Smearing Andrew Bernstein Over His Praise for Sheriff Ivery

Jun 11, 2025 | Politics

In his attempt to condemn Andrew Bernstein for his praise of Sheriff Ivey’s statements on how the Brevard Florida police will deal with law breaking violent mobs and those who wish to mortally harm police officers, Provenzo fails to objectively analyze the Sheriff’s statements line by line, which is what is necessary, but instead sloppily lumps Ivey’s statements all into one collective punishment that he can easily dismiss. Here is how Mr. Provenzo describes Sheriff Ivey’s statements:

“Sheriff Ivey’s threats include being run over, attacked by dogs, or killed—not for murder, not for terrorism, but for spitting, for blocking an intersection, for protesting. These are not capital offenses. The punishments described are not justice. They are theater—a call for violent spectacle in answer to serious matters.”

Is this an objective description of Ivey’s statements by someone who takes matters seriously?

Here are Ivey’s statements (taken from Provenzo’s article) line by line:

1. “If you resist lawful orders, you’re going to jail. Let me be very clear about that. If you block an intersection or roadway in Brevard County, you are going to jail.”

2. “If you flee arrest, you’re going to go to jail tired because we are going to run you down and put you in jail.” (I interpret that as the police running them down, not running them over with a police car.)

3. “If you try to mob rule a car in Brevard County, gathering around it, refusing to let the DRIVER leave, in our county, you are most likely going to get run over and dragged across the street.”

Ivey doesn’t say the police are going to do it. Ivey doesn’t say it’s always going to happen. Ivey says if you mob rule a car — which I take to be more than just blocking an intersection or blocking traffic (as this was covered in #1) you open yourself up to being run over by the driver.

(I believe this is the law in Brevard county, and possibly Florida. If a mob tries to essentially kidnap a person by blocking the movement of their car, and they feel threatened, they can run over the mob in the process of escaping the threat. For those who lived in the 1990s think of the Rodney King LA riots. I’ve attached a photo of a mob rule of a truck. I wonder what Provenzo would do with his family in a car in such a situation? Put his car in park?).

People should not have to be mind readers. The default should be when a mob of masked individuals break the law to interfere/block/restrain the movement of a law abiding citizen, that citizen can use sufficient force to safely get out of that situation. If that results in the injury of the mob then the fault lies soley on the mob, who if they survive should rethink their lives when they are in prison.

4. “If you spit on us, you’re going to the hospital, then jail.” *(This is a sentence I don’t agree with. It should read, “If you spit on us, you’re going to jail.” As a judge, if a police officer, or anyone for that matter, slapped someone for purposely spitting in their face, I’d probably let it slide with a reprimand.)

5. “If you HIT one of us, you’re going to the hospital, then jail, and most likely get bitten by one of our big, beautiful dogs that we have here.” Don’t assault a cop. If the dog sees it, the police most likely will not be able to stop them from biting you.

6. “If you throw a brick, a fire bomb, or point a gun at one of our deputies, we will be notifying your family where to collect your remains at because we will kill you, graveyard dead.” ALL THESE ACTIVITIES IN #6 SHOULD BE TAKEN AS ATTEMPTS TO MURDER A POLICE OFFICER.

As Florida Governor Ron De Santis notes,

“We have a policy that if you’re driving on one of those streets, and a mob surrounds your vehicle and threatens you, you have a right to flee…if you hit one of these people, that’s THEIR fault. You don’t have to sit there.”

What’s interesting is how the organized “protesters” deal with this Florida law. When there is a red light the mob types will go near a car, but as soon as that green light hits they are off the road. There are actually videos of this.

Nowhere does Ivey say that you will be killed for peacefully protesting. I’m not sure where Provenzo gets that from. Are there additional quotes I’ve missed? If so please post them. Nowhere does Ivey say you will be killed for spitting.* He does go too far on that issue in my opinion, but he doesn’t say you’ll be killed for it. Nowhere does Ivey say you’ll be legally killed by the police for blocking an intersection. He says “you are going to jail.” This is a remarkably bad take by Provenzo who sadly demonstrates poor reading comprehension, and a level of journalistic integrity befitting Maddow on MSNBC. Provenzo should issue a correction, and an apology to Dr. Bernstein (and Sheriff Ivey).

Justin Amash on Birthright Citizenship: Only an Article V Amendment Can Change It

Jan 22, 2025 | Politics

The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in relevant part:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Trump’s odd claim is that a child born in the United States without at least one parent who is a lawful permanent resident or citizen is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.But this is simply false.Set aside that Trump’s EO would affect children whose parents are lawfully but not permanently here. Let’s look at the “harder” case: the children of illegal immigrants.It should be obvious that even individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” “Jurisdiction” is just the applicability of legal authority to them and the potential exercise of state power against them.People who are unlawfully present in the country can, of course, be charged with crimes, arrested, etc., just like almost anyone else in the United States.There is not a person who doubts this, least of all someone in the Trump administration.I include the word “almost” before “anyone else” two paragraphs above because the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does exclude certain children: mainly the children of foreign diplomats, who, in fact, are generally not subject to U.S. laws. They have immunity that may or may not be waived by their home country. [1]Now, you may not like the fact that the Constitution broadly grants birthright citizenship to the children of parents who are simply, perhaps even temporarily, present in the United States, but that is the law absent a constitutional amendment.We are a nation founded on the Rule of Law. The president cannot amend the Constitution (or laws) via executive order. Any unilateral effort by a president to change the Constitution is void. Only an Article V amendment can change it.

[1] Senator Howard was making my point. He says: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.” He is describing one class of persons. This is evident from the phrasing. “Aliens” is being used as a further descriptor for “foreigners,” and he’s specifically referring to aliens who are foreign diplomats. That’s why the word “who” immediately follows the modifier “aliens.”

Second January 6, 2021 Report

Jan 6, 2025 | Politics

• President Trump did not attack his Secret Service Detail at any time on January 6.
• President Trump did not have intelligence indicating violence on the morning of January 6.
• Cassidy Hutchinson falsely claimed to have drafted a handwritten note for President Trump on January 6.
• Representative Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson baselessly attempted to disbar Hutchinson’s former attorney.

• Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller dismissed President Trump’s order prior to January 6 to use “any and all” military assets to keep the demonstrations safe.
• Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy intentionally delayed the D.C. National Guard’s response to the Capitol on January 6, despite authorization.
• The Department of Defense Inspector General published a flawed report containing fabrications and ignored relevant information.
• The Department of Defense and the Department of Defense Inspector General knowingly and inaccurately placed blame on D.C. National Guard leadership for the delayed response on January 6.
• The Department of Defense Inspector General was not responsive to the Subcommittee’s requests and even obstructed the Subcommittee’s investigation.
• The Subcommittee detected an inappropriately close relationship between the Department of Defense and its watchdog Inspector General.

Leonard Peikoff: Anti-Trumpites for Trump

Oct 31, 2024 | Politics