Clueless Brooklyn College professor proves in op-ed he has no understanding of our founding documents


The following contains editorial content which is the opinion of the writer.

If there is any doubt why college students have zero idea about how our system of government works, look no further than Brooklyn College political science professor Corey Robin, who clearly is equally clueless about our system of government.

According to the Media Research Center, Robin is apparently very upset with our system of government and this is notable just by the title of an op-ed this ignoramus recently wrote for Politico, entitled, “Republicans Are Moving Rapidly to Cement Minority Rule. Blame the Constitution.”

Oh, and Robin—like most “good” liberals—is still upset about January 6.

“As we approach the one-year anniversary of the violent assault on the Capitol, the prevailing argument on the left and much of the center is that the Republican Party poses a novel threat to American democracy. This is a flawed assessment, which oversells and understates the danger we face,” Robin started in his unhinged rant.

First of all, we dispute his claim that “much of the center” believes the Republicans are a threat to the country because as anyone with two eyes can see, the radical left poses the real danger.

Driving the initiatives of the Republicans and the inertia of the Democrats are two forces. The first is the right’s project, decades in the making, to legally limit the scope and reach of democracy.

The second is the Constitution, which makes it difficult for the national majority to act and easy for local minorities to rule. What happened on Jan. 6 is far less significant than what happened before Jan. 6—and what has and has not happened since then. [emphasis added by source]

Robin clearly doesn’t only believe in mob rule, but is not a fan of the greatest document every constructed, the United States Constitution. Read on:

Democracy is not just the enemy of the Republican Party. It is also the enemy of the Constitution. Americans associate the Constitution with popular liberties such as due process and freedom of speech.

They overlook its architecture of state power, which erects formidable barriers to equal representation and majority rule in all three branches of government. The Republicans are not struggling to overturn a long and storied history of democratic rules and norms. They’re walking through an open door. [emphasis added by source]

You see this is the problem with liberals. They fail to understand that the United States is not, and never has been a “democracy.” It is a representative republic.

There is a reason our country was set up the way it is and that was to prevent a tyrannical majority from running roughshod over the minority.

In addition, the bicameral legislature is truly genius. That ensures equal representation among the states, two senators each in the United States Senate, while allowing for a representation of the respective populations of the states among the House of Representatives.

Imagine if you will if we operated as a true democracy. That would in essence result in just two or three states controlling the rest of the country.

So-called “flyover” states would be rendered impotent, with no representation for the less populated states. It would be tyranny by the majority. The Senate puts a check on that. And that is why liberals such as Robin, AOC and others don’t like it.

Not happy with only slamming the Constitution, Robin also took aim at the Founding Fathers for actually attempting to avoid the reasons why the document was written as it is.

The division of Congress into two houses also reflects the Constitution’s antipathy to equal representation and majority rule.

Too many states, Alexander Hamilton complained, are “governed by a single democratic assembly or have a senate constituted entirely upon democratic principles.”

In unicameral legislatures, the democratic majority—described by James Madison as those who “labor under all the hardships of life and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings”—has too much power to pursue its “leveling” designs.

If the legislature is divided in two, however, with an upper chamber reflecting the interests of the wealthy minority “who are placed above the feelings of indigence,” the majority’s designs will be frustrated. [emphasis added by source]

Robin is either too dumb (or too ideological) to realize that our system of three co-equal branches of government, which provides a system of checks and balances, ensures that no one branch of government can become too strong, or at least that is the theory upon which it was designed.

Likewise, a bicameral Congress distributes power among the two houses of the legislature instead of putting it within a single body.

Efforts, for example, to eliminate the filibuster in the Senate would basically accomplish the same objective as a single house, rule by the majority. The Senate is designed to be a more intimate, more deliberative body where consensus is supposed to be the objective.

The House meanwhile is designed to be a more “democratic” body within the US government, since each member represents a district based upon population.

The reason House members run for only two year terms is because it (theoretically) ensures that House members stay closer to the people they represent, or risk defeat at the polls.

However due to the massive amounts of money in politics, that goal is no longer recognized and incumbent House members are extremely difficult to remove.

We’re not sure what got Robin’s panties in a bunch, but he represents a small minority of the radical left who don’t appreciate the genius or our Founding Fathers in what is the best system of government in the history of the world.

Two men arrested and charged with the attempted murder of a Chicago cop after shooting him during a traffic stop

Someone else who doesn’t have a clue about how our system of government works is Joy(less) Behar of  The View, who suggested “tweaking” some of the amendments. For more on that, we invite you to:


The following contains editorial content written by a retired Chief of Police and current staff writer for Law Enforcement Today. 

Clearly Joy Behar, co-host of The Shrew, er The View must have been doing her nails during history class way back in the 1950s when she was in high school.

Why else would she suggest that parts of the Bill of Rights need to be “tweaked?” She is obviously clueless as to how this whole thing works.

The daily yak fest of primarily angry liberal nutcases were discussing among other things Twitter, where apparently the “ladies” are unhappy that not everyone on the platform is a raging liberal like themselves, Breitbart reports.

They were also downtrodden by the departure of Hipster Rasputin CEO Jack Dorsey from Twitter, noting he had been proactive in policing “hate speech”—in other words, speech with which he and liberals such as The Shrew women (if that’s how they identify, don’t want to assume) disagree.


“Australia wants to go a step further, drafting a legal process for those feeling they have been defamed, bullied, or harassed, forcing them to hand over the identities of the accused bully to the courts. If we had a legal process like this, would it actually make people think twice about trolling or would people just find a new—a new way to troll?” Whoopi Goldberg asked.

In further addressing Twitter, Goldberg, who used to be somewhat funny said:

“I am going to just go the easy route, don’t read it. Don’t read it because it is meant to do exactly what it does to people. It is meant to make you think you don’t know yourself. It is meant to make you believe that these people have the—what do you call it? The concrete courage in the bunker.”

Whatever that means.

Sara Haines, another co-host who nobody’s ever heard of said, “Keyboard courage in mama’s basement.”

The Daily Wire reported that Sunny Hostin, another useless nag then weighed in:

“It would be so juicy and good. I mean think about it. Don’t you get those nasty tweets from people with that keyboard courage in their mama’s basement or somewhere else, and they’re hidden behind like, a cat photo por private account or a frog photo or a flag photo—in my case, I get a lot of flag photos and they say the nastiest things they would never say to you face to face. I would love their identifying information.”

Hostin would have fit in perfectly in 1939 Germany, don’t you think?

Goldberg then replied, “The real question is, why do we take your word for something you don’t know anything about, me? Why am I taking your word that I’m all these things when you don’t know me? I’m not looking at you.”

This was when the clearly clueless Behar weighed in with her absurdity.

“That is why you’re not reading it. You’re smart not to. When the Founding Fathers were busy with amendments—the 1st and 2nd Amendments—they did not have AR-15s in there, weapons of war, and they didn’t have Twitter. So both amendments, I think, need to be tweaked a little bit.”

Tweaked? Once again, a liberal moonbat (Behar) tries to create a false equivalency that because the evil, scary-looking AR-15 wasn’t yet in production when the Constitution was written that somehow means it needs to be changed, which is absurd. It’s the typical “they were only dealing with flintlock pistols and muskets.”

Hey Joy…it’s called technology. As technology improved, therefore so did the weapons. Making brain-dead analogies—typical for liberals such as Behar—would also have us still riding horses and pulling covered wagons if we didn’t avail ourselves of American ingenuity.

She then turned her attention to the 1st Amendment and in particular Twitter for some reason. You see, liberals such as Behar and Goldberg are all about free speech…as long as it’s their free speech.

“We make our living on the 1st amendment, so we love it, but there’s a lot of hate speech and misinformation, needs to be dealt with.”

Ah, there we have it. Misinformation. The funny thing is, social media companies have already taken steps to deal with information they disagree with.

Look no further than Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other social media companies throttling the Hunter Biden laptop story last November. Remember the New York Post having their Twitter page shut down? There is already plenty of censorship occurring on social media.

More proof? Try posting anything on social media that doesn’t fit the COVID narrative.  If the post isn’t removed by the so-called “fact-checkers,” you will likely get a warning posted about “false information.” Call the pope a clown? Thirty days in the Facebook brig for you.

The one sensible member of the panel, Jane Coaston who hosts the New York Times podcast “The Argument” made a couple of important points…namely Australia doesn’t have the 1st Amendment.

“Because Twitter is a private platform, Twitter can moderate, edit users, and the content as much as they see fit. My concern is always, like, if I’m on Twitter as I am, and I start, you know going after somebody who is supportive of something that I find abhorrent, am I a troll? Can they et my identification?” she asked, noting that such a policy suggested by Goldberg could be abused or used in a punitive manner.  

“What about the use of language, and then it gets into a very murky area because I know, like I remember in 2016 I got photoshopped in the gas chambers by the worst people in the entire world, and, like, I obviously at a point was, like, I would love to know where they lived and I could, you know, do a little research. I’m just thinking about like, what toes this mean for…”

Our suggestion to Behar…keep your grubby paws off our Bill of Rights. Your brand of “acceptable” speech and what kinds of guns we are permitted to carry aren’t what we want or what we need. You and your ilk have already caused enough problems in this country.

Even Goldberg hinted Behar was going down a slippery slope after she suggested “tweaking” the Bill of Rights, “That’s a whole new conversation…that’s a whole new conversation.”

Removing the right of the American people to defend themselves after liberals ginned up racial strife and vilified the police is precisely the wrong approach and restricting speech to approved Orwellian-style doublespeak is not acceptable. And at least half of the country will not stand for it.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

For more on the clueless Behar, we invite you to read a prior report from Law Enforcement Today where she made yet another absurd suggestion:


The following contains editorial content written by a current staff writer for Law Enforcement Today. 

During the April 22nd broadcast of ABC’s “The View”, Joy Behar managed to offer her brand of world class advice on how police officers need to address armed suspects during rapidly evolving scenarios.

With little surprise, Behar did not disappoint by suggesting police officers can “shoot the gun in the air,” among other suggested less lethal approaches to armed suspects.

During the episode of “The View”, the show had replayed a clip from CNN that showed Don Lemon providing his commentary on the officer-involved shooting that happened in Columbus, Ohio.

During the CNN clip that was played on the show, Don Lemon stated that based upon the available bodycam footage, the officer was stuck in a situation where there was not much else other than to use deadly force:

“Base each incident on what we see. When I look at this video, I see police responding to a dangerous incident where someone is armed with a knife. Police walked up on a situation, and they need to figure out what is happening.”

“Other lives are in danger. If we’re going to discuss this case, we need to be honest and use our common sense. We cannot have a double standard. We have to acknowledge that police have jobs to do.”

Reacting to Lemon’s take on the investigation, show cohost Whoopi Goldberg asked Behar about a sidebar conversation she’d had with Don Lemon specifically about this case, with Behar saying the following:

“Well, [Don Lemon] texted me because I mentioned this case yesterday vis-a-vis the George Floyd case. He said you know that the cop had no choice or something to that effect. My feeling is I don’t know if that’s true or not. I really can’t figure it out anymore.”

Behar continued from there, showcasing her utter ineptitude by way of offering some of the most ridiculous alternatives to the difficult decision that the officer had to make in real-time during the incident:

“I mean, it seems to me in a situation — This is what it looked to me. I looked at the tape and still can’t figure it out. Shoot the gun in the air as a warning. Tase a person. Shoot them in the leg. Shoot them in the behind. Stop them somehow.”

“If the only solution is to kill a teenager, there’s something wrong with this. There’s something wrong with the way these things are being conducted. Even if the cop had to do it, there’s something wrong with it. I can’t explain it any better than that.”

Here’s the first thing that any reasonable person should digest regarding this officer-involved shooting, and that is if CNN’s Don Lemon reviews the case and notes that this is an unfortunate incident where the officer wasn’t left with much choice – then chances are it’s a good shoot.

Casting that obvious aspect aside, it seems as though Behar must be getting her situational use of force continuum tips from the Twitter comments sections, where people who have anime avatars are chiming in on how police should deal with rapidly evolving situations where victims’ lives are at stake.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

There are too many pundits out there that are hyper-focused on the generalities surrounding this case, who want to make it more controversial than it really is or should be.

People are talking about the age of the individual that the officer shot, critics are trying to make it a race issue, and people like Behar are doing the whole shoot him in the leg trope.

Even though it may be insensitive to the family of the 16-year-old girl that recently died during this critical incident in Columbus, based upon the evidence in this case, Ma’Khia Bryant was fatally shot because she was about to take the life of another person without cause.

It is extremely frustrating to watch folks try to disingenuously frame this like it was some sort of high school fight of sorts.

No sane person would allege that deadly knife fights are a part of the typical neighborhood squabbles that coming-of-age individuals experience.

This may be an uncomfortable truth for people to acknowledge, but a 16-year-old possesses enough ability and agency to commit a heinous crime that can be committed by any other adult.

It’s not as though a 16-year-old doesn’t know that stabbing somebody can – and likely will – kill a person.  

Yet we’re continually bombarded by these pundits that are treating this situation as though Bryant’s fatal shooting is the moral equivalence of, for example, a cop shooting a toddler that was holding a gun.

But the only way people are going to be able to have a frank conversation about this case is if people are willing to risk being insensitive or offensive when discussing the facts about this case.

And based upon the available evidence so far, Bryant appears to have been a fatal threat to others during the moments she was fatally shot. When Bryant was fired upon by police, she was an armed “assailant” – not a “victim”, not a “witness” – an armed assailant.

This deceased teen was not someone kid was walking down the street and some renegade officer just rolled up and opened fire on her – she was involved in a physical altercation, retreated inside of her home, retrieved a knife, and went back outside to attack on unarmed person with a knife. 

Editor note: In 2020, we saw a nationwide push to “defund the police”.  While we all stood here shaking our heads wondering if these people were serious… they cut billions of dollars in funding for police officers.  And as a result, crime has skyrocketed – all while the same politicians who said “you don’t need guns, the government will protect you” continued their attacks on both our police officers and our Second Amendment rights.

And that’s exactly why we’re launching this national crowdfunding campaign as part of our efforts to help “re-fund the police”.

For those looking for a quick link to get in the fight and support the cause, click here.

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First

Submit a Correction
Related Posts