences."

The law’s language is broad, granting significant discretion to the Secretary without requiring specific evidence of criminal activity. In Khalil’s case, a Louisiana immigration judge ruled on April 11, 2025, that he is deportable based on a memo from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which argued Khalil’s "beliefs, statements, or associations" (related to his pro-Palestinian activism at Columbia University) undermine U.S. foreign policy interests, particularly efforts to combat anti-Semitism and protect Jewish students.”

I was disappointed that Khalil’s deportation wasn’t pursued under laws explicitly targeting the promotion of terrorist activity, Section 237(a)(4)(B) of the INA, which allows deportation for noncitizens who "endorse or espouse terrorist activity or persuade others to support a terrorist organization."

The choice of the 1950s law over terrorism-related provisions was strategic caution by the administration. The terrorism clause requires more specific evidence of intent or material support, harder to prove in court, especially given Khalil’s insistence that he only expressed support for Palestinian rights, not Hamas. The foreign policy provision is less stringent, requiring only the Secretary’s belief that Khalil’s presence is detrimental—a lower bar that avoids the need for detailed evidence but has drawn legitimate criticism for its vagueness and potential for abuse.

Going for Section 237(a)(4)(B) would have been more difficult to prove but — on both optics and substance, far better. Justice would have been seen to be done. Going for the McCarran Act opened the door to critics and cowards (like Schumer) that the Administration just doesn’t like pro-Palestinian voices. It allows bad ideas to plant, ripen, and fester. I don’t like that.

Andrew McCarthy came around to the administration’s POV (read all the posts he’s written about the case) — but the way I look at it, if you have to explain things like a lawyer, you’ve lost.

And here we circle back to the Great Jewish Cave In, when Alvin Bragg and the rest of the NYC Democrat machine gave the Columbia U criminals a pass.

If the fucking city had arrested these bums and convicted them, they would have had an open and shut deportation case.

The moment you have to start explaining things to people, you’ve lost all but your own tribe.

Not arresting these scum opened the door to the murders, and worse to come.

But… Alvin Bragg isn’t Jewish. Doesn’t matter - he was elected with Jewish votes. You can’t get elected dog catcher in NYC without Jewish votes. Look at Curtis Sliwa.

Lander and Bragg were buoyed by more liberal Jewish voters in Manhattan and brownstone Brooklyn.

And fuck off with the Soros shit already. I’m sick of it. George Soros did not elect Alvin Bragg. NYC voters did. They are a bizarre combination of zombie Democrat machine and high information voter. They know what they’re voting for.

What comes next?

Worse.

More violence. More terror.

Because we didn’t nip this in the bud.

I saw Jerry Nadler the other day, getting out of a car, on Amsterdam Avenue. I’ve seen him here and there over the years. He’s never exactly been a specimen, but he’s a wreck now. I was shocked at how he’s declined.

Photos don’t do his decline justice. I doubt he’ll live two more years.

When he’s gone, there will be a cage fight for his seat, and more than likely a Democrat of Color will win. This successor will be at first covertly anti-Israel. At first he or she will be subtle about it, but as the winds change, more open.

The Squad will grow in numbers, intensity, and quality. Imagine a Rashida Tlaib with brains. Fancy degree. As smart as Schumer but younger, with high-octane aggression.

What will American Jews do then?

I can’t predict the future, I can only diagnose what I see, and I point the finger squarely at ourselves. Schumer et al issue conscience-easing tweets while opposing everything substantive to stop this insanity.

Look at that list of elected Jewish officials. There’s something very wrong about the politics of a community that puts up with what we saw in that video and keeps electing politicians who don’t take a stand against it.2

Of course, he’s whining (really, gloating) that the Zionists have censored him.

I’m not even going to touch the ADL and their hysteria on the subject of immigration, which to them is the 1st Commandment. They have actively brought about the demographic changes that will destroy Jewish political power in the US.